EP 540/8
91-062
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/062
September 1991
PB92-963243
x> EPA National
Priorities
List Sites:
WISCONSIN
199 T
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
-------
Publication #9200.5-748A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Wisconsin
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
The National Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large (1991),
may be ordered as PB92-963253.
The complete set of the overview documents, plus the 49 state reports may be ordered
as PB92-963253.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction:
A Brief Overview 1
Superfund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the State Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the State of Wisconsin 17
The NPL Report:
Progress to Date 19
The NPL Fact Sheets:
Summary of Site Activities 23
Appendix A: Glossary:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets 105
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 121
-------
INTRODUCTION
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a close, a series of
headline stories gave Americans a
look at the dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the land. First there
was New York's Love Canal. Hazardous
waste buried there over a 25-year period
contaminated streams and soil, and endangered
the health of nearby residents. The result:
evacuation of several hundred people. Then
the leaking barrels at the Valley of the Drums
in Kentucky attracted public attention, as did
the dioxin-tainted land and water in Times
Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human health and the envi-
ronment were threatened, lives were disrupted,
and property values were reduced. It became
increasingly clear that there were large num-
bers of serious hazardous waste problems that
were falling through the cracks of existing
environmental laws. The magnitude of these
emerging problems moved Congress to enact
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA — commonly known as Superfund
— was the first Federal law established to deal
with the dangers posed by the Nation's hazard-
ous waste sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the problem until the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began the process of site discovery and site
evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste sites existed, and
they presented the Nation with some of the
most complex pollution problems it had ever
faced.
Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
A
Brief
Overview
ous waste has surfaced as a major environ-
mental concern in every part of the United
States. It wasn't just the land that was con-
taminated by past disposal practices. Chemi-
cals in the soil were spreading into the ground-
water (a source of drinking water for many)
and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
sites, while improperly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
community and the environment at others.
The EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites
The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
sites as the most serious in the Nation. These
sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
mates that, while some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list, commonly called
the NPL, will continue to grow by approxi-
mately 50 to 100 sites per year, potentially
reaching 2,100 sites by the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL CLEANUP
EFFORT IS MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the program, Congress
recognized that the Federal government could
-------
INTRODUCTION
not and should not address all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target.
Sites on the NPL (1,245) thus are a relatively
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and compelling cases. The
EPA has logged more than 35,000 sites on its
national inventory of potentially hazardous
waste sites and assesses each site within one
year of being logged.
THE EPA IS MAKING PROGRESS
ON SITE CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund program is to tackle
immediate dangers first and then move through
the progressive steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public health and the
environment.
Superfund responds immediately to sites
posing imminent threats to human health and
the environment at both NPL sites and sites not
on the NPL. The purpose is to stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a release of
hazardous substances, or the threat of one, into
the environment. These might include tire
fires or transportation accidents involving the
spill of hazardous chemicals. Because they
reduce the threat a site poses to human health
and the environment, immediate cleanup
actions are an integral part of the Superfund
program.
Immediate response to imminent threats is one
of Superfund's most noted achievements.
Where imminent threats to the public or
environment were evident, the EPA has initi-
ated or completed emergency actions that
attacked the most serious threats of toxic
exposure in more than 2,700 cases.
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent solution to an environ-
mental problem that presents a serious threat
to the public or the environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. The EPA has
aggressively accelerated its efforts to perform
these long-term cleanups of NPL sites. More
cleanups were started in 1987, when the
Superfund law was amended, than in any
previous year. By 1991, construction had
started at more than four times as many sites as
in 1986! Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 — nearly half — have had
construction cleanup activity. In addition,
more than 400 more sites presently are in the
investigation stage to determine the extent of
site contamination and to identify appropriate
cleanup remedies. Many other sites with
cleanup remedies selected are poised for the
start of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through the
cleanup pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining
momentum.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup construction to understand that envi-
ronmental protection does not end when the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies — like those designed to clean up ground-
water — must operate for many years in order
to accomplish their objectives.
The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed. No matter
who has been delegated responsibility for
monitoring the cleanup work, the EPA will
assure that the remedy is carefully followed
and that it continues to do its job.
Likewise, the EPA does not abandon a site
even after the cleanup work is done. Every
five years, the Agency reviews each site where
residues from hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public and environmental
-------
INTRODUCTION
health are being safeguarded. The EPA will
correct any deficiencies discovered and will
report to the public annually on all five-year
reviews conducted that year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also depend upon local
citizen participation. The EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and to deploy the experts,
but the Agency needs citizen input as it makes
choices for affected communities.
Because the people in a community where a
Superfund site is located will be those most
directly affected by hazardous waste problems
and cleanup processes, the EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in cleanup decisions.
Public involvement and comment does influ-
ence EPA cleanup plans by providing valuable
information about site conditions, community
concerns, and preferences.
The State and U.S. Territories volumes and the
companion National overview volume provide
general Superfund background information
and descriptions of activities at each NPL site.
These volumes clearly describe what the
problems are, what the EPA and others partici-
pating in site cleanups are doing, and how we,
as a Nation, can move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES TOGETHER
To understand the big picture on hazardous
waste cleanup, citizens need to hear about both
environmental progress across the country and
the cleanup accomplishments closer to home.
Citizens also should understand the challenges
involved in hazardous waste cleanup and the
decisions we must make, as a Nation, in
finding the best solutions.
The National overview, Superfund: Focusing
on the Nation at Large (1991), contains impor-
tant information to help you understand the
magnitude and challenges facing the
Superfund program, as well as an overview of
the National cleanup effort. The sections
describe the nature of the hazardous waste
problem nationwide, threats and contaminants
at NPL sites and their potential effects on
human health and the environment, vital roles
of the various participants in the cleanup
process, the Superfund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's serious hazardous
waste sites, and the current status of the NPL.
If you did not receive this overview volume,
ordering information is provided in the front of
this book.
This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
up under the Superfund program. These sites
represent the most serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation and require the most
complicated and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each book gives a "snapshot" of
the conditions and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site. Information
presented for each site is current as of April
1991. Conditions change as our cleanup
efforts continue, so these site summaries will
be updated annually to include information on
new progress being made.
To help you understand the cleanup accom-
plishments made at these sites, this volume
includes a description of the process for site
discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
cleanup of Superfund sites. This description,
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up
Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
which to review the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.
-------
SUPERFUND
The diverse problems posed by hazard-
ous waste sites have provided the EPA
with the challenge to establish a consis-
tent approach for evaluating and cleaning up
the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, the
EPA has had to step beyond its traditional role
as a regulatory agency to develop processes
and guidelines for each step in these techni-
cally complex site cleanups. The EPA has
established procedures to coordinate the
efforts of its Washington, D.C. Headquarters
program offices and its front-line staff in ten
Regional Offices, with the State and local
governments, contractors, and private parties
who are participating in site cleanup. An
important part of the process is that any time
How Does the
Program Work
to Clean Up
Sites?
THREE-STEP SUPERFUND PROCESS
STEP1
Discover site and
determine whether
an emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed -whenever needed in this three-step process.
during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible
for site contamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
flow diagram above provides a summary of the
three-step process.
Although this book provides a current "snap-
shot" of site progress made only by emergency
actions and long-term cleanup actions at
Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads
to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
-------
SUPERFUND
waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this
summary description of Superfund involve-
ment at hazardous waste sites.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND
EMERGENCY EVALUATION
How does the EPA learn about
potential hazardous waste sites?
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways.
Information comes from concerned citizens.
People may notice an odd taste or foul odor in
their drinking water or see half-buried leaking
barrels; a hunter may come across a field
where waste was dumped illegally. There may
be an explosion or fire, which alerts the State
or local authorities to a problem. Routine
investigations by State and local governments
and required reporting and inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about actual or potential threats of
hazardous substance releases. All reported
sites or spills are recorded in the Superfund
inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
What happens if there is an imminent
danger?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
reported, the EPA determines whether there is
an emergency requiring an immediate cleanup
action. If there is, they act as quickly as
possible to remove or stabilize the imminent
threat. These short-term emergency actions
range from building a fence around the con-
taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
rarily relocating residents until the danger is
addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
dents while their local drinking water supply is
being cleaned up or physically removing
wastes for safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at
any time an imminent threat or emergency
warrants them. For example, if leaking barrels
are found when cleanup crews start digging in
the ground or if samples of contaminated soils
or air show that there may be a threat of fire or
explosion, an immediate action is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
If there isn't an imminent danger, how
does the EPA determine what, if any,
cleanup actions should be taken?
Even after any imminent dangers are taken
care of, in most cases, contamination may
remain at the site. For example, residents may
have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contami-
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up. The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so any long-term threats
need to be evaluated. In either case, a more
comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious, but not
imminent, danger and whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-
mation not only from their own files, but also
from local records and U.S. Geological Survey
maps. This information is used to identify the
site and to perform a preliminary assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the
questions:
• Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
SUPERFUND
• How are they contained?
• How might contaminants spread?
• How close is the nearest well, home, or
natural resource area such as a wetland
or animal sanctuary?
• What may be harmed — the land,
water, air, people, plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that
they do not threaten public health or the envi-
ronment. But even in these cases, the sites
remain listed in the Superfund inventory for
record-keeping purposes and future reference.
Currently, there are more than 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.
If the preliminary assessment
shows a serious threat may exist,
what's the next step?
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional
information to evaluate its hazard potential.
During this site inspection, they look for
evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking
drums and dead or discolored vegetation.
They may take some samples of soil, well
water, river water, and air. Inspectors analyze
the ways hazardous materials could be pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access to
the site.
How does the EPA use the results of
the site Inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
The HRS is the scoring system the EPA uses to
assess the relative threat from a release or a
potential release of hazardous substances from
a site to surrounding groundwater, surface
water, air, and soil. A site score is based on
the likelihood that a hazardous substance will
be released from the site, the toxicity and
amount of hazardous substances at the site, and
the people and sensitive environments poten-
tially affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and envi-
ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on the
NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can
have a long-term cleanup paid for from
Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
fund. Superfund can, and does, pay for emer-
gency actions performed at any site, whether
or not it's on the NPL.
Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious
problems among uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites in the U.S. In addition, a
site will be proposed to the NPL if the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
issues a health advisory recommending that
people be moved away from the site. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in
which sites will be cleaned up. The order is
influenced by the relative priority of the site's
health and environmental threats compared to
other sites, and such factors as State priorities,
engineering capabilities, and available tech-
-------
SUPERFUND
nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.
A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.
How do people find out whether the
EPA considers a site a national
priority for cleanup under the
Superfund Program?
All NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
After a site is added to the NPL, what
are the steps to cleanup?
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent, long-term cleanup.
Since every site presents a unique set of chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:
1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
detail the extent of the site contamination
2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
possible cleanup remedies
3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
which remedy to use
4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy
5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy
This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity study (RI/FS) that determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and identify
and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These
studies may be conducted by the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private
parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, the remedial investigation
is much more detailed and comprehensive than
the initial site inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described
as a carefully designed field study. It includes
extensive sampling and laboratory analyses to
generate more precise data on the types and
quantities of wastes present at the site, the type
of soil and water drainage patterns, and specific
human health and environmental risks.
The result of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
SUPERFUND
a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose
of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called a feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered effective. Often, special pilot studies are
conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to
clean up a site. Therefore, the combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study can
take between 10 and 30 months to complete,
depending on the size and complexity of the
problem.
Does the public have a say in the
final cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made.
The results of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, which also point out the
recommended cleanup choice, are published in
a report for public review and comment. The
EPA or the State encourages the public to
review the information and take an active role
in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets and
announcements in local papers let the commu-
nity know where they can get copies of the
study and other reference documents concern-
ing the site. Local information repositories,
such as libraries or other public buildings, are
established in cities and towns near each NPL
site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
to review all relevant information and the
proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
tion repositories for each NPL site described in
this volume are given in Appendix B.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
is published. These comments can be written
or given verbally at public meetings that the
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
ing written answers to specific community
comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
summary" is part of the EPA's write-up of the
final remedy decision, called the Record of
Decision, or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains
the cleanup remedy chosen and the reason it
-------
SUPERFUND.
was selected. Since sites frequently are large
and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD may
be necessary for each contaminated resource or
area of the site. This may be necessary when
contaminants have spread into the soil, water,
and air and affect such sensitive areas as
wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned
up in stages. This often means that a number
of remedies, using different cleanup technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.
If every cleanup action needs to be
tailored to a site, does the design
ofthe remedy need to be tailored,
too?
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried
out, it must be designed in detail to meet
specific site needs. This stage of the cleanup is
called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected rem-
edy will be engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may
appear to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to two years to
complete. This blueprint for site cleanup
includes not only the details on every aspect of
the construction work, but a description of the
types of hazardous wastes expected at the site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
how long does it take to actually
clean up the site, and how much
does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site
cleanup, called the remedial action, are as
varied as the remedies themselves. In a few
cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or
dredging contaminated river bottoms can take
several years of complex engineering work
before contamination is reduced to safe levels.
Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site.
Once the cleanup action is
completed, is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected
10
-------
SUPERFUND
remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
until public comments are taken into consid-
eration that a site actually can be deleted from
the NPL. All sites deleted from the NPL and
sites with completed construction are included
in the progress report found later in this book.
Can a site be taken off the NPL if
no cleanup has taken place?
Yes. But only if further site investigation
reveals that there are no threats present at the
site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
sary. In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
action" remedy and may move to delete the
site when monitoring confirms that the site
does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
the NPL if new information concerning site
cleanup or threats show that the site does not
warrant Superfund activities.
A site may be removed if a revised HRS
scoring, based on updated information, results
in a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
A site also may be removed from the NPL by
transferring it to other appropriate Federal
cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
cleanup actions.
Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
serves Superfund monies for the Nation's most
pressing hazardous waste problems where no
other cleanup authority is applicable.
Can the EPA make parties
responsible for the contamination
pay?
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters
should pay," after a site is placed on the NPL,
the EPA makes a thorough effort to identify
and find those responsible for causing con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
EPA is willing to negotiate with these private
parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it
has the authority under the Superfund law to
legally force those potentially responsible for
site hazards to take specific cleanup actions.
All work performed by these parties is closely
guided and monitored by the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for actions
financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the EPA may decide to use Superfund
monies to make sure a site is cleaned up
without unnecessary delay. For example, if a
site presents an imminent threat to public
health and the environment or if conditions at a
site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for
causing site contamination are liable under the
law (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.
11
-------
THE VOLUME
The site fact sheets presented in this
book are comprehensive summaries
that cover a broad range of information.
The fact sheets describe hazardous
waste sites on the NPL and their locations, as
well as the conditions leading to their listing
("Site Description"). The summaries list the
types of contaminants that have been discov-
ered and related threats to public and ecologi-
cal health ("Threats and Contaminants").
"Cleanup Approach" presents an overview of
the cleanup activities completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets conclude with a brief
synopsis of how much progress has been made
in protecting public health and the environ-
ment. The summaries also pinpoint other
actions, such as legal efforts to involve pollut-
ers responsible for site contamination and
community concerns.
The fact sheets are arranged in alphabetical
order by site name. Because site cleanup is a
dynamic and gradual process, all site informa-
tion is accurate as of the date shown on the
bottom of each page. Progress always is being
made at NPL sites, and the EPA periodically
will update the site fact sheets to reflect recent
actions and will publish updated State vol-
umes. The following two pages show a ge-
neric fact sheet and briefly describe the infor-
mation under each section.
HOW CAN YOU USE THIS STATE
BOOK?
You can use this book to keep informed about
the sites that concern you, particularly ones
close to home. The EPA is committed to
involving the public in the decision making
process associated with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Agency solicits input from area
residents in communities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely to be affected
not only by hazardous site conditions, but also
by the remedies that combat them. Site clean-
How to Use
the State
Book
ups take many forms and can affect communi-
ties in different ways. Local traffic may be
rerouted, residents may be relocated, tempo-
rary water supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a site can help
citizens sift through alternatives and make
decisions. To make good choices, you must
know what the threats are and how the EPA
intends to clean up the site. You must under-
stand the cleanup alternatives being proposed
for site cleanup and how residents may be
affected by each one. You also need to have
some idea of how your community intends to
use the site in the future, and you need to
know what the community can realistically
expect once the cleanup is complete.
The EPA wants to develop cleanup methods
that meet community needs, but the Agency
only can take local concerns into account if it
understands what they are. Information must
travel both ways in order for cleanups to be
effective and satisfactory. Please take this
opportunity to learn more, become involved,
and assure that hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your community's
concerns.
13
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Dates when the site was
Proposed, made Final, and
Deleted from the NPL.
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially respon-
sible parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA 1C* ABCOOOOOOO
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Name*:
®
Site Responsibility: \™'".""_"™
Threats and Contaminants
NPL Listing History
Final: xuo/tt
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts:,.
Environmental Progress
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to
nearby residents and the surrounding environment;
progress towards cleaning up the site and goals of
the cleanup plan are given here.
14
-------
THE VOLUME
SITE DESCRIPTION
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes descrip-
tions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have con-
tributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
THREATS AND CONTAMINANTS
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted, as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil, and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding environ-
ments arising from the site contamination also are described.
CLEANUP APPROACH
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
RESPONSE ACTION STATUS
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean
up the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided
into separate phases, depending on the complexity and required actions at the
site. Two major types of cleanup activities often are described: initial,
immediate, or emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent
threats to the community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial
phases directed at final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy
is presented in this section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of
the cleanup process (initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the
cleanup remedy, engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway, and
completed cleanup) are located in the margin next to each activity descrip-
tion.
SITE FACTS
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by the EPA to
achieve site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with
the site cleanup process are reported here.
15
-------
THE VOLUME
The "icons," or symbols, accompanying the text allow the reader to see at a glance which envi-
ronmental resources are affected and the status of cleanup activities at the site.
Icons in the Threats and
Contaminants Section
Contaminated Groundwater resources
in the Contaminated Groundwater in
the vicinity or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used as a
drinking water source.)
Contaminated Surface Water and
Sediments on or near the site. (These
include lakes, ponds, streams, and
rivers.)
Contaminated Air in the vicinity of
the site. (Air pollution usually is
periodic and involves contaminated
dust particles or hazardous gas emis-
sions.)
Contaminated Soil and Sludges on or
near the site. (This contamination
category may include bulk or other
surface hazardous wastes found on the
site.)
Threatened or contaminated Environ-
mentally Sensitive Areas in the vicin-
ity of the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas or critical
habitats.)
Icons in the Response Action
Status Section
Initial Actions have been taken or are
underway to eliminate immediate
threats at the site.
Site Studies at the site to determine the
nature and extent of contamination are
planned or underway.
Remedy Selected indicates that site
investigations have been concluded,
and the EPA has selected a final
cleanup remedy for the site or part of
the site.
Remedy Design means that engineers
are preparing specifications and
drawings for the selected cleanup
technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing indicates that the
selected cleanup remedies for the
contaminated site, or part of the site,
currently are underway.
Cleanup Complete shows that all
cleanup goals have been achieved for
the contaminated site or part of the
site.
Environmental Progress summa-
rizes the activities taken to date to
protect human health and to clean
up site contamination.
16
-------
NPL SITES
The State of
Wisconsin
Wisconsin is located in EPA Region 5, which includes five midwestern states bordering the
Great Lakes. The state covers 56,153 square miles with topography consisting of Lake Superior
Lowland Plains, Northern Highlands, a sandy Central Plain region, Western Uplands in the
southwest, and broad ridges with lowlands in the southeast. According to the 1990 Census,
Wisconsin experienced a 4% increase in population between 1980 and 1990 and currently has
approximately 4,892,000 residents, ranking 16th in U.S. populations. Principal state industries
include manufacturing, trade, services, transportation, communications, dairy and agriculture,
and tourism. Machinery, foods, fabricated metals, transportation equipment, paper and wood
products are Wisconsin's major manufactured goods.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Wisconsin?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
39
_Q
39
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional District 4 2 sites
Congressional District 8 3 sites
Congressional District 7 4 sites
Congressional District 6 5 sites
Congressional Districts 1, 2, 9 6 sites
Congressional District 3 7 sites
What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
in the State of Wisconsin?
# of sites
20
6
3
3
7
type of sites
Municipal & Industrial Landfills
Disposal Facilities
Metal & Allied Products
Electroplating
Other (Recycler paper & allied
products, lumber & wood)
17
April 1991
-------
N PL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
35--
28--
221-
U--
7 --
GW Soil SW Sad Air Solid
Waste
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), and radiation.
Soil and Solid Waste: Volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), heavy
metals (inorganics), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), other inorganics,
and creosotes (organics).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), and vola-
tile organic compounds (VOCs),
creosotes (organics), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and radiation.
Air: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and gases.
* Appear ai 10% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?1
16
Sites
with I
Studies
Underway
7
Sites
with
Remedy
Selected
4
Sites
with
Remedy
Design
4
Sites
with
Cleanup
Ongoing
1
Site
with
Construction
Complete
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 19 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April! 991
18
-------
THE NPL REPORT
The following Progress Report lists all
sites currently on, or deleted from, the
NPL and briefly summarizes the status
of activities for each site at the time this
report was prepared. The steps in the Super-
fund cleanup process are arrayed across the
top of the chart, and each site's progress
through these steps is represented by an arrow
(O-) indicating the current stage of cleanup.
Large and complex sites often are organized
into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to
address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and
surface water pollution, or to clean up differ-
ent areas of a large site. In such cases, the
chart portrays cleanup progress at the site's
most advanced stage, reflecting the status of
site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
• An arrow in the "Initial Response" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or currently
is underway. Emergency or initial actions are
taken as an interim measure to provide im-
mediate relief from exposure to hazardous site
conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent
further contamination.
• A final arrow in the "Site Studies"
category indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is ongoing.
• A final arrow in the "Remedy Selection"
category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed
without further cleanup activities, a "No
Progress
To Date
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the
arrows are discontinued at the "Remedy
Selection" step and resume in the
"Construction Complete" category.
• A final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently are
designing the technical specifications for the
selected cleanup remedies and technologies.
• A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions have
been started at the site and currently are
underway.
• A final arrow in the "Construction
Complete" category is used only when all
phases of the site cleanup plan have been
performed, and the EPA has determined that no
additional construction actions are required at
the site. Some sites in this category currently
may be undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the
cleanup actions continue to protect human
health and the environment.
• A check in the "Deleted" category indicates
that the site cleanup has met all human health
and environmental goals and that the EPA has
deleted the site from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in this volume.
19
April 1991
-------
*
ft
(ft
o
.S2
I *•
o>
13
ft
ft ft
ft ft ftftft
ft
ft ft
ft ft
ftftft ft ft
5 lift ftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft ft
0)
(ft
0)
+••
53
0.
(0
a
3
C
(0
.2
O
a
I
£
o
oZ
ft ftft ft ft
ft
ftftftft
1111111111
111
II
11
111
tl. a. i£
S
5*
*•**
d
o
illllii
?
(A
« Q
ID
3 § .5^8
3 p a i ss
l|8|is
1 e ^ I I S
1 S 8 ; a a
^ 2 I 5
>•
S
to <
^ fc
J « _
^ 33 Q
5 1 ^ 8 I _
|§l|liggs
n»>^EsB)a«WB)
3 $ o I §
fefcd55^^§ii§^
SuSwSxiiS^^J
^* ^K ^^ r^ *o ^^
C^ CH CO C*l n
o\ co r~ o\ —•
o >« vo «o r~
April 1991
20
-------
h
ll
jo
j
H
If
II*
0
0 0
000
0
0
00
o
I
Z
I
.5
000 0 000
000
.a
IIftftftftftftft
*
r- r- &>
JO JO JO
o" »~^
ii
liliZlliiiilim
I
UJ
03
(A
t/3
o
8 8 O
at at at
< w
x £
§
o
• o
CO
I
i
|
2
1
C
1
i
a.
Q
83
*
a.
I
£
u;
O co
£ ^
£
<«
i
g
x s:
CO V)
E
I
5
il
^
ac
§3*11
iS|5S
S I o | 5
5 S 2 S D
! g I S J
g
I
§5
1
I
•a
21
April 1991
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
EPA REGION 5
23
April! 991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Wisconsin, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmen-
tal progress. Should you have questions, please call the EPA's Region 5
Office in Chicago, Illinois or one of the other offices listed below:
EPA Region 5 Superfund Community Relations Office (312) 353-2073
EPA Region 5 Superfund Office (312) 886-7456
EPA Superfund Hotline (800) 424-9346
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center (202) 260-2080
Wisconsin Superfund Office (608) 266-2111
April 1991 24
-------
c.
o
ALGOMA MUNICIPA
LANDFILL
WISCONSIN
EPAID#WID980610380
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Kewaunee County
Algoma
Site Description
The 9-acre Algoma Municipal Landfill was leased from Dumman Realty and was operated from
1969 to 1983 by the City of Algoma. In 1970, the landfill received a license from the State to accept
municipal refuse. While most of the accepted waste was municipal refuse, paint wastes, laquers,
thinners, and asbestos wastes also were disposed of at the landfill. When the landfill closed in 1983,
the City covered it with clay and topsoil. The landfill, which has no liner, is underlain by a sand and
gravel aquifer and another deeper aquifer. The two aquifers are hydraulically connected so that
water can move between them. The City of Algoma's wells draw on the deeper aquifer, and rural
wells draw from both aquifers. The site is within 3 miles of Lake Michigan. Krohn's Lake, which is
used for recreation, is less than 1 mile away. Approximately 5,000 people depend on groundwater
within 3 miles of the site for drinking water. Approximately 180 people live within 1 mile of the
site, all using private water supplies. The nearest residence is 1,100 feet away from the site
boundary.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 07/21/87
Threats and Contaminants
In 1984, the EPA detected volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) and heavy metals in on-site
monitoring wells. An investigation completed in 1990 confirmed that the groundwater
continues to be contaminated with VOCs. Exposure to contaminated groundwater
through direct contact or accidental ingestion may be a potential health threat. The
potential exists for wetlands, located south of the site, to be affected by the contaminated
groundwater that surfaces in the area. However, no release of hazardous materials into
the wetlands has occurred.
25
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1990, the potentially responsible parties, under EPA monitoring,
completed an investigation of the site. The final report indicated that the landfill cap does
not meet State standards and that the groundwater is contaminated. Based on the results of
the investigation, the EPA has elected 1.0 install a new cover that meets State standards.
Groundwater and gas monitoring will be continued and gas control measures will be applied, along
with institutional controls. Design of these remedies is scheduled to begin in 1991.
Site Facts: Several companies and the City of Algoma, identified as parties potentially
responsible for site contamination, signed an Administrative Order on Consent in 1988 with the
EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to perform site investigations.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Algoma Municipal Landfill site while the design of the
cleanup activities is being planned.
April 1991 26 ALGOMA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
-------
BETTER BRITE
PLATING CO.
CHROME AND ZINC
WISCONSIN
EPAID#WIT560010118
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Brown County
DePere
Other Names:
Better Brite Zinc
Better Brite Chrome
The 2-acre Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome and Zinc Shops site consists of two sections that are
divided by a residential area. Metal plating operations were conducted at the chrome shop from
1963 until 1986 and at the zinc shop from 1970 until 1989. While the plants were in operation, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) documented numerous violations and spills at
the facility, including a spill of 2,200 gallons of chromium-contaminated plating solutions and rinse
water in 1979. In order to remedy the situation, Better Brite installed groundwater monitoring wells
and constructed a collection system that allowed collected water to be pumped to a central surface
water holding pond. Better Brite also constructed a slope to prevent surface water runoff. In
addition, Better Brite excavated soil from neighboring properties and deposited it on the site. During
the course of operations at the site, it is thought that over 20,000 gallons of plating solution leaked
from in-ground plating tanks. A study of soil in 1979 identified chromium-contaminated soil in the
areas to the west and south of the main building. Although Better Brite was ordered by the WDNR
to clean up the contamination in 1980, no action was taken. Several subsequent inspections by
WDNR from 1980 to 1987, revealed extensive on-site chromium contamination, as well as
contamination in the building's air handling system. Shortly after operations ceased, the WDNR
received a complaint that yellow water was running from the chrome shop into the city sewer.
Subsequently, the WDNR investigated this incident and found chromium in the runoff and soil at a
neighboring residence. The City of DePere periodically pumps a trench on the chrome shop
property and discharges the waters collected to the DePere Wastewater Treatment Plant. In 1988,
the WDNR was notified that the site had been sold, and the new owners planned to remove the
plating building. To prevent exposure to contaminated soil, the WDNR razed the main building,
partially fenced the site, covered the site with clay, placed topsoil on the clay cover, and seeded it.
Also in 1988, the EPA allocated emergency funds to the WDNR to design a treatment system, which
is now operational, for water being discharged from the site to the DePere Wastewater Treatment
Plant. The owners abandoned the site in 1989. Due to bankruptcy proceedings, ownership of the
land at both facilities is in question. Approximately 46,000 people obtain drinking water from
municipal wells within 3 miles of the site. DePere Municipal Well #2 is 500 feet downgradient of
the zinc shop.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
27
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, surface water, and soil are contaminated with heavy metals including
chromium and zinc, as well as cyanide and various volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Area residents may be exposed to contaminants through coming in direct contact with or
accidentally ingesting these contaminated materials. Contaminants have migrated into
groundwater that forms the municipal water supply for the town of DePere, and the
villages of Allouez and Ashwaubenon.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The EPA removed over 83 tons of contaminated soil, 9,270 gallons of
chromic acid, 3,600 gallons of toxic liquids, 550 gallons of cyanide solution, 150 pounds
of cyanide sludge, and 500 gallons of flammable liquids from the chrome shop facility in
1986. In 1990, the EPA removed hazardous materials from the zinc shop in the same manner.
These wastes subsequently were treated and disposed of in an EPA-approved landfill. The EPA
covered highly contaminated areas of the site with plastic to prevent further off-site migration of
contaminants. The water treatment system was completed in 1990, and is now fully operational.
Surface removal of drums, vats, and tanks remaining on site was completed in 1991. To ensure
security, the EPA is providing 24-hour surveillance until site contamination has been completely
addressed.
Entire Site: An investigation into the nature and extent of remaining contamination at
the site is planned to begin in 1991. Based on the results of this investigation, final site
cleanup remedies will be selected.
Environmental Progress
The removal of substantial quantities of hazardous waste described above, combined with securing
the site, have greatly reduced the potential for explosion and exposure to hazardous materials at the
Better Brite Plating Chrome and Zinc site while final cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 28 BETTER BRITE PLATING CO.
CHROME AND ZINC SHOPS
-------
CITY DISPOSAL
CORP. LANDFILL
WISCONSIN
o
EPAID#WID980610646
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Dane County
Town of Dunn
The City Disposal Corp. Landfill site covers approximately 24 acres of a 38-acre landfill. The
unlined landfill was filled with municipal and industrial waste from 1966 to 1977. Waste was
deposited into on-site cells. Six of these cells were used for disposing municipal wastes from
surrounding communities in Dane County that were served by the landfill. The other six cells were
not used for disposal during the lifetime of the landfill. From 1966 until 1975, industrial wastes and
organic chemicals were disposed of in a small pit on the eastern side of the landfill. The site was
licensed by the State as a solid waste landfill. The permit expired in 1977 and was not reissued.
Reportedly, 55-gallon drums and bulk liquid waste from area industries were deposited on the site
and were covered periodically. During the early 1970s, industrial wastes such as solvents, organics,
and oily wastes were deposited. Hazardous waste disposal at the landfill was phased out in 1975,
and the site was closed in 1977. The site was subsequently capped. There are an estimated 5,500
people living within 3 miles of the site. Approximately 160 people residing within a mile of the site
depend on private wells. The surrounding area is mainly agricultural. A residential subdivision is
located southwest of the site, and a wooded area lies to the south. Badfish Creek, which receives
runoff from the site, is located 300 feet east of the landfill. The City of Madison discharges treated
wastewater into Badfish Creek, and there are indications that cows drink water from this creek.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Potential health threats to people include drinking contaminated groundwater, accidental
ingestion of contaminated soil, inhalation of contaminated dusts and air particles, and
direct contact with contaminated groundwater and soils. Grass Lake, a habitat for
sandhill cranes and other wildlife, is located about 700 feet northeast of the site and could
be subject to pollution from the site runoff.
29
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the groundwater
and controlling the source of contamination.
Response Action Status
Source Control: Under EPA monitoring, Waste Management of Wisconsin is
conducting an investigation into the nature and extent of the contamination present at the
landfill, including a geophysical survey and soil sampling. The investigation will define
the contaminants of concern and will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The
investigation is planned to be completed in 1992.
Groundwater: Also under EPA monitoring, Waste Management is conducting an
investigation into the nature and extent of groundwater contamination at the site. The
study includes providing an inventory of existing monitoring wells, sampling and
analyzing groundwater, and analyzing data on groundwater movement. The investigation will
define the contaminants of concern, will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup, and is
planned to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1987, an Administrative Order on Consent was entered into between the EPA and
Waste Management, a party potentially responsible for the site contamination, requiring the
company to investigate the site contamination.
Environmental Progress
After listing the City Disposal Corp. Landfill site on the NPL, the EPA conducted preliminary
studies and determined that the site does not pose an imminent threat to the surrounding
communities or the environment while the investigations leading to the selection of final cleanup
solutions for the site are taking place.
April 1991 30 CITY DISPOSAL CORP. LANDFILL
-------
DELAVAN MUN
WELL #4
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID980820062
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Walworth County
Delavan
Site Description
The Delavan Municipal Well #4 site is defined as the contaminated aquifer used by the Delavan
Well #4. Well #4 was closed in 1982 due to contamination by volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
but is used occasionally when another city well must be taken out of service. When used, the water
from Well #4 is blended with other city water to reduce any concentrations of contaminants to levels
below what is considered a health risk. The blending occurs at a common point past the inlet for
Well #4; this requires Well #3 to pump at the same time. When Well #3 was shut down, Well #4
was used continuously. During that time, unblended water from Well #4 may have been delivered to
nearby residents, businesses, and a school. There are more than 3,000 people living within 1 mile of
the site. The population of Delevan relies on municipal water, and no private wells have been
identified in the area. Surrounding the site are schools, homes, businesses, and an industrial facility.
The distance from the well to the closest residence is 500 feet.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Air may be contaminated with VOCs from the use of extraction wells or the sprayer-
aerator system used at a nearby industry. Well #4 and the area soils are contaminated
with VOCs including trichloroethylene (TCE). When Well #4 is used to supply water to
the municipality, there is the possibility of a health threat to people through drinking it,
coming in direct contact with it, or inhaling contaminated vapors in the water. When
Well #4 is used, highly contaminated water from the industrial site across the street may
be pulled toward the well, potentially increasing VOC concentrations.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two phases: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase directed at
cleanup of the entire site.
31
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: A party potentially responsible for the site contamination has taken
steps to contain contaminated groundwater near the site through the installation of a
groundwater extraction system and a soil venting system.
Entire Site: The State, under EPA monitoring, began an investigation into the nature
and extent of the groundwater contamination at the site in 1990. The investigation will
define the contaminants of concern through the installation of monitoring well and the
sampling of soil and surface water and will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The
investigation is planned to be completed in 1992.
Environmental Progress
The EPA determined, after initial evaluations of the Delavan Municipal Well #4 site, that no other
immediate actions are required to protect the surrounding community or the environment while the
groundwater containment system is being installed and the investigations leading to the selection of
a final remedy for site contamination are taking place.
ApnM991
32
DELAVAN MUNICIPAL WELL #4
-------
EAU CLAIRE
MUNICIPAL
WELL FIELD
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID980820054
Site Description
o
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Eau Claire County
.Neatjthe Eau Claire Co. Airport, east of
the Chippewa River
The Eau Claire Municipal Well Field site covers 500 acres and consists of 14 wells that withdraw
groundwater for the residents of Eau Claire County. In 1981, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) sampled groundwater from the Eau Claire Municipal Well Field as part of an
EPA-sponsored groundwater survey of 20 Wisconsin cities. The WDNR's sampling detected
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primarily in the north well field. However, the level of VOCs
delivered to homes remained below the State water quality standards. In 1982, the City began
monitoring VOC levels in residential wells near the municipal field. In 1983, the City found that
VOC levels in one of these wells exceeded the State's water quality standards and recommended that
its owners use bottled water instead of groundwater. In 1984, five of the municipal wells in the
north field also were found to be contaminated with VOCs. The contamination at the site initially
was characterized as two separate plumes. However, studies conducted at the nearby National
Presto Industries site, which also is on the NPL, have shown that at least one of the plumes
originates from that location. The municipal well field serves approximately 57,600 residents of the
county. Also, an unknown number of residents in the county pump their own groundwater from
privately owned wells.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater at the site is contaminated with VOCs including tetrachloroethene and
trichloroethylene (TCE). People can be exposed to VOCs if they drink or come in direct
contact with contaminated groundwater or if they inhale hazardous substances that the
water releases into the air. The EPA does not believe that the nearby Chippewa River is
affected by the contamination, because pumping of the municipal wells prevents the
groundwater from discharging into the river.
33
ApriM991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1984, the EPA conducted a focused study of the nature and
extent of VOC contamination in drinking water. The results of this study recommended air
stripping as the preferred method to address contamination at the site. In mid-1987, the
EPA completed construction of an air-stripping unit to remove VOCs from the contaminated
groundwater in the north field. This method treats the groundwater with the air stripper, discharges it
to a municipal water treatment plant, and then to a distribution system.
Entire Site: The EPA completed an additional study in 1988 to study the nature and
extent of contamination at the entire site and to identify and analyze various alternatives
that best addressed remaining contamination at the site. The EPA selected the following
final remedies for the site: (1) withdrawing water from the existing municipal wells in the north well
field and removing VOCs from the water using the existing air stripper; (2) installing extraction wells
in the north well field and discharging water extracted by those wells directly to the Chippewa River
without treatment; (3) installing extraction wells in Plume #2 and discharging water extracted by
those wells directly to the Chippewa River without treatment; (4) connecting to the city water system
or providing individual treatment units to those residences within the contaminated areas; and (5)
monitoring groundwater quality during the action to determine when the groundwater has been
cleaned up to meet State and Federal guidelines. The EPA is continuing to treat the municipal
groundwater supply with the air stripper and is providing municipal water to users of private well
water. In 1990, the EPA finished construction of 22 hookups to the municipal water supply for those
residences which cannot use groundwater, as a result of Plume #1 contamination. Additional
groundwater characterization is underway. Final cleanup of the Plume #1 groundwater
contamination will be coordinated wilh groundwater cleanup at the National Presto Industries site.
Environmental Progress
The air stripping unit in use at the Eau Claire Well Field site is successfully controlling the level of
VOCs in the groundwater being fed to the municipal wells. This action, in addition to connecting
affected residences to the municipal water supply, is protecting the surrounding population and
environment while the remaining cleanup activities are being planned and completed.
April 1991 34 EAU CLAIRE MUNICIPAL WELL FIELD
-------
FADROWSKI DR
DISPOSAL
WISCONSIN
EPAID#WID980901227
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Milwaukee County
Franklin
Other Names:
Menard's Drum Disposal Site
The Fadrowski Drum Disposal site covers approximately 20 acres on South 27th Street, on the
eastern edge of Franklin, along its border with Oak Creek. From 1970 until 1981, Edward
Fadrowski, of Ed's Masonry and Trucking, operated a landfill at the site to dispose of demolition
and construction wastes. A former employee alleged in 1981 that the property was used for the
disposal of hazardous waste and that several hundred drums and lubricant sludges were buried there.
Early in 1983, Menard, Inc. purchased part of the site and began to construct a store to sell home
building materials. Excavation of the property turned up buried drums, which the State analyzed and
found to contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs), lead, chromium, and small amounts of
arsenic. One sample of oily sludge contained DDT, a pesticide no longer in use. The EPA and the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) believe that the Acme Printing Ink Company
generated the hazardous substances that were disposed of at the site. Little is known about the
amounts or type of wastes at the site. Environmental concerns at the site include contamination of
the soil and shallow groundwater. Nearby residents use a deeper aquifer, which is separated from
the contaminated aquifer by about 80 feet of low permeability clay, as their source of drinking water.
No private well contamination has been found. About 18,000 people depend on wells that are within
3 miles of the site as sources of drinking water. The nearest residence is about 200 feet from the site.
The area consists of residential, commercial, and municipal uses. There are several schools and
parks within a 2-mile radius of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 10/15/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater samples collected from one of the monitoring wells on site were
contaminated mercury and benzene. Chromium, barium, and cyanide were found in
shallow groundwater at levels exceeding State limits. Sediment samples collected from
on-site creeks and ditches contained PAHs and inorganic compounds. Subsurface soil
samples collected from the site are contaminated with low level VOCs, especially
toluene. One surface water sample taken from the on-site creek contained low levels of
cyanide and VOCs. People could be exposed to hazardous substances through drinking
contaminated groundwater or surface water or by accidentally ingesting contaminated
soil. Exposure to buried drums could pose a threat if the site is developed. The drums
also could rupture, causing further contamination of the environment. Approximately 9
acres of wetlands border the on-site pond on the west, where runoff from the site travels
35
April! 991
-------
and extends beyond the site's boundaries. The site occasionally is used for recreational
activities. Local residents in the area around the site, especially children, use the pond located at
the eastern edge of the site for swimming and could thus be exposed to site contamination.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Acme Printing Company, under the supervision of the EPA and the WDNR,
began a study in 1987 to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The
study was completed in early 1991. Proposed cleanup techniques are undergoing public
review and comment. The recommended alternative involves the removal of drums, testing for soil
contamination levels, capping the waste disposal area, fencing the site, and controlling future site use
through deed restrictions. A decision is expected in mid-1991.
Environmental Progress
After listing the Fadrowski Drum site on the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary evaluations and
determined that the site does not pose an immediate threat to the surrounding community and the
environment. The selection of a final remedy for the site currently is taking place.
April 1991 36 FADROWSKI DRUM DISPOSAL
-------
HAGEN FARM
WISCONSIN
EPAID#WID98061
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Dane County
1 mile east of Stoughton
Other Names:
No Name Property at 2318 County A
Site Description
The Hagen Farm site covers 10 acres and is located approximately a mile east of Stoughton. The
site operated as a sand and gravel pit from the 1950s until the mid-1960s, when it served as a
disposal site for municipal waste from the City of Stoughton and industrial waste from Uniroyal
Plastics Corporation, as well as other sources. The site consists of one main disposal area and two
smaller areas located in a former gravel quarry. During its operation as a waste disposal site,
solvents and other chemicals and chunks of solid vinyl were disposed of at the site. Waste disposal
activities ceased at the site about 1966. The disposal area on the site was covered with a layer of
soil, and the property subsequently was sold in 1977 to Orrin Hagen, a sheep farmer. In 1980, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) received a complaint from a local resident
alleging that the site had been used for the disposal of drummed wastes during the 1960s. The
WDNR investigated the site, then in use as a sheep pasture, and observed that solid vinyl was
protruding through the soil. The WDNR sampled nearby residential wells in 1980 through 1982, at
which time volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were found. Uniroyal conducted a study to evaluate
groundwater quality at and near the site in 1982 and detected VOCs in the groundwater. In 1987,
Orrin Hagen transferred ownership of the site to Waste Management, Inc. (WMI), the current owner.
Presently, the only building on the site is an old farm silo. The population of the City of Stoughton
is estimated to be 7,500. The land surrounding the site is semi-rural and industrial. Approximately
350 people reside within a mile of the site. The majority of Stoughton's residents draw water from
the municipal water supply system, and an estimated 940 people depend on private wells located
within 3 miles of the site for their drinking water supply. The City of Stoughton's municipal wells
are located about 2 miles to the west, and eight private wells are located within 1,200 feet of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/18/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
VOCs have been found in the on-site air and in the area surrounding the site. The highest
concentrations of VOCs in the air are located near the former disposal areas. On-site
groundwater is contaminated with VOCs including tetrahydrofuran and xylene. On-site
soils are contaminated with benzene and chlorobenzene. Area residents could have been
directly exposed to site-related contaminants during the 1980s, when a protruding drum
was found on the site. This drum was subsequently removed; therefore, direct exposure
to contaminants is not presently a threat to area residents or on-site workers. Local
residents and industrial workers, who rely on the remaining private wells for their
drinking water, could be exposed to contaminants in the groundwater.
37
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: interim actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Interim Actions: The neighboring land has been purchased by WMI, the houses on that
land have been razed, and a protruding drum has been removed. The site has been fenced,
although an access road to cin active gravel pit runs directly past the main dump site.
Source Control: The potentially responsible parties completed the initial study into the
extent and nature of contam ination at the Hagen Farm site. The results of the completed
studies indicate that almost all waste disposal took place within a 5 1/2-acre area. The
types of wastes present in the disposal process also were defined and included municipal waste,
paint sludge, grease, industrial chemicals, and plastic sheeting. The EPA sampled private wells and
did not detect the presence of any site-related contaminants. Based on the results of the study, the
EPA selected a cleanup remedy which includes consolidating waste from disposal areas B and C
into area A and backfilling areas B arid C with clean soil, installing a cap over area A after
consolidation, in-situ vapor extraction of waste and soils in disposal area A, treatment of extracted
vapors by carbon adsorption, installation of a fence around the three disposal areas, and deed
restrictions to prevent the installation of drinking water wells within the vicinity of the disposal
areas. Design of this remedy is undemay.
Groundwater: The potentially responsible parties currently are studying the nature and
extent of groundwater contamination at the site. The EPA will recommend a method for
groundwater cleanup based on the results of this study, expected in 1992.
Site Facts: The Wisconsin Department of Justice filed an enforcement action against Uniroyal,
Inc. and Waste Management of Wisconsin in 1983, directing them to perform an investigation and
to clean up the site. This action was dismissed in 1987 when Uniroyal and Waste Management
agreed to undertake the site study.
Environmental Progress
By fencing in a major area of the Hagen Farm site, removing a contaminated drum, and razing
buildings, the potential for exposure has been significantly reduced while the design of remedies and
investigations leading to the selection of final cleanup remedies are taking place.
April! 991 38 HAGEN FARM
-------
HECHIMOVICH
SANITARY
LANDFILL
WISCONSIN
EPAID#WID052906088
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Dodge County
Williamstown, approximately
2 miles from Mayville
The Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill site is situated on 20 acres and is located in Williamstown, a
rural area located approximately 2 miles south of Mayville. The site is a former licensed disposal
area for hazardous waste that operated from 1970 to 1980. The owner of the site claims that he
placed hazardous waste in unlined pits from 1972 to 1980. Some of the types of wastes disposed of
in these pits include paint sludges, cutting oils, and spent organic solvents. The Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) ordered the pits closed in 1980. The EPA detected
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in two wells downgradient of the site in 1984. The owner of the
site violated the terms of the landfill's permit by depositing solid waste in areas beyond those
previously approved by the WDNR. The towns nearest to the site are Mayville, with a population of
4,330, and Horicon, with 3,585 residents. Approximately 5,000 people obtain their drinking water
from private wells located within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
z\
Groundwater in several wells downgradient of the site has been shown to be
contaminated with VOCs. Direct contact with or ingestion of contaminated groundwater
or surface water may pose health threats. Local surface waters are used by residents for
recreational activities. If site-related contaminants should migrate into the surface water,
residents could be exposed to them when coming into direct contact with these bodies of
water. A portion of the Hechimovich Landfill site is a wetland, which could be at risk
from site runoff.
39
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The preliminary phase of the investigation into the nature and extent of
contamination and alternative cleanup methods was started in 1990. This study, expected
to be completed in 1993, is being conducted by the parties potentially responsible for the
site contamination, under the direction of the WDNR.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Hechimovich Landfill site to the NPL, the EPA determined, after initial
evaluations, that the site does not pose an immediate threat to the surrounding communities or the
environment while the investigations leading to the selection of a final cleanup remedy are taking
place.
April 1991
40
HECHIMOVICH LANDFILL
-------
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Racine Country
Caledonia
HUNTS DISPOSAfc
LANDFILL
WISCONSIN
EPA ID#WID980511919
Site Description
The Hunts Disposal Landfill site consists of 35 acres of an 84-acre parcel and is located 8 miles
north of Racine in Caledonia. This site is an old sand and gravel pit that was first licensed to operate
as a dump by the Racine County Board of Adjustments in 1959. From 1959 to 1974, the various
owners of the site accepted both industrial and municipal wastes. In 1970, the State granted a
license to the owners of the landfill that allowed them to accept non-combustible trash, garbage, and
wooden material. In 1974, the site was purchased by Waste Management, Inc. of Wisconsin from
Caledonia Corporation Landfill, which had acquired it in 1972, when it was operating as Hunts
Disposal Landfill. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, area residents reported seeing people
driving cars to the site and dumping garbage into the ditch near the railroad tracks. Residents also
complained that the site was poorly covered. In 1964, four 10,000-gallon tanks containing residual
arsenic acid sludge were buried at the site. According to files kept by Racine County, these tanks
were cleaned before they were buried. During 1973 to 1974, the State noted several operational
problems such as seepage of wastes into the groundwater, lack of proper cover, and windblown
paper. The Hunts Disposal site was closed in 1974. An inspection conducted by the State in 1975
noted deficiencies in final cover and topsoil depths, severe gully erosion on some slopes, and the
absence of vegetative cover over portions of the landfill. The site was purchased by the Boundary
Corporation in 1975. In 1976, the County purchased the site as a pan of the Root River Parkway
System, a regional park concept. The Hunts Disposal site is located in a semi-rural area that is
developing into a residential community. There are several residences located in the immediate
vicinity of the site and within the boundaries of Caledonia. Approximately 1,500 people live within
a 1-mile radius of the site. All of the residences in the vicinity of the site rely on private wells for
their water supply. A subdivision of approximately 1,000 people is located 1 to 1 1/2 miles west of
the landfill site across the Root River. These residents obtain their water from a private sanitation
district. Residents of Oak Creek, located 1/4 mile north of the site, rely on municipal wells that
draw water from depths of approximately 1,800 feet. Marshlands border the site on the west.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 07/21/87
41
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
On-site soils and groundwater are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and heavy metals. Groundwater and surface water on the eastern side of the
site are contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic and lead. Soils from the
landfill area are contaminated with heavy metals and VOCs. On-site workers and
trespassers could be exposed to site-related contaminants by accidentally ingesting or
coming into direct contact with contaminated groundwater, surface water, soils, or
sediment. Hydrogeologic conditions favor the migration of groundwater off site. If
groundwater contamination migrates into private and municipal wells, area residents
could be exposed to contaminants in the groundwater. The Root River, which is used
by area residents for recreational purposes, borders the site, and runoff from the
contaminated soils and surface water could pollute these waters and sediments.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Waste Management and Racine County made an attempt to abandon
the site in 1982 and conducted several activities including repairing erosion damage,
sealing leachate seeps, and revegetating the site. The EPA conducted an inspection of
the site in 1984 and took several samples of soils, surface waters, groundwater, and sediments.
Entire Site: Based on investigations conducted by the EPA and the State, the EPA
selected a remedy in 1990 to clean up the site by consolidating the contaminated soil
and sediment onto the landfill and constructing a cap over it. A landfill gas collection
and treatment system will be installed to control vapors at the site. A slurry wall will be
constructed around the perimeter of the landfill to contain groundwater. The groundwater will
be pumped and treated off site. In addition, the site will be fenced to prevent access and
exposure to contaminants. The design of the remedy is scheduled to begin in 1992.
Environmental Progress
Investigations by the EPA and the State have determined that the Hunts Disposal Landfill does
not pose an imminent threat to the public. The EPA has selected the remedy for site cleanup, and
the design of the remedy is scheduled to begin in 1992.
April 1991 42 HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL
-------
JANESVILLtASHBE
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID000712950
O
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Rock County
Janesville
Other Names:
Janesville Disposal Facilities
Site Description
The Janesville Ash Beds site covers about 5 acres of a 65-acre parcel of land on the northern side
of Janesville. There are four Janesville Disposal Facilities (JDF) on these 65 acres: the
Janesville Ash Beds (JAB), the Old Dump Site (1963 site), the Janesville Old Landfill (1978
site), and the New Landfill (1985 site). The JAB and the Janesville Old Landfill are listed on the
NPL and are being cleaned up under Superfund. The New Landfill and the Old dump are being
handled under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA). The City of Janesville is the
primary owner of the properties and has operated land disposal activities at the site since the
1950s. The JAB began operating in 1974 and consisted of five separate ash beds. The facility
accepted an assortment of industrial liquids and sludges. Approximately 1 1/2 to 3 million
gallons of industrial sludges were accepted annually. Fly ash and the resultant dried sludges
were sent to the Old Landfill for disposal from 1974 to 1978 and then to the New Landfill. From
1974 to 1983, the ash beds were unlined, with only a plastic liner beneath a small portion of the
bed to serve as a leachate sampling system. In the fall of 1982, beds #3, #4, and #5, were
excavated, contaminated ash and soils were removed, and the beds were reconstructed with clay
liners and equipped with leachate collection systems. Industrial wastes still were being accepted
at beds #1 and #2 while the other three beds were being reconstructed. Bed #1 was closed, and
the sludge was removed in 1983. Wastes were not accepted at bed #2 after 1983, and the sludge
was removed in 1984. In 1985, the remaining three beds (#3, #4, and #5) were cleaned and
closed, and the entire JAB area was covered with clay and graded. Over 1,000 tons of ash from
the JAB had been disposed of in the New Landfill. For further information on the Old Landfill,
see the separate listing under Janesville Old Landfill. Janesville has a population of
approximately 51,000 people. Residential areas are located within a few hundred feet of the
Janesville disposal facilities. A number of parks are within 2 miles of the sites and two schools
are within 1 mile. The Rock River is about 1,500 feet west of the sites.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
43
ApriM991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
In most instances, all four facilities have contributed to contamination in the air,
groundwater, sediments, soil, and surface water. Methane gas has been detected
in the air at the site. The methane is caused by the decomposing material stored
in the landfill. Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including benzene, acetone, tetrachlorethene, and vinyl chloride.
Sediments in the pond southeast of the Old Landfill contain acetone. Soil is
contaminated with VOCs including chloroform, ethylbenzene, and
tetrachloroethene. Surface water in the Rock River contains low levels of VOCs.
Small amounts of contaminants in the Rock River and the dn-site pond, and the
air pose a very low health risk. Contaminated soil and groundwater may pose a
threat through accidental ingestion or direct contact.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the five
components of the entire site.
Response Action Status
no$
Entire Site: The potentially responsible panics, under EPA monitoring, completed a
study of the four Janesville Disposal facilities. The EPA broke the site down into five
cleanup components: New Landfill, Old Landfill, Old Dump, JAB and JDF Groundwater.
Three of these components are being overseen by Superfund: the JAB, the Janesville Old Landfill
and JDF groundwater. In 1989, the EPA selected the remedies for the JAB and the related JDF
Groundwater contamination. The remedy involves restricting access and land use, continuing cap
maintenance, complying with applicable Federal requirements, removing and properly disposing of
the remaining ash pile, restricting land and groundwater use between the facility and the Rock River,
installing groundwater extraction wells to protect the Rock River from migrating contaminants, and
developing a groundwater treatment system using an air stripper to remove VOCs. Design of the
cleanup actions will begin as soon as an agreement is reached with the potentially responsible
parties.
Site Facts: In 1986, the EPA, the State, and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination reached an agreement whereby the parties will conduct an investigation of the
contamination at the Janesville facilities. The Old Landfill and JAB sites are being addressed under
Superfund, while the other two sites are being cleaned up under the authority of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. These two RCRA sites were included in the
National Priorities List investigation because of their close proximity to the Old Landfill and JAB
areas.
Environmental Progress
The complexity of the separate areas at the Janesville Disposal Facility sites required extensive
study into the extent of contamination prior to the selection of final cleanup remedies. These
investigations have resulted in the selection of final remedies for all the areas of contamination,
with actual cleanup activities scheduled to begin soon.
April 1991 44 JANESVILLE ASH BEDS
-------
JANESVILLl^OLD
LANDFILL
WISCONSIN
EPAID#WID980614044
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Rock County
Janesville
Other Names:
Janesville Disposal Facilities
The 18-acre Janesville Old Landfill site is on a 65-acre parcel of land that contains four different
sites: the Janesville Ash Beds (JAB), the Old Dump Site, the Janesville Old Landfill, and the
New Landfill. The JAB and Old Landfill are listed on the NPL and are being cleaned up under
Superfund, while the New Landfill and the Old Dump Site are being handled under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The City of Janesville is the owner of the properties
and has operated land disposal activities at the sites since the 1950s. The Janesville Old Landfill
site is an abandoned sand and gravel pit that was used as a municipal sanitary landfill beginning
in 1963. Industrial wastes such as solvents, used oils, paints, paint thinners, and other industrial
wastes were accepted drummed for disposal. The site also received the sludge-ash mixture when
the ash beds at the Janesville Ash Beds were cleaned out. The landfill does not have any bottom
or side liners, but was covered with clayey material when it reached capacity in 1978. The
landfill does not have a leachate collection system or clay liner. The City of Janesville has a
population of approximately 51,000 people. Residential areas are located within a few hundred
feet of the Janesville disposal facilities. The Rock River is 1,500 feet west of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Methane gas from the decomposing material stored in the landfill has been
detected in the air at the site. Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals including arsenic, barium, lead, iron, and
manganese. Soils are contaminated with various VOCs and heavy metals
including manganese and cadmium. Surface water in the Rock River contains
low levels of VOCs. Contaminated groundwater is not considered a health threat
because no private drinking water wells are contaminated or appear to be
threatened. Small amounts of contaminants in the Rock River and the on-site
pond and the air pose a very low health risk. Contaminated soil and groundwater
may pose a health threat through accidental ingestion or direct contact.
45
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the Old
Landfill site.
Response Action Status
Old Landfill Site: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination, under
EPA monitoring, completed a study of all of the Janesville Disposal Sites. The EPA
selected a remedy for the Janesville Old Landfill and the related groundwater
contamination in 1989 which includes: (1) access and land use restrictions; (2) installation of a
landfill gas extraction and flaring system that may later be convened into an energy convening
system; (3) installation of a landfill cap; (4) continued monitoring of the groundwater and air; (5)
deed and groundwater-use restrictions between the facility and the Rock River; (6) installation of
groundwater extraction wells to protect the Rock River from migrating contaminants; and (7)
development of a groundwater treatment system using an air stripper to remove VOCs. Design
of the remedies will begin as soon as agreement is reached with the potentially responsible
panics. The cleanup is expected to begin in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1986, the EPA, the State, and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination reached an agreement, whereby the parties conducted an investigation of the
nature and extent of contamination at tie Janesville Disposal sites. (For further information on
the JAB, Old Dump Site, and New Landfill, see the separate listing under Janesville Ash Beds.)
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that no immediate actions were required at the Janesville Old Landfill site while the selected
cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 46 JANESVILLE OLD LANDFILL
-------
KOHLER COMPANY
LANDFILL
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID006073225
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Sheboygan County
Kohler
Site Description
The Kohler Company Landfill is an 82-acre site, 40 acres of which have been used as a landfill
since the 1950s, primarily for the disposal of foundry and manufacturing wastes produced by
Kohler's manufacturing facilities. Between 1950 and the mid-1970s, at least four pits were
constructed for the disposal of hydraulic oils, solvents, paint wastes, enamel powder, lint from
brass polishing, and plating sludges. Oils commonly were used for dust control. Since 1980, all
federally regulated wastes have been shipped off site for disposal. In 1977 and 1981, sludges
from the two wastewater settling lagoons were buried at the site. The landfill was not scheduled
to close until 2035; however, the State landfill license is being modified, and the closure of the
landfill will occur much sooner. Approximately 1,600 people live within 3 miles of the landfill.
The nearest residence is 1/4 mile away. The Sheboygan River is within 300 feet of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible panics' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with various volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavy
metals, phenols, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Runoff water and
sediments contain heavy metals, phenols, and PAHs. Leachate samples contained VOCs
and heavy metals. Waste samples from the landfill contain VOCs, phenols, PAHs,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals. People who come in direct contact
with or accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater or leachate may be at risk.
Workers or trespassers who ingest, inhale, or come in direct contact with contaminants
contained in the landfill wastes could be at risk. Groundwater and leachate discharge into
the Sheboygan River, but environmental effects are unknown as yet.
47
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on source control and the
management of groundwater.
Response Action Status
Source Control: In 1985, the Kohler Company, under EPA and Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) monitoring, began investigating the
contamination at the site. Three phases of investigations have been completed. Once the
entire investigation is completed in 1991, alternative measures will be recommended for cleanup of
sources of contamination.
Groundwater Management: The Kohler Company is conducting an investigation
into the nature and extent of contamination of groundwater. Though a decision date has
not been set for the EPA to designate cleanup alternatives, it is expected in late 1992.
Site Facts: In 1985, the EPA, the State, and the Kohler Company signed an Administrative
Order on Consent, whereby the company agreed to study the type and extent of contamination at
the site. The company also will assess potential and actual risks to human health and the
environment and will evaluate potential cleanup alternatives.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that no immediate actions were required at the Kohler Company Landfill site while
investigations leading to a final remedy selection are underway.
April! 991 48 KOHLER COMPANY LANDFILL
-------
LAUER I SAIMIT
LANDFILL
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID058735994
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Waukesha County
Menomonee Falls
Other Names:
Waste Management Lauer I
United Waste Systems
Boundary Road Landfill
From the mid-1950s to 1972, the 53-acre Lauer I Sanitary Landfill accepted a variety of municipal
and industrial wastes. The site was closed and covered in 1973. It took several years for the owners
to vegetate the cover and properly abandon the site. In 1973 and 1974, State inspectors revealed
holes in the berm around the site that allowed leachate from a collection pond to escape into a ditch
that drains into the Menomonee River. In 1981, the owner installed an underground wall of clay
materials between the landfill and the pond to stem the flow of leachate. Presently, leachate
accumulating behind the cut-off wall is sent to a municipal wastewater treatment plant.
Approximately 23,500 individuals reside within a 3-mile radius of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Soils and leachate are contaminated with benzene, cyanide, toluene, and zinc. People
may be exposed to contaminants through accidental ingestion or by coming in direct
contact with contaminated soil or leachate. Although the landfill has been covered and
seeded for recreational use, leachate continues to threaten groundwater and nearby
surface waters. Also, contaminants may enter the food chain by way of locally raised
livestock and vegetables.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
49
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination and
to identify alternative long-term remedial methods is scheduled to begin in mid-1991,
under State guidance. Based on the results of the investigation, a remedy will be selected
for site cleanup.
Site Facts: Negotiations between the State and one potentially responsible party, Waste
Management of Wisconsin, began in 1988. An agreement between the State and Waste
Management was signed in August 1990, requiring the company to take responsibility for
investigating site contamination and designing and constructing the State-selected remedy.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions are required at the Lauer I Sanitary Landfill site while an investigation is being
planned.
April 1991
50
LAUER I SANITARY LANDFILL
-------
LEMBERGER
LANDFILL, INC.
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID980901243
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Manitowoc County
Whitelaw
Other Names:
Lemberger Fly Ash Landfill
The 21-acre Lemberger Landfill, Inc. site is located approximately 1/4 mile from Lemberger
Transport and Recycling, also a National Priorities List site. The two sites operated under the
same license from 1970 through 1976. The Township of Franklin used the site, an old gravel pit,
as an open dump from 1940 to 1970. Lemberger Landfill, Inc. operated the site as a sanitary
landfill under a license from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) from
1969 to 1976. From 1976 to 1977, Wettencamp and Brunner Excavating Company transported
fly ash from Manitowoc Public Utilities to the Lemberger facility. An estimated 1,750 to 2,500
cubic yards of fly ash were disposed of monthly. Past WDNR inspections showed that
Lemberger used fly ash and bottom ash as cover, instead of burying them along with the refuse.
In 1980, following complaints by local residents that landfill leachate had seeped onto their
properties, the WDNR investigated and tried to get the site owners to address contamination
problems at the landfill. Lemberger Landfill, Inc. filed for bankruptcy in 1983. In 1985, volatile
organic compound (VOC) contamination was found in seven residential wells at levels that
exceeded standards. New, deeper wells were provided to residents with contaminated wells.
Sampling from the new wells in 1985 showed no contamination. Part of the site is bordered by a
marsh. Wetland vegetation occupies low-lying areas of the site. The nearby Branch River is
used for swimming, fishing, and canoeing, and the area commonly is used for hunting.
Approximately 2,700 people live within 3 miles of the site. The residents depend on public and
private wells within 3 miles of the site as a source of drinking water.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/18/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with VOCs including vinyl chloride and
methylene chloride. Surface water is contaminated with phenols, VOCs, and
heavy metals including cadmium and lead. Surface soils contain VOCs, semi-
volatile organic compounds, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
inorganic compounds. Subsurface soils contain VOCs and inorganics. Potential
health threats exist if contaminated groundwater or soil is ingested or directly
contacted. Contaminants have entered the food chain; therefore, ingesting milk or
livestock and fish taken from the river also may be a potential health threat.
Exposure to contaminants may occur when coming into direct contact with
polluted surface water. The site is not fenced or posted with signs to restrict
access.
51
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: New wells were drilled to provide water to residences having
contaminated wells.
Entire Site: In 1984, the EPA sampled monitoring wells and leachate at the site. The
results showed elevated levels of several contaminants. In 1987, the EPA began an
investigation to determine the extent and nature of contamination and to identify
cleanup alternatives. A draft investigation report was completed in 1990. Cleanup technologies
recommended, but not yet approved, involve groundwater extraction, treatment, and discharge
into the Branch River. Also recommended are groundwater monitoring, temporary groundwater
use restrictions, and control of landfill waste by capping the landfill and containing contaminated
groundwater inside a slurry wall. The remedy is expected to be agreed upon in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1982, Lemberger signed a Consent Order with the WDNR that required
identification of the source of leachate controls, followed by groundwater monitoring. Drilling
and testing were done until the owner filed for bankruptcy.
Environmental Progress
By providing an alternate water supply to affected residents, the potential for exposure to
contaminants in the groundwater has been eliminated while final cleanup remedies are being
selected and implemented at the Lemberger Landfill, Inc. site.
April1991 52 LEMBERGER LANDFILL, INC.
-------
LEMBERGER
TRANSPORT
RECYCLING
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID056247208
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Manitowoc County
Whitelaw
The 16-acre Lemberger Transport and Recycling site operated as an unlined landfill from 1970
to 1976. From 800,000 to 1 million gallons of tars and paint sludges were buried at the site.
Heavy metals and phenols have leached into groundwater. Large quantities of aluminum dust
also are buried on the site, as are polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from the cleanup of a spill.
In 1976, the site was closed and covered with 1 foot of clay. Between 1976 and 1980, additional
clay covering was added. The owner of the farms adjoining the landfill has plowed portions of
the site, exposing bulk wastes and drums. In 1985, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) sampled residential wells in the area and found contamination. This site is
located less than 1/4 mile away from the Lemberger Landfill, also a National Priorities List site.
Lemberger Transport and Recycling and the Lemberger Landfill, Inc. operated under the same
license. The Branch River, 1/2 mile west of the site, is used for swimming, fishing, and
canoeing. Hunting occurs in the area, and site access is unrestricted. Approximately 2,700
individuals live within 3 miles of the site and obtain their potable water supply from a shallow
aquifer.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater underlying the site has been shown to be contaminated with
various volatile organic compounds (VOCs); phenols; and heavy metals including
lead, chromium, and aluminum. Soil contamination includes VOCs, semi-volatile
organic compounds, pesticides, PCBs, and inorganic compounds. Potential health
threats include drinking or coming in direct contact with contaminated
groundwater or soil.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the
groundwater and source control.
53
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Groundwater: In 1987, the EPA began an investigation to determine the extent and
nature of contamination of the groundwater and to identify alternative long-term cleanup
methods. A draft investigation report was completed in late 1990. The groundwater
remedy has been recommended but not yet agreed upon. Cleanup is expected to include
groundwater extraction, treatment and discharge into the Branch River, groundwater monitoring,
and temporary groundwater use restrictions. The remedy is expected to be selected in 1991.
Source Control: In 1991. the EPA began additional studies designed to add to the data
uncovered by the site investigation begun in 1987. The study will define the nature and
extent of cleanup required to establish control over the source of contamination.
Recommendations for cleanup are expected in 1993.
Site Facts: In 1982, the State signed a Consent Order with Lemberger Transport and Recycling,
requiring it to report on site conditions, including an analysis of the extent of groundwater
contamination and recommendations for cleanup actions. However, the site owners filed for
bankruptcy in 1982.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that no immediate actions were required at the Lemberger Transport and Recycling site while
investigations are taking place and cleanup activities are being selected.
April 1991 54 LEMBERGER TRANSPORT AND RECYCLING
-------
MADISON/ o
METROPOLITAN
SEWER AGE DISTRICT
LAGOONS
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID078934403
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Dane County
Madison
Site Description
The 135-acre Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District Lagoons site is owned by the City of
Madison, which has been depositing sludge from its Nine Springs Sewer Treatment Plant in the
two lagoons since 1942. In 1970, a section of the new lagoon's dike broke, releasing 85,000
gallons of liquid from the lagoons into an old effluent channel that runs north to Nine Springs
Creek, which empties into the Yahara River. A large number of fish were killed. A second dike
broke in 1973. The lagoons are in a low-lying area bordered by wetlands. Approximately
94,000 people reside near the site and obtain drinking water from wells within 3 miles of the site.
A mobile home park of about 250 units is 1,000 feet from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
The sludge in the lagoons is contaminated with polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
and is a potential health concern to people living near the site. People working on
the cropland where sludge is applied may be exposed to PCBs. Hunting occurs in
the wetland adjacent to the site. The lagoons are feeding areas for many species
of waterfowl. In addition, surface water in the old effluent channel is tainted from
the PCB-contaminated sludge.
55
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The potentially responsible parties are beginning to conduct an
investigation of the site to determine the nature and extent of contamination. Alternative
cleanup remedies will be evaluated, based on the findings of this investigation.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that no immediate actions were required at the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District Lagoons
site while investigations are being conducted and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991
56
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT LAGOONS
-------
MASTER DISPOSAL
SERVICE LANDFILL
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID980820070
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Waukesha County
City of Brookfield
Site Description
Master Disposal Service, Inc. operated a 26-acre landfill on the western edge of Brookfield. The site
was licensed by the State to receive wastes in 1977. Until early in 1982, the company filled a
portion of a wetland near the banks of the Fox River with over 668,000 cubic yards of industrial
wastes including solvents, paints, adhesives, oils, and foundry wastes. A drainage ditch adjacent to
the site runs into the Fox River. In addition to its landfill operations, the facility also burned
disposed material. No wastes have been accepted at the site since it closed in 1982. State sampling
established that groundwater near the site is contaminated with heavy metals and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Approximately 10,000 people reside within 3 miles of the site and depend on
10 municipal wells in the same area for their potable water.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
The air and groundwater are contaminated with VOCs including benzene, toluene, and
xylenes. The groundwater also is contaminated with heavy metals such as iron,
manganese, and barium. Accidental ingestion, direct contact with, and inhalation of
contaminated airborne dusts may be a potential health threat. The site is essentially a
raised plateau in the middle of a wetland, which could be contaminated from site runoff.
57
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The potentially responsible party completed an investigation in 1990 to
determine the nature and extent of contamination and to identify alternatives for site
cleanup. Based on the results of the investigation, the EPA selected a cleanup strategy
which includes the following: (1) capping the site; (2) installing appropriate gas venting; (3)
installing a groundwater pump and treat system; and (4) determining the extent of wetlands and
planning for their protection or restoration during site cleanup. The design for these technologies is
expected to begin in mid-1991. After a two-year period of implementation, the EPA will re-evaluate
this strategy to determine whether further enhancement is necessary to fully meet cleanup goals.
Site Facts: In 1977, the State signed an agreement requiring Master Disposal Service to develop
and implement a proper site abandonment plan.
Environmental Progress
After listing the Master Disposal Service Landfill site on the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary
evaluations and determined that the site does not pose an imminent threat to the surrounding
population or the environment. The selection of the cleanup remedy has been made and the design
of the remedy is scheduled to begin in mid-1991.
April 1991 58 MASTER DISPOSAL SERVICE LANDFILL
-------
MID-STATE DISPOSAL,
INC. LANDfE
WISCONSIN
EPAID#WID9808230&2
O
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Marathon County
4 miles northeast of the Village of Stratford
The Mid-State Disposal, Inc. Landfill (MSD) site is a 160-acre parcel of land located four miles
northeast of Stratford and 18 miles southwest of Wausau. The site includes the 22-acre "Old
Mound" landfill, the 5-acre "Interim Expansion" area, and a 3-acre sludge lagoon. All three are
covered with soil and vegetation. MSD conducted landfilling operations from 1970 to 1979,
receiving municipal, industrial, and commercial wastes, as well as construction and demolition
debris. Specific wastes received included paper mill sludges, asbestos dust, solvents, pesticides,
paint sludges, and metals. Over the years, the covers of the Old Mound landfill, the Interim
Expansion area, and the sludge lagoon have been improperly maintained. Numerous
environmental problems and permit violations were noted by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) during a site inspection in 1974, while evaluating whether MSD was
in compliance with the newly enacted State Solid Waste Disposal Regulations. In early 1977,
the WDNR approved a plan to close the Old Mound landfill. Later that year, MSD was fined for
improper closure of the landfill, and another order was issued. A leachate containment pond on
the western edge of the site ruptured, releasing 150,000 to 200,000 gallons of leachate into Rock
Creek during the late 1970s. In 1979, a lawsuit was filed by the State, ceasing operations at the
site. The Weyerhaeuser Company, a generator of waste disposed at the facility, agreed to
properly close the site in 1979. The pond leachate was removed, and the three waste disposal
areas were covered. Leachate collection systems were installed in late 1979 for both the sludge
lagoon and the interim expansion area; only the leachate collected from the latter has been
removed and treated off site. The site is surrounded by abandoned railroad tracks; two sludge
disposal lagoons owned by Weyerhaeuser, Inc. on the northeast; and private property on the east.
Ten residences are located within a 1-mile radius of the site. Most land near the site is devoted
to dairy and cash crop farming, though a few small businesses are scattered throughout the area.
Surface water from west of the Old Mound landfill drains to an unnamed tributary of Rock
Creek, and surface water from east of the Old Mound landfill drains to an unnamed tributary of
the Big Eau Pleine River.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
59
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Several heavy metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene, vinyl
chloride, and methylene chloride were detected in the groundwater. Leachate samples
contained metals and VOCs; above drinking water standards. On-site samples taken from
the sludge lagoon, Interim Expansion area, and the Old Mound landfill were found to be
contaminated with heavy metals. Samples containing VOCs were collected from the
tributary to Rock Creek. Soil samples from an area along the western edge of the site
were found to be contaminated with heavy metals, phthalates (plastic by-products), and
dieldrin, a pesticide. One off-site sample taken near a tributary to Rock Creek contained
iron and copper at concentrations exceeding Federal water quality standards designed to
protect aquatic animals. Direct contact with and accidental ingestion of contaminated
soil, surface water, groundwater, leachate, or sediments may pose risks to public health
and aquatic organisms. Nearby wildlife potentially is threatened by site contaminants.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA selected the following cleanup actions: (1) imposing
deed restrictions on the site to ensure that future site owners do not cause new releases
from the site by building on or excavating soil from the site (restrictions also would be
placed on large off-site groundwater withdrawals in the site vicinity to prevent the use of
contaminated groundwater); (2) constructing a fence around the site to prevent potential trespassing;
(3) reconstructing on-site roads to accommodate truck traffic during the cleanup; (4) groundwater,
surface water, and residential well monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the cleanup actions;
(5) landfill gas monitoring; (6) off-site groundwater monitoring; (7) provision of an alternate water
supply for nearby residences; (8) improvement of surface water drainage; (9) leachate and ponded
water collection and off-site treatment; (10) institutional controls to prevent well installation on site;
(11) solidifying sludge to reduce water content in it and capping the sludge lagoon to reduce rainfall
seepage into the sludge lagoon; and (12) constructing new soil covers and a landfill gas collection
system at the Old Mound and Interim Expansion area. Under EPA monitoring, the panics
potentially responsible for the site contamination began designing the cleanup remedies in 1989. A
pre-design study has been conducted to characterize the cap and the lagoon, as well as to install
additional monitoring wells to determine whether the lower aquifer is contaminated. The cleanup
work is scheduled to begin in 1992.
Alternative Water Supply: In 1989, the potentially responsible panics began design
activities, including identifying an appropriate water source to provide an alternate water
supply. The alternate water supply is scheduled to be installed in spring 1991.
Site Facts: In 1980, a group of citizens filed suit against Mid-State Disposal, Inc., Weyerhaeuser,
and the WDNR for past improper handling and disposal of hazardous waste at the site.
1991 60 MID-STATE DISPOSAL, INC. LANDFILL
-------
Environmental Progress
After placing the site on the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary evaluations and determined
that the site does not pose an imminent threat to the surrounding population or the environment
while the designing of final site remedies is being completed at the Mid-State Disposal, Inc.
Landfill site.
MID-STATE DISPOSAL, INC LANDFILL
61
April 1991
-------
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Milwaukee County
Milwaukee
Other Names:
Kerr McGee Chem. Corp. Forest Prod. Div.
MOSS-AMERI
(KERR-MCGE
WISCONSIN
EPAID#WID039052626
Site Description
The 88-acre Moss-American site is located in northwestern Milwaukee. Operations at the site began
in 1921, when the Moss Tie Company began to treat railroad ties with creosote, a wood preservative.
The site operated from 1921 until 1976, when it was closed by Kerr-McGee, a former owner.
During the facility's period of operation, liquid wastes were discharged to settling ponds that drained
into the Little Menomonee River. Between 1963 and 1965, the Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation
purchased both companies and formed the Moss-American Company. Contamination at the site was
first reported during the late 1960s. In 1971, several people received creosote-related chemical
burns from wading in the Little Menomonee River. The EPA filed an injunction against Kerr-
McGee in 1974, ordering the cleanup of contaminated river sediments. Following the site's closing
in 1976, the EPA continued to investigate the site and to gather evidence for its suit. The case,
however, was dismissed in 1978 because of erroneous field data. Milwaukee County dropped its
pending lawsuit against Kerr-McGee that same year in exchange for 65 acres of the site. Kerr-
McGee sold the remaining 23 acres of the site to the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Company
in 1980. The site is surrounded by a mixture of urban and rural uses. The railroad company now
uses the parcel as an automobile loading and storage area. Total population within a 1-mile radius of
the site is estimated at 9,500 people, all of whom depend on public wells for drinking water. The
Little Menomonee River crosses the site area and is used for recreational purposes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater samples have shown elevated levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Free-standing creosote or an oil sheen
was observed in three monitoring well samples; similar observations were noted in eight
test pits. The primary contaminants detected in the river sediments are PAHs.
Contaminants found in the soil in the processing area and vicinity, the treated wood
storage area, and the northeast and southeast landfills include PAHs and BTX
compounds, both components of creosote. PAHs were detected in a ditch that drains
water from the site to the river. The Little Menomonee River has been negatively
impacted by surface water runoff and sediment from the site. Potential health risks exist
for individuals inhaling volatilized chemicals or ingesting or making direct contact with
the contaminated sediments, soil, groundwater, or surface water.
63
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: interim actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Interim Actions: Contaminated sediment along 1,700 feet of the riverbed adjacent to the
site was excavated and landfilled near the northeastern corner of the site. In 1973, the EPA
financed the dredging of approximately 5,000 feet of the river. The plant facilities were
demolished in 1978, and some oil-saturated soil was excavated and shipped to the Nuclear
Engineering Landfill in Sheffield, Illinois.
~«°°|>, Entire Site: The EPA completed an investigation in 1990 to identify the key physical
<^ features of the site, to locate on-site sources of creosote and other contaminants or
' hazardous wastes, and to determine the extent of contaminated soil, groundwater, and river
sediment. Based on the results of this investigation, the EPA has selected remedies for cleanup,
which include rerouting the Little Menomonee River, pumping and treating contaminated
groundwater, and a combination of soil washing and bioremediation using bacterial organisms.
Approximately 86,500 cubic yards of soil and sediment will be treated. The design of these
technologies is expected to begin in 1991.
Environmental Progress
By removing contaminated sediment from the Little Menomonee River, the EPA has reduced the
potential for exposure to hazardous materials in the river while the final cleanup remedies are being
designed for the Moss-American site.
April 1991 64 MOSS-AMERICAN (KERR-MCGEE OIL CO.)
-------
MUSKEGO SANITARY
LANDFILL '
WISCONSIN
EPAID#WID000713180
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Waukesha County
Muskego
Other Names:
Wauer Landfill
The 56-acre Muskego Sanitary Landfill site is a former rendering plant with associated wastewater
lagoons located northeast of the site. The site is defined by two areas known as the old fill and the
southeast fill. Prior to landfill operations, the site was run as a farm by the Alfred Wauer family.
The Wauers, who also ran the off-site animal rendering plant and associated waste lagoons, used an
inactive sand and gravel pit located on the farm for the disposal of animal carcasses and blood. The
quarry pit evolved into an open dump, and in 1954, Mr. Wauer obtained a permit from the City of
Muskego. The old fill was operated as a public dumping ground. During the 1960s, the Wauers
allegedly accepted waste oils and paint products as part of a drum salvage operation. The drums
were emptied at or near the old fill and their contents were burned in open fires. The drums were
then reclaimed and resold. In 1969, Acme Disposal, a subsidiary of Waste Management of
Wisconsin, Inc. (WMWI), leased the property and continued operations at the dump. The old fill
was licensed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) in 1971 as a sanitary
landfill. In 1975, the WDNR determined that the quality of groundwater was deteriorating in the
vicinity of the site and subsequently ordered WMWI to cap and close the old fill. By 1976, the
landfill had been renamed the Muskego Sanitary Landfill and was operated directly by WMWI. The
southeast fill was approved as a sanitary landfill by the WDNR in 1977 and remained active until it
was filled to capacity and closed in 1981. Groundwater contamination was discovered in 1982 when
the WDNR reviewed data in its response to a request from WMWI for approval to do repair work on
both fill areas. The Town of Waukesha, with a population of 51,000, is to the east of the landfill.
The Fox River and associated wetlands are in the area.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater underlying the site has been shown to be contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals including lead and chromium from landfill wastes.
Potential health risks exist for individuals who drink the contaminated groundwater. The
wetlands also may be threatened.
65
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on the removal of on-site waste and cleanup of the groundwater.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1982, the WDNR found elevated levels of contaminants in four
residential wells. The four affected homes were purchased by WMWI. In 1985, the City
of Muskego created a public water utility and constructed a system to serve area homes
that may be using contaminated wells. Approximately 19,820 pounds of liquid solvents and 1,735
tons of contaminated soil and old drums were removed from the site by the potentially responsible
parties in spring 1990.
On-Site Waste: Under EPA monitoring, WMWI initiated an investigation in 1987 to
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site and to identify alternative
cleanup methods. The investigation is scheduled to be completed in late 1991. The EPA
will evaluate the results of geophysical surveying, groundwater monitoring, test pit and soil
sampling, and private well sampling, and will then select the final cleanup strategy for site
contamination by the end of 1991.
Groundwater: In 1987, the potentially responsible parties began a study to determine
the nature and extent of groundwater contamination and to identify cleanup alternatives.
The study is expected to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: WMWI entered into an agreement to finance and conduct the investigation at the site.
The Administrative Order was signed in 1987 by WMWI, the EPA, and the WDNR.
Environmental Progress
The purchase of the four homes with contaminated wells and construction of a public water supply
have reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated groundwater while site studies are being
conducted and cleanup activities are being planned at the Muskego Sanitary Landfill site.
April! 991 66 MUSKEGO SANITARY LANDFILL
-------
N.W. MAUTHE
COMPANY, INQ
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID083290981
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Outagamie County
Appleton
The 2-acre N.W. Mauthe Company, Inc. site operated as a chromium electroplating facility from
1946 to 1976. The building was leased during this time by Wisconsin Chromium Corporation.
Norbert Mauthe had owned the facility since 1966, and the property is now being managed by his
estate. The facility was a generator of hazardous waste, which has severely contaminated the site
with chromium. The chromium leaked through the floor and from a vent directly onto the ground.
The EPA conducted tests in 1985 and detected chromium and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in
the soil and groundwater. In 1982, contaminated groundwater from the site entered the basement of
a home and was discharged to storm sewers that lead to the Fox River, 1/2 mile from the site. The
river drains into Lake Winnebago, which provides drinking water to 60,000 people. The river flows
toward the City of Green Bay and empties into the Green Bay. Approximately 11,000 people obtain
drinking water from public and private wells within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soils contain various VOCs and heavy metals including chromium.
People who come in direct contact with or accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater
or soil may be at risk. If contaminants leach into the river or lake, wildlife in or around
the water may be harmed.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
67
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1982, the State installed a system to collect shallow groundwater,
preventing puddles from forming. A portion of the site was covered with asphalt to limit
rainwater from coming into contact with the soil.
Entire Site: The State has begun an investigation to determine the extent of groundwater
and soil contamination at the; site. Once this investigation is completed in 1993, the EPA
will review the recommended measures for site cleanup and will select the final strategy to
address site contamination.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions to install a shallow groundwater collection system and paving a portion of the site
with asphalt have reduced the potential for migration of contaminants from the N.W. Mauthe
Company, Inc. site while studies are underway and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 68 N.W. MAUTHE COMPANY, INC.
-------
NATIONAL PRE
INDUSTRIES, I
WISCONSIN
EPAID#WID006196174
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Eau Claire County and
Chippewa County
Eau Claire
The 325-acre National Presto Industries (NPI) site originally was owned by the U.S. Government
and operated as a small arms loading plant and manufacturing facility for radar tubes during the
1940s. NPI purchased the property in 1947 and has maintained sole ownership of the facility. From
1948 until 1954, NPI manufactured consumer goods at the site. During this same period, the facility
also was used for defense-related activities, including the manufacturing of fuses for the Army and
parts for military aircraft. Since 1954, NPI has dedicated the plant for the production of artillery
shell parts under contracts with the Army. Manufacturing operations at the facility ceased in 1980.
While the facility currently is inactive, an NPI subsidiary, National Defense Corporation, maintains
it in a state of readiness for the Army. Wastewater generated at the facility originally was
discharged to seven on-site seepage pits. By 1952, the seepage pits could no longer handle the high
volume of water flow from the plant, and the wastewater was pumped to a former sand and gravel
pit, which may have been used as a disposal area before 1948. From 1967 to 1969, wastewater
lagoons were constructed to provide additional treatment and disposal capacity. Up to 2 1/2 million
gallons of wastewater were discharged into the lagoons each day. Between 1966 and 1969, wastes
containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were disposed of in one of the lagoons and in an area
northeast of the plant known as the Melby Road site. In 1986, an additional disposal area was
discovered on the eastern end of the NPI property line, following a complaint to the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Drums containing a variety of waste materials were
found and later were removed and stored on an unused loading dock at the plant by NPI. The City
of Eau Claire has a population of 53,400 people. Many nearby residences use private wells. The
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field, another site on the NPL, is located within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soils are contaminated with various VOCs and heavy metals. Low
levels of VOCs were detected in Lake Hallie, approximately 1 mile north of the site.
Potential health threats include accidentally ingesting or coming in direct contact with
contaminated soil or groundwater. Access to the main plant area is restricted by fencing
and is checked by security guards throughout the day and night. Access to the remainder
of the site is not restricted, although much of the site is surrounded by a fence.
69
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of contamination sources and groundwater and installation of a permanent water
supply.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: NPI is providing bottled water to the Town of Hallie's residents.
Bottled water is being distributed to homes and businesses with contaminated wells and to
those that may be threatened with contamination by VOCs from the site. Fences have
been erected to restrict access to the main plant and the lagoon, as well as to the disposal area.
Source Control and Groundwater: Under EPA monitoring, NPI initiated an
investigation to determine the nature and extent of site contamination and to determine
alternatives for surface wastes and groundwater cleanup. Initial results indicate that
groundwater cleanup will require pump and treatment technologies. Alternatives under
consideration for source areas include soil vapor extraction, consolidation and capping, and
recycling some of the surface wastes as aggregate for asphalt. The EPA expects to review the study
results and to select final cleanup technologies in 1991. The Department of the Army has committed
funds to assist in the cleanup costs for the military's share of the site contamination.
Permanent Water Supply: In 1991, the City of Eau Claire and the Hallie Sanitary
District began construction of permanent water supply hookups to serve the area affected
by contaminated groundwater. These actions, funded by NPI, are expected to be
completed in late 1991.
Site Facts: In 1986, NPI signed a Consent Order with the EPA and the State to conduct an
investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site and to identify
alternative cleanup remedies. A Unilateral Order was issued in 1989 for bottled water to be
distributed to affected residents. An additional 1991 Unilateral Order was issued, requiring NPI to
pay for construction of the alternate water supply.
Environmental Progress
Bottled water will continue to be provided to residents affected by contaminated water until the
replacement water systems are operating and providing a safe water supply. Additional
investigations have identified preliminary remedy selections to address contamination cleanup at the
National Presto Industries, Inc. site.
April! 991 70 NATIONAL PRESTO INDUSTRIES, INC
-------
NORTHERN ENGRAVI
COMPANY
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID006183826
Site Description
o
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Monroe County
Sparta
The Northern Engraving Company (NEC) owns and operates a manufacturing facility at this site.
The company produces metal nameplates, dials, and decorative trim for the auto industry. Four
separate areas of contamination at the NEC facility have been identified, including the sludge
lagoon, seepage pit, sludge dump site, and lagoon drainage ditch. The contaminants found in these
areas are from past wastewater treatment and disposal practices used at the site. Since the 1960s,
wastewaters and by-products of the metal finishing process have been treated on site. An on-site
wastewater treatment lagoon was installed in 1967. Rinse water from the plant was collected and
treated with sodium hydroxide for precipitation to metal hydroxide solids. The treated rinse water
was discharged to the sludge lagoon to allow solids to settle. The treated lagoon effluent was
discharged to the LaCrosse River by way of a storm drainage ditch. Between 1968 and 1976, the
sludge lagoon accumulated solids from the treated wastewater. On two occasions, sludge was
removed from the lagoon and landfilled in an on-site dump area. The sludge lagoon eventually was
removed from service in 1980, and an on-site seepage pit was used to neutralize spent acid waste.
The pit was removed from service, filled with clean material, and graded in 1981. A new
aboveground wastewater treatment system was installed in 1976 and modified in 1984. The nearby
LaCrosse River is used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site drainage ditch was contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) from metal
finishing wastes. Groundwater and sludge were contaminated with heavy metals
including copper, chromium, iron, zinc, nickel, and fluoride. Site cleanup has eliminated
the potential for health risks.
71
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1988, under EPA monitoring, the parties potentially responsible for
the contamination excavated and solidified approximately 4,400 cubic yards of sludge
and soil, installed a cover over the lagoon to prevent further site contamination,
imposed access and deed restrictions on the seepage pit property, and implemented groundwater
monitoring. A full year of groundwater sampling has been completed, and results indicate that
contamination levels have been reduced as a result of the surface cleanup. Further groundwater
monitoring will be continued on a quarterly basis until a baseline for water quality for the area
can be established for purposes of comparison. Once the baseline is established, the monitoring
will be conducted semi-annually. The need for further monitoring will be evaluated in 5 years.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed by the potentially responsible panics, the EPA, and
the State, under which the company conducted investigative and site cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
The removal activities described above have addressed surface wastes and contaminated material
and have halted further groundwater impacts. The Northern Engraving Company site no longer
poses a threat to human health or the environment. No further cleanup activities are required at
the site at this time; however, groundwater monitoring will be continued to ensure the long-term
effectiveness of the remedies.
April 1991 72 NORTHERN ENGRAVING COMPANY
-------
OCONOMOWOC
ELECTROPLATING
COMPANY, INC.
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID006100275
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Dodge County
Ashippin
The 5-acre Oconomowoc Electroplating Company, Inc. site is adjacent to Davy Creek and 300 acres
of wetlands. The shop has been in operation since 1957, using heavy metals in electroplating
operations. The wastes generated from the process were discharged into the adjacent wetlands.
Degreasing operations also were performed in conjunction with the process. In 1972, the company
built two unlined settling lagoons to increase wastewater treatment capacity. Sludges have
accumulated in the lagoons and some were removed throughout the 1970s. During this time, the
company constructed a wastewater treatment plant. Inefficient operation of the lagoons and the
treatment plant, as well as discharges of untreated wastewater, have resulted in an accumulation of
metal sludge in a wetland adjacent to Davy Creek, a tributary to the Rock River a mile downstream
of the site. The unlined lagoons, chemical spills, and plant operations also may have contaminated
the groundwater in the area. Plating wastes have eaten through the concrete waste troughs in the
plant floor and also have seeped out of the ground near the plant walls. Drums of wastes are leaking
on site, and sludges have spilled from lagoon impoundments. Approximately 1,400 people live
within 3 miles of the site. The nearest house is 150 feet from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
IA
The groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals, cyanide, and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from electroplating activities. The wetland and creek sediment
and surface water are contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium,
copper, and lead. The on-site soil is contaminated with heavy metals including
chromium, cadmium, copper, and arsenic. Metal sludges have accumulated in the
wetlands and in settling lagoons. Ingesting, coming in direct contact with, or inhaling
the contaminated soil, groundwater, and sediments may cause a potential health
threat. Wetlands and creek sediments contain contaminants that threaten the
wetlands, and aquatic organisms could bioaccumulate pollutants, which would pose a
threat to anyone consuming those organisms.
73
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: an immediate action and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of the lagoons and soils and cleanup of the wetlands.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: In 1987, the EPA installed a fence around the entire site to
restrict access.
Lagoons and Soils: In 1990, the EPA completed an investigation into the extent of
contamination and alternative remedies that could be used to clean up the site. The
EPA selected to close the lagoons; excavate and stabilize lagoon and other
contaminated soils and sediments and to dispose of them in an approved landfill; and to pump
and treat groundwater with ion exchange, air stripping, carbon adsorption, and chemical
oxidation. Design of these remedies began in 1990, with cleanup scheduled to begin in 1992.
Wetlands: In 1990, the EPA began an investigation into the nature and extent of
contamination in adjacent wetlands. Field work is expected to be conducted in the
summer of 1991. The study is expected to be completed in late 1992.
Site Facts: In 1981, the State ordered the Oconomowoc Electroplating Company, Inc. to
restrict its discharge of heavy metals into the wetlands.
Environmental Progress
The fencing of the site has reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated materials at the
Oconomowoc Electroplating Company, Inc. site while investigations are taking place and
cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 74 OCONOMOWOC ELECTROPLATING
COMPANY, INC.
-------
OMEGA HILL
NORTH LANDFILL
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID000808568
Site Description
o
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Washington County
Germantown
Other Names:
Germantown Landfill 1
Chem. Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin
Lauer Landfill II
The Omega Hills North Landfill Site covers 83 acres in the southeastern part of Wisconsin, near
metropolitan Milwaukee. The State of Wisconsin licensed this landfill to accept hazardous wastes
from 1977 to 1982. It is estimated that the facility accepted about 5,000 tons of hazardous waste
each year. The State estimates there are now over 150,000 cubic yards of waste on the site. This
total includes 3,300 cubic yards of heavy metals and 350 cubic yards of solvents. About 250
Wisconsin industries have used the site for hazardous waste disposal. Large amounts of asbestos
have been and still are being disposed of at the site. More than 15 million gallons of liquid wastes
were disposed of at this site each year until it stopped accepting such wastes; this includes an
estimated 6 million gallons of hazardous liquid waste. The site stopped accepting hazardous wastes
in 1982 and liquid wastes in 1983. In 1989, the site stopped accepting all wastes, and a soil cover
was installed. The facility originally was built below the level of groundwater under the site. This
allows leachate to flow away from the landfill and into an extensive network that collects the waste
material before it reaches the groundwater. However, the system for collecting leachate has not
operated as it was designed, which resulted in 200 million gallons of liquid waste accumulating
under the site. Approximately 42,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site. There are 874
private wells within 3 miles of the landfill. The nearest municipal well is 1 1/2 miles away, and the
nearest residences are 150 yards from the site. Several office buildings are located within 100 yards
of the property.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
75
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Leachate has been migrating from the site and has contaminated the shallow
groundwater under several private wells in the area with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including benzenes, toluene, and vinyl chloride. Leachate contains heavy
metals such as zinc, nickel, arsenic, and cadmium, as well as phthalates and VOCs
including trichloroethyleae (TCE). Leachate on site also contains cyanide, gases,
petrochemicals, and pesticides. Surface water in off-site streams contains VOCs.
People could be exposed to hazardous chemicals from the site by drinking
contaminated groundwater, eating crops grown with contaminated water or soil, or by
inhaling contaminated dust particles. Dairy farms and orchards are adjacent to the site,
and crops such as corn, soybeans, and apples could be contaminated if they are
irrigated with contaminated groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Currently, a number of low fences surround the site, and signs
have been posted warning people not to trespass on the landfill property. The site is closed
and covered with clay. Under State monitoring, the owner of the site installed additional
perimeter slurry or compacted clay cut-off walls and systems to collect leachate, preventing it from
entering the groundwater under the site. The owner also installed a pre-treatment plant for the
leachate and more devices to intercept and collect gases that escape from the landfill.
Entire Site: The owner of the site is conducting a study to determine more clearly the
nature and extent of contamination. Once the investigation has been completed and all site
contamination has been identified, the State will select the final cleanup strategy for the
site, possibly under authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) rather than
Superfund.
Site Facts: In 1989, the owner of the site entered into a stipulated agreement with the State to
decrease the levels of leachate under the site and to address other environmental problems. The
facility closed later that year.
Environmental Progress
Collecting and treating leachate, covering the landfill, and fencing and posting the site have
substantially reduced exposure to contaminants while investigations leading to the selection of final
remedies for the Omega Hills North Landfill are taking place.
April 1991 76 OMEGA HILLS NORTH LANDFILL
-------
ONALASKA MU
LANDFILL
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID980821656
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
LaCrosse County
Onalaska
The Onalaska Municipal Landfill covers 7 acres of an 11-acre parcel located in a rural, agricultural
area near homes and a sportsman's club. The landfill area was originally mined as a sand and gravel
quarry in the early 1960s. From 1969 to 1980, the Town of Onalaska was licensed to operate a
municipal landfill at the former quarry. Municipal trash and industrial chemical wastes including
naphtha, toluene, and paint residues were disposed of at the site. Open burning was also carried out
until 1971, when the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) banned this practice
after it received complaints of heavy smoke and odors. After 1971, barrels containing waste were
emptied into pre-excavated holes, and, occasionally, full barrels were buried. In one case, it is
alleged that 300 barrels were buried, and in another case, it is alleged that a 500-gallon tank truck
partially filled with paint residues was buried at the site. The EPA estimates that the equivalent of
2,500 drums of liquid wastes were disposed of at the site. The WDNR closed the landfill in 1980.
Areas of the site are capped with sand and silts. The closest residence is within 300 feet of the site,
and the population within a 1-mile radius is 320. The nearby Black River is a major recreational
resource for residents in the surrounding area.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
IV
Groundwater contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including trichloroethylene
(TCE) and toluene, naphtha, and barium. The groundwater in the sand and gravel aquifer
below the site is believed to be in contact with the buried waste during times of high
water. Chemicals in the landfill are leaching into the groundwater, which may eventually
reach an adjacent wetlands area and the nearby Black River. People could be exposed to
contaminants from the site by drinking contaminated groundwater and by breathing in
vapors that escape from contaminated groundwater when used for washing and
showering. Groundwater flows from the site toward the upper Mississippi River Wildlife
Refuge, which also borders the Black River and Lake Onalaska. Contaminated runoff
from the site could affect these surface waters, as well as the aquatic plants and animals
and wildlife residing in these areas.
77
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The Town of Onalaska placed a cap over the landfill in 1982 to prevent
seepage from spreading contaminants. A residential well was replaced due to contam-
ination that exceeded the Federal drinking water and State groundwater quality standards.
Entire Site: Based on studies of the site involving sampling and extensive field work,
the EPA and the WDNR considered various technologies to address contamination and
chose, in a 1990 decision: iri-situ bioremediation, groundwater pump and treat, and
capping to address contaminated sediment, surface water, groundwater, and soil. The EPA began
designing the cleanup approach in early 1991. Cleanup is scheduled to begin in 1992.
Environmental Progress
Placing a cover over the landfill and replacing a residential water well have eliminated any imminent
threats of direct contact with hazardous materials while cleanup activities for the Onalaska Landfill
site are being planned.
April 1991 78 ONALASKA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
-------
SAUK COUNTY
LANDFILL
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID980610141
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Sauk County
10 miles west of Baraboo
Site Description
The 10-acre Sauk County Landfill site operated as a landfill, accepting municipal and foundry
wastes. In 1973, the County received a permit from the State to accept municipal waste, which was
hauled in from several small municipalities and placed on the site until 1983. The landfill also
accepted foundry wastes from Grede Foundry, Inc. Foundry sand formed berms within the landfill
area. An estimated 2% of the wastes were baghouse dusts containing lead and cadmium. The
landfill was closed in 1983, and clay was placed on the top and sides of the facility. An EPA
inspection in 1985 led to the discovery that methane gas is being generated from site wastes and that
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals are present in on-site monitoring wells.
Approximately 900 people obtain drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with the VOCs toluene and benzene and heavy metals
including arsenic, chromium, and barium. The greatest potential health threat to people is
drinking contaminated groundwater or inhaling vapors from the groundwater. Inhaling
air contaminated with methane gas also is a potential health threat.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
79
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: When the landfill was closed in 1983, clay was placed over it to prevent
water from entering the landfill.
Entire Site: The State, in cooperation with the EPA, will begin an investigation into the
nature and extent of soil, groundwater, and other contamination at the site in late 1991.
The investigation will define the contaminants of concern and will recommend alternatives
for the final site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
By initially covering the landfill with clay, the potential for hazardous materials moving into the
groundwater or the surrounding area has been greatly reduced while investigations leading to the
final selection of cleanup remedies are underway at the Sauk County Landfill site.
April 1991
80
SAUK COUNTY LANDFILL
-------
SCHMALZ DUMP
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID980820096
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Calumet County
Town of Harrison
Site Description
The 3/4-acre Schmalz Dump site is located on the northern shore of Lake Winnebago and was the
location of unauthorized industrial dumping during the 1960s and 1970s. The previous site owner
began filling the property in 1968. Records show that the wastes disposed of included car bodies,
stone, trees, pulp chips, mash, fly ash, bottom ash, and demolition debris. Adjacent property to the
north and west of the site also was used for waste disposal. Reportedly, these wastes included ashes
and a white sludge. Evidently, garbage was deposited in a marshy area that once existed
immediately beyond the southern property line. In 1972 and 1973, the site accepted fly ash and
bottom ash from a utility company. In 1978 and 1979, the site accepted polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB)-contaminated building demolition debris that was later used to fill a wetland area. In 1979, in
response to residents' complaints, the State ordered the transportation of demolition materials to the
site to cease. There are about 60 residences and businesses within 1,000 feet of the property, and the
site is about 500 feet from Lake Winnebago, a source of public water supply. All water users in the
area are connected to the Menash water system, although some have retained wells for auxiliary
purposes. The neighboring City of Appleton, with a population of 60,000, has its drinking water
intake approximately 1,200 feet from the shore of Lake Winnebago. The present property owner
intends to convert the property into a residential development.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including lead and chromium. Sediment
and surface water samples collected from a pond near the disposal area and from the
drainage ditches leading into the pond indicate the presence of PCBs, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals. Soil was contaminated with heavy metals,
PCBs, and PAHs. Potential health threats to people include drinking contaminated
surface water and coming into direct contact with contaminated sediments. Eating
contaminated fish from the polluted waters also could present a health threat.
81
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
directed at cleanup of soil and sedimeni:s and contaminated water.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1985, the EPA constructed a 6-foot-high security fence and
posted warning signs around the entire site boundary to restrict access.
Soil and Sediments: In 1988, the EPA completed excavating and removing 3,500
cubic yards of PCB-contaminated debris-laden soil and sediments from the site grounds
and from an on-site pond.
Water: The EPA is preparing the technical specifications for activities to eliminate the
potential for contact with contaminated water. The selected cleanup technologies include
installation of a soil cap to contain the contaminated soil and debris, operation and
maintenance of a groundwater monitoring program, and implementation of a voluntary well
abandonment program for nearby wells. The cleanup activities will begin once site access is
obtained.
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA and one of the eight parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination reached a settlement wherein the party agreed to pay for a portion of the site cleanup
activities.
Environmental Progress
Much of the contaminated material has been removed from the Schmalz Dump site and has been
disposed of at a federally approved facility. To date, completed cleanup actions have achieved site
goals for PCB-contaminated debris and surface water contamination at the site. Therefore, no
further cleanup actions related to the debris or surface water are needed. These actions, along with
the construction of a security fence surrounding the site, have greatly reduced the potential for
exposure to hazardous materials while the long-term groundwater cleanup is being conducted.
April 1991 82 SCHMALZ DUMP
-------
SCRAP PR
CO., INC.
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID046536785
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Taylor County
Medford
Other Names:
Potaczek Scrap Yard
The 2-acre Scrap Processing Co. site, located approximately 1 mile northwest of Medford, currently
operates as a salvage yard. From 1955 to 1974, and periodically until 1981, the company cracked
lead and acid batteries to reclaim the lead that was smelted on site. During the battery crushing
operation, the equivalent of 399,000 gallons of acid wastes contaminated with heavy metals from the
batteries ran from the crushing area, along an unlined ditch, and into an unlined pond. The pond has
intermittently overflowed into the Black River, located along one side of the site, contaminating it
with heavy metals and acid. Old cars, car parts, and other materials commonly found in scrap yards
are present on the site. A company that manufactures machine parts is located next to the scrap yard.
The building that was used for battery cracking is still standing and is located on the western end of
the site. The site is bordered by a residential area, a few older homes, and a mobile home park. Two
of the older homes across the street from the site use private wells. The residents in the subdivision
to the east of the site and people in the mobile home park use water from Medford municipal wells.
Fishing is common along the river, and several parks are located along the western side of the river,
across from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, soils, and sediments are contaminated with heavy metals including lead,
barium, copper, and zinc. Elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also
found in soil samples. Potential health threats to people include accidental ingestion of
and coming in direct contact with contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. The
main contaminant of concern at this site is lead, to which pregnant women and children
are highly sensitive. In early 1990, five nearby private wells were sampled and showed
no evidence of contamination.
83
ApriM991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1984, the potentially responsible party drained the unlined pond and
disposed of the liquid in the municipal storm sewer. A total of 7,200 gallons of water
from the pond were transported to a manhole in the city park that is located on the eastern
side of the river. The first 6 inches of lead-contaminated soil and sediment were excavated and
hauled away for off-site disposal at a hazardous waste landfill. Remaining contaminated soil was
classified as solid waste and was disposed of at the Medford Municipal Landfill. Excavation and
removal of wastes were completed in 1986.
Entire Site: The EPA is planning to begin an investigation into the nature and extent of
remaining contamination at the site in 1992. The investigation will review the completed
initial actions, define the contaminants of concern, and determine if additional site
cleanup is required. This investigation is planned for completion in 1993.
Site Facts: In 1983, the State brought an enforcement action against Scrap Processing, the party
potentially responsible for the site contamination, which resulted in the company being ordered to
perform initial cleanup actions at the site.
Environmental Progress
Much of the contaminated materials, including soil and liquids, have been excavated and properly
disposed of away from the site, signific antly reducing the potential of exposure to hazardous
materials. Investigations to determine whether additional cleanup is required at the Scrap Processing
Co., Inc. site are planned to commence.
April 1991 84 SCRAP PROCESSING CO., INC.
-------
SHEBOYGAN HARBO
& RIVER
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID980996367
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Sheboygan County
55 miles north of Milwaukee
The Sheboygan Harbor & River site extends approximately 14 miles through the communities of
Sheboygan Falls, Kohler, and Sheboygan. The site area includes Sheboygan Harbor, located on
Lake Michigan, and the lower Sheboygan River, which discharges into the Sheboygan Harbor.
In 1977, the State detected polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) during routine sampling of fish.
Since then, PCBs have been detected in fish, wildlife, surface water, sediments in the harbor and
river and in flood plain soils. The highest concentrations of PCBs have been detected in
sediments immediately downstream from a die-casting plant in Sheboygan Falls. Concentrations
decline farther downstream from the plant. Heavy metals also have been found at elevated levels
in sediments. Tecumseh Products Company excavated contaminated soils from its property
along the river and disposed of them off site in 1978. The Sheboygan River drains into Lake
Michigan, the source of drinking water for approximately 58,000 people within the Sheboygan/
Sheboygan Falls/Kohler metropolitan area. The EPA has detected PCBs in sediments within a
mile of the drinking water intakes. Both the Sheboygan Harbor and River are used for
recreation.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/18/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Sediments are contaminated with PCBs, a wide variety of heavy metals, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
phthalates. Soils and surface water are contaminated with PCBs and heavy metals
including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc. People who come in direct
contact with or ingest contaminated soil, sediments, or surface water may be at
risk. Because fish and wildlife are contaminated with PCBs, people who eat
contaminated fish or waterfowl also may suffer adverse health effects. In 1978,
the State advised residents not to eat fish from the Sheboygan River and two
tributaries, the Mullet and Onion Rivers, because of PCB contamination. In 1987,
the State also issued an advisory not to eat wildlife from the area. The advisories
still are in effect.
85
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1990, Tecumseh Products Co. dredged PCB-contaminated
sediments from the Sheboygan River. Sediments are being stored in a sediment
management facility located on site until a final decision is made for disposal methods.
Entire Site: Tecumseh Products Company, Inc. began an investigation in 1986 to
determine the nature and extent of site contamination. The investigation is assessing
risks to human health and the environment and will result in the evaluation of potential
cleanup alternatives. The investigation has included sediment sampling of the river and harbor,
flood plain soil sampling, river and harbor water sampling, fish sampling, and caged fish studies.
Tecumseh is conducting an investigation to test and evaluate potential cleanup technologies that may
be used in treating PCB-contaminated sediments. A Confined Treatment Facility was built on site
and is being used to study the effectiveness of enhanced biodegradation for the treatment of PCBs in
sediments. Investigations are scheduled to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1986, the EPA and the State signed a Consent Order with Tecumseh Products,
requiring the company to conduct an investigation at the site. In 1990, the EPA and Tecumseh
products signed a Consent Order, under which Tecumseh agreed to remove PCB-contaminated
sediments.
Environmental Progress
Removal of PCB-contaminated sediments is expected to significantly reduce the threat to the local
population, wildlife, and the environment while studies of cleanup alternatives are continued at the
Sheboygan Harbor & River site.
April 1991 86 SHEBOYGAN HARBOR & RIVER
-------
SPICKLER
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID9809029
NDFILL
o
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Marathon County
Spencer
Site Description
The 80-acre Spickler Landfill site contains a 7 1/2-acre former landfill now used as a tree nursery.
The landfill began operations under private ownership in 1970, disposing of both municipal and
industrial wastes. The facility was sold to Mid-State Disposal, Inc., which operated the facility from
1972 to 1973. In 1975, Mid-State Disposal sold the site back to the original owner, who
subsequently resold the property in 1976 to the present owner. The landfill received municipal
waste and asbestos dust at a time when the landfill had no liner or leachate controls. The area
subsequently was capped with native clay soils. In 1971, with State approval, approximately 1,280
cubic yards of mercury sludge were deposited at the site in a clay-lined pit. Later that year, the pit
was capped with clay soil. The landfill closed in 1976. A site inspection in 1984 led the EPA to
observe that the pit had subsided, and water had ponded on top. Leachate was seeping into a ditch
adjacent to the site, threatening local surface water. Approximately 75 people live within a mile of
the site, and an undetermined number of private wells are located within 1/4 mile. The sandstone
aquifer provides drinking water to private wells serving 2,000 people within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/21/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater in both the upper and lower portions of the aquifer is contaminated with
heavy metals including barium, as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
toluene. Potential health threats to people include drinking or coming in direct contact
with contaminated groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
87
April! 991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Two of the potentially responsible parties, BASF and Weyerhaeuser,
currently are conducting an investigation into the nature and extent of site contamination,
under EPA monitoring. The investigation will define the contaminants and will
recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation is planned to be completed in
early 1992.
Site Facts: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination signed a Consent Order
with EPA and the State, under which the parties agreed to conduct a study of the site.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Spickler Landfill site while investigations are continuing
and cleanup activities are being planned.
April1991 88 SPICKLER LANDFILL
-------
STOUGHTON CITY
LANDFILL
WISCONSIN
o -i
EPAID#WID980901219
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Dane County
Stoughton
Other Names:
Stoughton Landfill #113
Site Description
The 27-acre Stoughton City Landfill was purchased by the City of Stoughton in 1952 for landfill
operations. Between 1952 and 1969, the site was operated as an uncontrolled dump. In 1969, the
site began operating as a State-licensed landfill. The landfill originally was established for the
disposal of commercial and municipal wastes. Local residents also used the landfill for household
waste disposal. Uniroyal, Inc., a plastics and rubber products manufacturer, disposed of wastes at
the site from 1953 to 1962. The wastes primarily consisted of solvents, other liquid chemicals, and
vinyl plastic scrap. During this time, open burning of the liquid wastes was common, and soil was
used to cover up the smoldering residue. Liquid wastes were also reported to have been disposed of
in boreholes along the western portion of the landfill. A 1972 Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) license prohibited the disposal of hazardous waste at the site. In 1978, the site
was capped, seeded, and closed according to WDNR regulations. As part of the closure plans, six
wells were installed to monitor groundwater conditions at and near the site. The landfill officially
was closed in 1982, and plans were developed by Stoughton to establish a park on top of the
revegetated site. The WDNR sampled the monitoring wells in 1983 and found that two of the six
wells contained elevated levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Routine sampling conducted
by the City of Stoughton also indicated the presence of VOCs in water collected from the monitoring
wells. Approximately 10,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site. The site is adjacent to
the Yahara River, and wetlands border the site on three sides.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with various VOCs and inorganic compounds including
arsenic and could be hazardous to the health of individuals if it is ingested over a long
period of time. The municipal wells in the City of Stoughton have a potential of being
contaminated by the hazardous materials at the site; however, because of their depth and
location, the risk is low. The site is adjacent to surface water and wetlands; zinc in water
samples from the wetlands exceeds toxic levels. Sediments contain elevated levels of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, cadmium, and lead.
89
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on source control and
groundwater containment.
Response Action Status
Source Control and Groundwater Containment: The parties potentially
responsible for the contamination are completing an investigation to determine the nature
and extent of the contamination and to identify cleanup alternatives. The study results are
expected in mid-1991. The purpose of the investigation was to: (1) identify the amounts and types
of contaminants present; (2) define the process through which contaminants may be released into the
environment; (3) define the direction in which contaminants may travel; (4) define the boundaries of
the contamination; and (5) determine the routes of exposure and potential environmental and public
health threats. The EPA plans to conduct an ecological assessment and wetlands delineation in
1991. Decision on cleanup actions to be taken are expected in late 1991. The final groundwater
cleanup will be planned after further groundwater investigation.
Site Facts: Uniroyal, Inc. and the City of Stoughton signed a Consent Order in 1988 for the
company to conduct further investigations of the site groundwater and surface water, under EPA and
WDNR oversight.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Stoughton City Landfill site while investigations are
taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
ApnM991 90 STOUGHTON CITY LANDFILL
-------
TOMAH ARMOK
WISCONSIN
EPAID#WID980610299
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Monroe County
Tomah
The 10-acre Tomah Armory site was operated by the City of Tomah as an open, unlined dump
accepting both municipal and industrial wastes from the early 1950s to 1955. During part of this
period, the City had a similar operation 2 miles to the south, which is known as the Tomah
Fairgrounds, also an NPL site. Both Tomah sites accepted primarily municipal refuse.
However, Union Camp Corporation notified the EPA that its polyethylene plant in Tomah had
sent to the two sites 23,770 gallons of solvents and heavy metals, including lead and chromium
components. The City sold part of the land to the Wisconsin National Guard for construction of
an Armory. Homes were built on the rest of the land. According to the City's Director of Public
Works, a portion or all of the dump was excavated and filled with sand before the buildings were
constructed. Approximately 9,500 people draw drinking water from public and private wells
within 3 miles of the site. The nearest well is 1 mile from the site. The Lemonweir River is
approximately 500 feet away from the site. This river and Lake Tomah are used for recreation.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/21/87
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals including chromium and lead. The
contaminated groundwater, soil, and surface water could pose a health hazard to
individuals if accidentally directly contacted or ingested. The contamination at
the site could affect the wetland adjacent to the site. Nearby Deer Creek also
could be polluted by the contamination from the site, and the trout living in the
stream could bioaccumulate the toxic substances present in the site.
91
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation of the site is planned to determine the nature and extent
of the contamination and to evaluate alternative remedies for site cleanup. The
investigation is expected to begin in 1993.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that no immediate actions were required at the Tomah Armory site while investigations are being
planned.
April! 991 92 TOMAH ARMORY
-------
TOMAH FAIRG
WISCONSIN
EPA ID#WID980616841
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Monroe County
Tomah
Site Description
From 1953 to 1959, the 10-acre Tomah Fairgrounds site was operated by the City as an open,
unlined dump, accepting both industrial and municipal wastes. During this period, the City had a
similar operation 2 miles away, where the Tomah Armory now is located; that site also is listed
on the NPL. Both Tomah sites accepted primarily municipal refuse. However, Union Camp
Corporation notified the EPA that its polyethylene plant in Tomah had sent 23,770 gallons of
solvents and heavy metals, including lead and chromium components, to the two sites. After the
dump stopped operating, the City covered the area, which then became part of the Tomah
Fairgrounds. Approximately 9,500 people draw drinking water from the public and private wells
within 3 miles of the site. The closest residence is within 1/4 mile of the site, and approximately
4,100 people live within a 1-mile radius. The site is used as a fairgrounds; therefore, access is
unrestricted. The nearest downslope water, Lake Tomah, is approximately 400 feet away from
the site and is used for recreational purposes. Because the wastes were inadequately covered and
there were no diversion structures, contaminated runoff could have reached nearby surface
waters.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/21/87
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals including chromium and lead. The
contaminated groundwater, soil, and surface water could be a health hazard to
individuals if accidentally directly contacted or swallowed. In an inspection
conducted in 1984, the EPA observed areas where erosion had worn away some
of the soil; thus, people and animals potentially could come into direct contact
with hazardous substances.
93
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: As a pre-investigation activity, the State plans to sample private wells in
the area for VOC contamination. An investigation of the site is planned to begin in
1993 to determine the nature and extent of the contamination. The results of the
investigation will be used to evaluate various cleanup alternatives and to select final cleanup
remedies.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that no immediate actions were required at the Tomah Fairgrounds site while investigations are
being planned.
April 1991 94 TOMAH FAIRGROUNDS
-------
TOMAH MUNI
SANITARY LA
WISCONSIN
EPAID#WID980610307
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Monroe County
Tomah
The 40-acre Tomah Municipal Sanitary Landfill site was owned and operated by the City of
Tomah from 1959 to 1979 and was licensed by the State to accept municipal wastes. In 1979,
the site was covered with sand and planted with red pines. The landfill is unlined. One local
facility, the Union Camp Corporation, notified the EPA that it had sent to the landfill
approximately 1,514 drums of wastes containing barium, chromium, lead, spent solvents, ethyl
acetate, and trichloroethylene (TCE). In 1984, the EPA inspected the site and sampled the
groundwater and sediments in Deer Creek, which runs through the property 250 feet to the north
of the filled area. On-site groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). The City of Tomah has a population of approximately 7,300 people.
Municipal wells serving Tomah are located within a 3-mile radius of the site. Approximately
2,000 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site and use private wells for drinking water
supplies. Two private wells on the southern side of the landfill have been found to be
contaminated. Deer Creek is used by local residents as a trout stream. A freshwater wetland is
located within 1,000 feet of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals including cadmium,
chromium, and lead. The contaminated groundwater could pose a health threat to
individuals if it is directly contacted or ingested. Also, contamination could enter the
food chain through the fish in Deer Creek, which may be polluted.
95
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: New wells were installed to replace two wells where contamination was
found.
Entire Site: As a pre-investigation activity, the State plans to sample private wells in the
area for VOC contamination. An investigation is planned to begin in 1993 to determine
the nature and extent of the contamination. The results of the investigation will be used to
evaluate various cleanup alternatives and also to select a final cleanup method.
Environmental Progress
Replacement of two contaminated wells has reduced the threat of exposure to contaminants at
the Tomah Municipal Sanitary Landfill site while investigations are being planned.
April 1991
96
TOMAH MUNICIPAL SANITARY LANDFILL
-------
WASTE MANAGEMENT
OF WISCONSIN, INC °
(BROOKFIELD SANITARY LARIDFIU4
WISCONSIN
EPAID#WID980901235
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Waukesha County
Brookfield
Waste Management of Wisconsin operated a 20-acre sanitary landfill at this site from 1969 to 1981.
Prior to 1969, the site had been a sand and gravel pit. In 1976, Waste Management received a permit
from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to accept municipal waste.
According to EPA tests in 1985, the groundwater is contaminated with cyanide. Approximately
11,000 people obtain drinking water from public and private wells within 3 miles of the site; the
nearest well is within 1,000 feet of the site. Poplar Creek, located 3,600 feet southwest of the site, is
used for recreational activities. A freshwater wetland is located 1,800 feet from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with various volatile organic compounds (VOCs), vinyl
chloride, and cyanide from site landfilling operations. Potential health risks include
coming in direct contact with or accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater. The
wetland also may be threatened.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
97
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation into the type and extent of contamination is scheduled to
begin in 1992. This investigation will be the basis for evaluating alternative cleanup
remedies.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Waste Management of Wisconsin site at Brookfield while
studies and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 98 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN. INC.
(BROOKFIELD SANITARY LANDFILL)
-------
WASTE RESEARCH &
RECLAMATIO
COMPANY
WISCONSIN
EPAID#WID990829475
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Eau Claire County
Eau Claire
The 9-acre Waste Research & Reclamation (WRR) site was occupied by a roofing company from
the 1970s to 1981. WRR has occupied the site since 1981. WRR is primarily a reclamation and
recycling business for hazardous liquid wastes, fuel blending, and transportation of hazardous waste
for incineration or disposal. Waste materials handled include chlorinated and fluorinated solvents
and flammables. Approximately 160 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site. The site is 1/2
mile east of Lowes Creek, a tributary of the Chippewa River. The closest residence is 1/4 mile from
the site. A private well is located 1,500 feet from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with various volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from site waste handling procedures. People who accidentally ingest
or come in direct contact withx contaminated materials may be at risk.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
99
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The site has been divided into six solid waste management units for
investigation and cleanup purposes: (1) drum storage sheds; (2) trailer parking, product
warehouse, and abandoned drum storage area; (3) pole bam cooling water discharge area
and abandoned drum storage area; (4) abandoned lagoon, existing holding tank, and existing
collection sump for surface water runoff; (5) a reclamation area, known as the LUWA area, located
in the central and western portions of the site; and (6) a reclamation area, known as the KONTRO
area, located in the south-central portions of the site. The parties potentially responsible for site
contamination currently are conducting an investigation into the nature and extent of groundwater,
surface water, and soil contamination at the site. The investigation will define the contaminants and
recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. Once the investigation is completed, the EPA and the
State will select a remedy for site cleanup.
Site Facts: In 1983, the State signed a Consent Order with the potentially responsible parties to
implement a long-term monitoring program.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Waste Research & Reclamation Company site while
studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 100 WASTE RESEARCH & RECLAMATION COMPANY
-------
WAUSAU
GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION
o
WISCONSIN
EPA ID# WID980993521
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Marathon County
Wausau
Other Names:
Wausau Water Supply
The City of Wausau provides drinking water for approximately 33,000 people from groundwater
wells located on both sides of the Wisconsin River. In 1982, three of the wells were found to be
contaminated with high levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Affected city wells were
removed from service. In 1984, an interim carbon filter system was installed until two air strippers
could be constructed. The air strippers, installed at the municipal water facility in 1984, replaced the
carbon filters as a long-term solution for providing acceptable drinking water to city residents.
Approximately 32,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site. The Wisconsin River, which
bisects the area, is used for commercial and recreational purposes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/10/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with various VOCs. Potential health risks
include accidentally ingesting or coming in direct contact with contaminated groundwater
or soil.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the West Side contamination plume and cleanup of the other contamination
plumes.
101
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1984, the EPA installed temporary carbon filters to remove
VOCs from the contaminated groundwater in one well. Air strippers were installed in two
municipal wells.
West Side Contaminant Plume: In 1988, the EPA selected the following cleanup
actions for this phase of the cleanup: (1) groundwater pumping and treatment using air
stripping, with discharge to the Wisconsin River; (2) groundwater monitoring; and (3)
provision for implementation of an additional extraction well, as necessary. The treatment system
has been operational since 1990.
Other Contamination Plumes: In 1989, the EPA selected the following remedies for
two plumes: (1) installation of soil vapor extraction systems to remove VOCs from soils
at identified source areas; (2) treatment of gases produced by the soil vapor extraction
operation, using vapor phase carbon units that will be regenerated at an off-site facility; and (3)
pumping of the municipal supply wells to speed removal of the groundwater contaminant plumes
affecting these wells. The design of the remedies is being conducted by the potentially responsible
parties and is scheduled to be completed by 1992.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed in 1990 with the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination to finance a portion of past cleanup costs. The Consent Decree names the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources as EPA's oversight contractor at the site.
Environmental Progress
The installation of a permanent groundwater treatment system for the drinking water supply has
reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous substances in the drinking water and will protect
residents near the Wausau Ground Water Contamination site. Soil cleanup technologies currently
are being designed.
April 1991 102 WAUSAU GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
-------
WHEELER PlfF
WISCONSIN
EPAID#WID980610620
o
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Rock County
1 1/2 miles east of Janesville
Site Description
The 3 3/4-acrc Wheeler Pit site, a former disposal area, lies within a 35-acre abandoned gravel pit.
Wheeler Pit originally was mined for sand and gravel by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and
Pacific Railroad Company. In 1956, General Motors Corporation (GMC) leased a 4-acre portion of
the pit from the railroad for waste disposal. From 1960 to 1974, GMC used Wheeler Pit to dispose
of paint and wastewater sludges from its Janesville auto assembly plant, as well as coal ashes from
power plant boilers. The sludge and ash were contained by a dike at the pit. In 1971, a liquid was
found seeping onto the ground from the GMC disposal area. Disposal at Wheeler Pit ended in 1974,
and the site was covered at the request of La Prairie Township. From 1974 to 1988, the site was
monitored intermittently for groundwater contamination. Elevated levels of trichloroethylene
(TCE), chromium, zinc, arsenic and barium were found in site groundwater samples collected in
1981 by GMC and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Approximately
51,000 people live within 3 miles of the site. The Rock River is approximately 2 miles west of the
site. The City of Janesville operates five groundwater wells within 3 miles of the site. Three of the
wells supply virtually all of the Janesville water supply. Five private wells are located within 1/4
mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater resources underlying the site were found to be contaminated with heavy
metals including iron, manganese, chromium, and arsenic, as well as low levels of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Soils and surface wastes contain heavy metals such
as cadium and lead and semi-volatiles. Potential health risks include accidental ingestion
of or direct contact with contaminated groundwater, soils, or surface water.
103
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: A field investigation of the site has been completed to determine the type
and extent of contamination. Monitoring wells were installed and test pits were excavated.
A remedy was chosen in late 1990, which entails construction of a multi-layer cap,
installation of a fence around the site to restrict access, consolidation of waste and soil from a
neighboring property into the original disposal area, long-term groundwater monitoring, institutional
controls of groundwater and land use on the site, and natural attenuation of the groundwater. Future
active responses to restore groundwater quality may be necessary if cleanup standards are not
achieved within a reasonable period of time. The design of the landfill cap and groundwater
monitoring system is scheduled to begin in 1991.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Wheeler Pit site while cleanup activities are being
planned.
April 1991 104 WHEELER PIT
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
105
-------
GLOSSARY
This glossary defines terms used
throughout the NPL Volumes. The
terms and abbreviations contained in
this glossary apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfiind program in
the context of hazardous waste management.
These terms may have other meanings when
used in a different context.
Terms Used
in the NPL
Book
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH
(less than 7.0), that are used in chemical
manufacturing. Acids in high concentration
can be very corrosive and react with many
inorganic and organic substances. These
reactions possibly may create toxic com-
pounds or release heavy metal contaminants
that remain in the environment long after the
acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal
and enforceable agreement between the EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination. Under the terms of the Order,
the potentially responsible panics (PRPs)
agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules,
responsibilities, and enforcement options that
the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a
judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A
legally binding document issued by the EPA,
directing the panics potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
the EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for
site studies).
Aeration: A process that promotes break-
down of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR): The Federal agency
within the U.S. Public Health Service charged
with carrying out the health-related responsi-
bilities of CERCLA.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of
air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air
stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Ambient Air: Any unconfined pan of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity
of contaminated air sources.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock,
sand, or gravel capable of storing water
within cracks and pore spaces, or between
grains. When water contained within an
aquifer is of sufficient quantity and quality, it
can be tapped and used for drinking or other
purposes. The water contained in the aquifer
is called groundwater. A sole source aquifer
supplies 50% or more of the drinking water of
an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling
into the earth until water is reached, which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a foun-
tain.
107
-------
GLOSSARY.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring pro-
cess by which a compound is reduced in
concentration over time through adsorption,
degradation, dilution, and/or transfomiation.
Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.
Baghouse Dust: Dust accumulated in remov-
ing particulates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive
in chemical reactions. When bases axe mixed
with acids, they neutralize each other, form-
ing salts.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth
used to prevent the migration of coniami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some
contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living
tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people, as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contami-
nated water, or eat contaminated food.
Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria or
other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
and water.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-
nents.
Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on moisture from the air for their waier
source, are usually acidic, and are rich in plant
residue [see Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.
Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-
water.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a
synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated
materials. The surface of the cap generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing
water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that
attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Carbon Disulfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and or-
ganic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also
cause chemical reactions that increase the
hazard to human health and the environment.
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-
tion].
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series
of holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.
CERCLA: [see Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act].
Characterization: The sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis of a site to determine the
108
-------
GLOSSARY
extent and nature of toxic releases. Character-
ization provides the basis for acquiring the
necessary technical information to develop,
screen, analyze, and select appropriate
cleanup techniques.
Chemical Fixation: The use of chemicals to
bind contaminants, thereby reducing the
potential for leaching or other movement.
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecti-
cide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This
salt is used extensively as a wood preservative
in pressure-treating operations. It is highly
toxic and water-soluble, making it a relatively
mobile contaminant in the environment.
Cleanup: Actions taken to eliminate a
release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance. The term "cleanup" sometimes is
used interchangeably with the terms remedial
action, removal action, response action, or
corrective action.
Closure: The process by which a landfill
stops accepting wastes and is shut down,
under Federal guidelines that ensure the
protection of the public and the environment.
Comment Period: A specific interval during
which the public can review and comment on
various documents and EPA actions related to
site cleanup. For example, a comment period
is provided when the EPA proposes to add
sites to the NPL. There is minimum 3-week
comment period for community members to
review and comment on the remedy proposed
to clean up a site.
Community Relations: The EPA effort to
establish and maintain two-way communica-
tion with the public. Goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related ac-
tions, assuring public input into decision-
making processes related to affected commu-
nities, and making certain that the Agency is
aware of, and responsive to, public concerns.
Specific community relations activities are
required in relation to Superfund cleanup
actions [see Comment Period].
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA): Congress enacted the
CERCLA, known as Superfund, in 1980 to
respond directly to hazardous waste problems
that may pose a threat to the public health and
the environment The EPA administers the
Superfund program.
Confluence: The place where two bodies of
water, such as streams or rivers, come to-
gether.
Consent Decree: A legal document, ap-
proved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between the EPA and the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the
potentially responsible panics are required to
perform and/or the costs incurred by the
government that the parties will reimburse, as
well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforce-
ment options that the government may exer-
cise in the event of non-compliance by poten-
tially responsible parties. If a settlement
between the EPA and a potentially respon-
sible party includes cleanup actions, it must
be in the form of a Consent Decree. A Con-
sent Decree is subject to a public comment
period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order
on Consent].
Containment: The process of enclosing or
containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in a pond or a lagoon, to pre-
vent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
109
-------
GLOSSARY.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental
effects.
Contingency Plan: A document setting out
an organized, planned, and coordinated course
of action to be followed in case of a fire,
explosion, or other accident that releases toxic
chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioactive
materials into the environment.
Cooperative Agreement: A contract be-
tween the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site
cleanup responsibilities and other activities on
a cost-sharing basis.
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Panics].
Cover: Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserv-
ing operations and produced by distillation of
tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
[see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating
sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes
may cause skin ulcerations and cancer
through prolonged exposure.
Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an
embankment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a
chemical is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to settle with
small, or de minimis contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort.
Dewater: To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land farming, deep well
injection, or incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgra-
dient of a contaminated groundwater source
are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas of commercial or industrial
facilities.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
110
-------
GLOSSARY
Endangerment Assessment: A study con-
ducted to determine the risks posed to public
health or the environment by contamination at
NPL sites. The EPA or the State conducts the
study when a legal action is to be taken to
direct the potentially responsible parties to
clean up a site or pay for the cleanup. An
endangerment assessment supplements an
investigation of the site hazards.
Enforcement: EPA, State, or local legal
actions taken against parties to facilitate
settlements; to compel compliance with laws,
rules, regulations, or agreements; and/or to
obtain penalties or criminal sanctions for
violations. Enforcement procedures may
vary, depending on the specific requirements
of different environmental laws and related
regulatory requirements. Under CERCLA,
for example, the EPA will seek to require
potentially responsible parties to clean up a
Superfund site or pay for the cleanup [see
Cost Recovery].
Erosion: The wearing away of land surface
by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally
from weather or surface runoff, but can be
intensified by such land-related practices as
farming, residential or industrial develop-
ment, road building, or timber-cutting. Ero-
sion may spread surface contamination to off-
site locations.
Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh
water from rivers and salt water from
nearshore ocean waters are mixed. These
areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt
marshes, and lagoons. These water ecosys-
tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and
wildlife.
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out.
Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway; together,
they are commonly referred to as the RI/FS
[see Remedial Investigation].
Filtration: A treatment process for removing
solid (particulate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove particles that contain
contaminants.
Flood Plain: An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods. Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that
results from the combustion of flue gases. It
can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides,
water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which
is used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party,
consisting of a written proposal demonstrating
a potentially responsible party's qualifications
111
-------
GLOSSARY.
and willingness to perform a site study or
cleanup.
Groundwater: Underground water that fills
pores in soils or openings in rocks to the point
of saturation. In aquifers, groundwater occurs
in sufficient quantities for use as drinking and
irrigation water and other purposes.
Groundwater Quality Assessment: The
process of analyzing the chemical characteris-
tics of groundwater to determine whether any
hazardous materials exist.
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as
chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very
good oxidizing agents and, therefore, have
many industrial uses. They are rarely found
by themselves; however, many chemicals
such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
some volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and dioxin are reactive because of the pres-
ence of halogens.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): The
principal screening tool used by the EPA to
evaluate relative risks to public health and the
environment associated with abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS
calculates a score based on the potential of
hazardous substances spreading from the site
through the air, surface water, or groundwater
and on other factors such as nearby popula-
tion. The HRS score is the primary factor in
deciding if the site should be on the NPL.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society
that can pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health and the environment
when improperly managed. It possesses at
least one of four characteristics (ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), or appears
on special EPA lists.
Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site con-
taining exceptionally high levels of contami-
nation.
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater,
with particular emphasis on the chemistry and
movement of water.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge
confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Incineration: A group of treatment technolo-
gies involving destruction of waste by con-
trolled burning at high temperatures, e.g.,
burning sludge to reduce the remaining
residues to a non-burnable ash that can be
disposed of safely on land, in some waters, or
in underground locations.
Infiltration: The movement of water or other
liquid down through soil from precipitation
(rain or snow) or from application of waste-
water to the land surface.
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid
flowing into a reservoir, basin, or treatment
plant.
Injection Well: A well into which waste
fluids are placed, under pressure, for purposes
of disposal.
Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical substances
of mineral origin, not of basic carbon struc-
ture.
Installation Restoration Program: The
specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has
been identifying and evaluating its hazardous
waste sites and controlling the migration of
hazardous contaminants from those sites.
Intake: The source from where a water
supply is drawn, such as from a river or water
body.
Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment between the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,
112
-------
GLOSSARY
setting forth the roles and responsibilities of
the agencies for performing and overseeing
the activities. States often are parties to
interagency agreements.
Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a permanent permit. The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.
Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure. Lagoons typically are
used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges,
liquid wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or
incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in layers, compacted to
the smallest practical volume, and covered
with soil at the end of each operating day.
Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for
hazardous waste. They are designed to
minimize the chance of release of hazardous
substances into the environment [see Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act].
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles
through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leach-
ing [v.t.J: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and
carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Leachate Collection System: A system that
gathers liquid that has leaked into a landfill or
other waste disposal area and pumps it to the
surface for treatment.
Liner: A relatively impermeable barrier
designed to prevent leachate (waste residue)
from leaking from a landfill. Liner materials
include plastic and dense clay.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often
incremental, steps that are taken to solve site
pollution problems. Depending on the com-
plexity, site cleanup activities can be sepa-
rated into several of these phases.
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
contain peat moss deposits and is dominated
by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetland].
Migration: The movement of oil, gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable soils or rock.
Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].
Mine Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left
from mining operations. Tailings often
contain high concentrations of lead, uranium,
and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Mitigation: Actions taken to improve site
conditions by limiting, reducing, or control-
ling toxicity and contamination sources.
Modeling: A technique using a mathematical
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
system components have on the overall
performance of the system.
Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at
specific locations within, or surrounding, a
hazardous waste site where groundwater can
be sampled at selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in
113
-------
GLOSSARY.
which groundwater flows and the types and
amounts of contaminants present.
National Priorities List (NPL): The EPA's
list of the most serious uncontrolled or aban-
doned hazardous waste sites identified for
possible long-term cleanup under Superfund.
The EPA is required to update the NPL at
least once a year.
Neutrals: Organic compounds that have a
relatively neutral pH, complex structure and,
due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed
into the environment. Naphthalene, pyrene,
and trichlorobenzene are examples of
neutrals.
Nitroaromatics: Common components of
explosive materials, which will explode if
activated by very high temperatures or pres-
sures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a
nitroaromatic.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter
notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability.
A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which the
EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against poten-
tially responsible parties, although the EPA
may undertake certain investigatory and
planning activities. The 60-day period may
be extended if the EPA receives a good faith
offer within that period.
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC): The
predesignated EPA, Coast Guard, or Depart-
ment of Defense official who coordinates and
directs Superfund removal actions or Clean
Water Act oil- or hazardous-spill corrective
actions.
Operation and Maintenance: Activities
conducted at a site after a cleanup action is
completed to ensure that the cleanup or
containment system is functioning properly.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds: Chemical
substances containing mainly carbon, hydro-
gen, and oxygen.
Outfall: The place where wastewater is
discharged into receiving waters.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating
large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or
leakage of contaminating materials. Leaking
drums may be contained within oversized
barrels as an interim measure prior to removal
and final disposal.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic,
modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites
and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.
Perched (groundwater): Groundwater
separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often clay
or rock.
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering
of water or other liquids through subsurface
rock or soil layers, usually continuing down-
ward to groundwater.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery opera-
tions and as fuel oil residues. These include
fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are the bases
from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are
made. These chemical substances often are
toxic to humans and the environment.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used
in plastics manufacturing and are by-products
of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye,
and resin manufacturing. Phenols are highly
poisonous.
114
-------
GLOSSARY
Physical Chemical Separation: The treat-
ment process of adding a chemical to a sub-
stance to separate the compounds for further
treatment or disposal.
Pilot Testing: A small-scale test of a pro-
posed treatment system in the field to deter-
mine its ability to clean up specific contami-
nants.
Plugging: The process of stopping the flow
of water, oil, or gas into or out of the ground
through a borehole or well penetrating the
ground.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater
flowing from a specific source. The move-
ment of the groundwater is influenced by such
factors as local groundwater flow patterns, the
character of the aquifer in which groundwater
is contained, and the density of contaminants
[see Migration].
Pollution: Generally, the presence of matter
or energy whose nature, location, or quantity
produces undesired health or environmental
effects.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs):
PAHs, such as pyrene, are a group of highly
reactive organic compounds found in motor
oil. They are a common component of creo-
sotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A
group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications,
carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope immersion oils, and caulk-
ing compounds. PCBs also are produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment
because they are very stable, non-reactive,
and highly heat resistant. Chronic exposure
to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
also is known to bioaccumulate in fatty
tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and
biphenyls, are a group of highly reactive
organic compounds that are a common com-
ponent of creosotes, which can be carcino-
genic.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats,
and floor tiles. Health risks from high con-
centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
the lymphatic and nervous systems.
Potable Water: Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Su-
perfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs
until they admit liability or a court makes a
determination of liability. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in site cleanup activity
without admitting liability.
Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid
portions can be disposed of safely; the re-
moval of particles from airborne emissions.
Electrochemical precipitation is the use of an
anode or cathode to remove the hazardous
chemicals. Chemical precipitation involves
the addition of some substance to cause the
solid portion to separate.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of
collecting and reviewing available informa-
tion about a known or suspected waste site or
release to determine if a threat or potential
threat exists.
115
-------
GLOSSARY.
Pump and Treat: A groundwater cleanup
technique involving the extracting of contami-
nated groundwater from the subsurface and
the removal of contaminants, using one of
several treatment technologies.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium
and uranium-235 and -238, which break down
and produce radioactive substances due to
their unstable atomic structure. Some are
man-made, and others are naturally occurring
in the environment. Radon, the gaseous form
of radium, decays to form alpha particle
radiation, which cannot be absorbed through
skin. However, it can be inhaled, which
allows alpha particles to affect unprotected
tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Radia-
tion also occurs naturally through the break-
down of granite stones.
RCRA: [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].
Recharge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the
earth to reach an aquifer.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public docu-
ment that explains which cleanup
alternative(s) will be used to clean up sites
listed on the NPL. It is based on information
generated during the remedial investigation
and feasibility study and consideration of
public comments and community concerns.
Recovery Wells: Wells used to withdraw
contaminants or contaminated groundwater.
Recycle: The process of minimizing waste
generation by recovering usable products that
might otherwise become waste.
Remedial Action (RA): The actual construc-
tion or implementation phase of a Superfund
site cleanup following the remedial design
[see Cleanup].
Remedial Design: A phase of site cleanup,
where engineers design the technical specifi-
cations for cleanup remedies and technolo-
gies.
Remedial Investigation: An in-depth study
designed to gather the data necessary to
determine the nature and extent of contami-
nation at a Superfund site, establish the
criteria for cleaning up the site, identify the
preliminary alternatives for cleanup actions,
and support the technical and cost analyses of
the alternatives. The remedial investigation
is usually done with the feasibility study.
Together they are customarily referred to as
the RI/FS [see Feasibility Study].
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
ing cleanup actions at a site.
Remedy Selection: The selection of the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining con-
tamination will be naturally dispersed with-
out further cleanup activities, a "No Action"
remedy is selected [see Record of Decision].
Removal Action: Short-term immediate
actions taken to address releases of hazardous
substances [see Cleanup].
Residual: The amount of a pollutant remain-
ing in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place, e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wastewater
treatment, or particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubbing, or
other, process.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA): A Federal law that established a
regulatory system to track hazardous sub-
stances from the time of generation to dis-
posal. The law requires safe and secure
116
-------
GLOSSARY
procedures to be used in treating, transport-
ing, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Retention Pond: A small body of liquid
used for disposing of wastes and containing
overflow from production facilities. Some-
times retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons to store
waste.
Riparian Habitat: Areas adjacent to rivers
and streams that have a high density, diver-
sity, and productivity of plant and animal
species relative to nearby uplands.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land
into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contamina-
tion from its source.
Scrubber: An air pollution device that uses a
spray of water or reactant or a dry process to
trap pollutants in emissions.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand, and
minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such
as streams, lakes, and rivers, that absorbs
contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of
liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower
edges of landfills.
Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in the
ground used for storage of liquids, usually in
the form of leachate, from waste disposal
areas. The liquid gradually leaves the pit by
moving through the surrounding soil.
Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank
after the treatment process.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land
surface in which drainage collects; associated
with underground caves and passages that
facilitate the movement of liquids.
Site Characterization: The technical pro-
cess used to evaluate the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, which is
necessary for choosing and designing cleanup
measures and monitoring their effectiveness.
Site Inspection: The collection of informa-
tion from a hazardous waste site to determine
the extent and severity of hazards posed by
the site. It follows, and is more extensive
than, a preliminary assessment. The purpose
is to gather information necessary to score the
site, using the Hazard Ranking System, and to
determine if the site presents an immediate
threat that requires a prompt removal action.
Slag: The fused refuse or dross separated
from a metal in the process of smelting.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial
or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the
flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by
digging a trench around a contaminated area
and filling the trench with an impermeable
material that prevents water from passing
through it. The groundwater or contaminated
liquids trapped within the area surrounded by
the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.
Smelter: A facility that melts or fuses ore,
often with an accompanying chemical change,
to separate the metal. Emissions from smelt-
ers are known to cause pollution.
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles of soil. Such gases can move through
117
-------
GLOSSARY.
or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction: A treatment process
that uses vacuum wells to remove hazardous
gases from soil.
Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to
remove undesirable materials. There are two
approaches: dissolving or suspending them in
the wash solution for later treatment by
conventional methods, and concentrating
them into a smaller volume of soil through
simple particle size separation techniques [see
Solvent Extraction].
Stabilization: The process of changing an
active substance into inert, harmless material,
or physical activities at a site that act: to limit
the further spread of contamination without
actual reduction of toxicity.
Solidification/Stabilization: A chemical or
physical reduction of the mobility of hazard-
ous constituents. Mobility is reduced through
the binding of hazardous constituents into a
solid mass with low permeability and resis-
tance to leaching.
Solvent: A substance capable of dissolving
another substance to form a solution. The
primary uses of industrial solvents are as
cleaners for degreasing, in paints, and in
Pharmaceuticals. Many solvents are: flam-
mable and toxic to varying degrees.
Solvent Extraction: A means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges,
and sediment, thereby reducing the volume of
the hazardous waste that must be treated. It
generally is used as one in a series of unit
operations. An organic chemical is used to
dissolve contaminants as opposed to water-
based compounds, which usually are used in
soil washing.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or at-
tracting substances. It is used in many pollu-
tion control systems.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air
Stripping].
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.
Superfund: The program operated under the
legislative authority of the CERCLA and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) to update and improve environ-
mental laws. The program has the authority
to respond directly to releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare, or the envi-
ronment. The "Superfund" is a trust fund that
finances cleanup actions at hazardous waste
sites.
Surge Tanks: A holding structure used to
absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, includ-
ing liquid waste materials.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated
by woody vegetation and does not accumulate
peat moss deposits. Swamps may be fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wet-
lands].
Thermal Treatment: The use of heat to
remove or destroy contaminants from soil.
Treatability Studies: Testing a treatment
method on contaminated groundwater, soil,
etc., to determine whether and how well the
method will work.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, color-
less liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as
118
-------
GLOSSARY
a solvent and as a metal degreasing agent.
TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled,
ingested, or through skin contact and can
damage vital organs, especially the liver [see
Volatile Organic Compounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].
Upgradient: An upward hydrologic slope;
demarks areas that are higher than contami-
nated areas and, therefore, are not prone to
contamination by the movement of polluted
groundwater.
Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils. Vacuum pumps are connected to a
series of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tightly at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the
soil draws VOC-contaminated air from the
soil pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn
down from the surface of the soil.
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with
graded soils and seed for vegetative growth,
to prevent erosion [see Cap].
Vitrification: The process of electrically
melting wastes and soils or sludges to bind
the waste in a glassy, solid material more
durable than granite or marble and resistant to
leaching.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as secondary petro-
chemicals. They include light alcohols,
acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
toluene, and methylene chloride. These
potentially toxic chemicals are used as sol-
vents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels.
Because of their volatile nature, they readily
evaporate into the air, increasing the potential
exposure to humans. Due to their low water
solubility, environmental persistence, and
widespread industrial use, they are commonly
found in soil and groundwater.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that uses
a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from
water.
Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.
Water Table: The upper surface of the
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other
liquids.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to
sustaining many species of fish and wildlife.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
and bogs. Wetlands may be either coastal or
inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish
(a mixture of salt and fresh) water, and most
have tides, while inland wetlands are non-
tidal and freshwater. Coastal wetlands are an
integral component of estuaries.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
119
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in Wisconsin
121
-------
0)
c
0)
(75
a.
§ e-s =
•§ § £ g. 8
= '5 '> a c
S « -3 g O
11 a ^ I
•s « o s |
13 « B = -2
S g S -| -s
i a sE.^
Hi it
i
z
Site Repository
Library, 406 Fremont Street, Algoma, WI 54201
.0
3
a
E
o
00
<
Ji"
s.
Public Library, De Pere Branch, 380 Main Avenue, De 1
£•
c
3
o
U
c
1
«
oo
>o
11, 4156 County Trunk Highway B, McFarland, WI 535
a
e
|
£
>o
en
c/l
1
c Library, 316 South Main Street, Janesville, WI 53545
•g
S,
£2
>
(«
O)
.ibrary, 230 School Street, Kohler, WI 53044
_j
1
ex
»
2
in
5
.ibrary, W156 N8486 Pilgrim Road, Menomonee Falls, '
J
|
CO
1
f-^
lie Library, 808 Hamilton Street, Manitowoc, WI 54221
•§
g
^
1
fi
lie Library, 808 Hamilton Street, Manitowoc, WI 5422(
•§ ^
*8 =
j "S
II
ic Library, 1900 Calhoun Road, Brookfield, WI 53005
3
|
*u
.*
8
ty Library, 300 Larch Street, Stratford, WI 54484
g
U
§
S3
S
iry, 6431 North 76th Street, Milwaukee, WI 53223
1
s
QC.
O
v>
; Library, South 8200 Racine Avenue, Muskego, WI 53
•5
1
o
U
^
(A
: Library, 225 North Oneida Street, Appleton, WI 5491
•ti
|
g
u
1
SE
J>
Public Library, 105 West Central Road, Chippewa Falls
—
1
j
I
brary. West Main & Court Streets, Sparta, WI 54656
j
i|
£
3
CO
>o
§e
1
5"
£
4
s
en
m
>n
•S
2;
1
OQ
S
123
-------
8
vO
TT
H
06
TOMAH FAIRGROUNDS
TOMAH MUNICIPAL SANIT
| WASTE MGMT OF WI, INC.
!
i
| WASTE RESEARCH & RECL
2
g
WAUSAU GW CONTAMINA
E
u
124
* U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893:60446
------- |