EPA
REGION?
PROGRESS AT REGION 7
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
(NPL) SUPERFUND SITES
MISSOURI
AUGUST, 1995
726 MINNESOTA AVE., KANSAS CITY,
(ANSAS
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview . • • • 1
SUPERPUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean up Sites?: .....„.......=.... 4
THE NPL FACT SHEETS:
Be'e Gee Manufacturing Plant « 12
Big River Mine Tailings/St. Joe Minerals ..» 14
Conservation Chemical Company ..» 16
Ellisville Site 19
Fulbright Landfill « 22
Kern-Pest Laboratories « 24
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant « 26
Lee Chemical 29
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek • 31
Missouri Electric Works -.. 34
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt 36
Quality Plating ••« 39
Shenandoah Stables » 41
Solid State Circuits, Inc 43
St. Louis Airport/HIS/Futura Coatings ..» 45
Syntex Facility, Inc 48
Times Beach Site 50
Valley Park TCE 53
Weldon Spring Former Army Ordnance Works ..« 55
Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pitts (USDOE) ,.. 58
Westlake Landfill 61
Wheeling Disposal Service Co. Landfill 63
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets 65
-------
-------
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
Overviewl
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 weie 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 ifte 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 jt 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 ea.ch 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
^^" • „ f»|£»-Vfic-T.-
to Clean Up
THREE-STEP SUPERFUND PROCESS
STEP1
Discover site and
determine whether
an emergency
exists *
Illlf
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
environment
Illlf
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 Superfundinvolve-
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
naturalresource 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 Hjizard 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 ftase^orP^
the likelihood that a hazardous substance'will
be-released from the site, the toxicity andj, ^,
amount of hazardous substances at the site; and
the people and sensitive environmentspbteh-:
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
i
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
7
-------
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 then- effectiveness in the short and
long term, then1 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 Superfuncl law requires that the.,,
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the propjpsed clesmup 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 grpundwater 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. Sit. .n uus unai 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
-------
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.
10
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in
Fact Sheets
-------
-------
MANUFACTURI
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980860522
EPA REGION 7
Dunklin County
i City of Maiden
Site Description
The former owners of the Bee Gee Manufacturing Co., a 2-acre site in^Malden's, industrial
park, manufactured aluminum storm windows and doors from 1964 to 1983. Workers
discharged chromium-contaminated wastewater directly onto the ground without any
treatment or an EPA-approved permit. An area about 50 feet by 100 feet is visibly affected,
possibly to a depth of 1 or 2 feet. In 1981, the State advised the owners that their disposal '
practices put them in violation of the Missouri Clean Water Law. Bankruptcy proceedings
ended the State's efforts to have the owners install a wastewater treatment system. Another
company now leases the building, and the City of Maiden owns the contaminated land. Four
shallow wells and two deep wells in Maiden supply drinking water for 11,500 people; one
shallow well is about 1,000 feet southwest of the site. Approximately 8,500 people live within
a 3-mile radius of the site; 60 live within 1 mile. The closest residence is 1/4 mile away from
the site. Fifteen wells lie within 1 mile of the site, and 150 wells are within 3 miles. A low-
income nursing home project located 1/2 mile south of the site is of particular concern.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL. LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and on-site soils are contaminated with chromium and aluminum.
Private wells in the vicinity used for watering livestock and irrigating crops have
been contaminated since 1984. Groundwater contamination has been demonstrated
in a shallow aquifer well about 1/2 mile from the site. The public wells, 2 miles
downgradient from the site, may be connected to the contaminated aquifer. People
who have direct contact with the contaminated soils or drink contaminated
groundwater are at risk. Local soils are sandy, which makes it easier for
contaminants to enter the groundwater.
August 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach —
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term phase addressing
groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1992, the EPA removed the contaminated soil from the site.
Groundwater: The State-is conducting^-investigation of-the nature and extent
of contaminated groundwater. These investigations, are complete and a Record of
Decision is scheduled for September 1995.
Environmental Progress
The EPA has removed the contaminated soil from the site. State investigations have shown
that contaminated groundwater has not moved off site and does not pose a threat to people
or the environment, while further studies leading to the selection of a cleanup remedy for on-
site groundwater are being conducted.
Site Repository
Maiden Branch - Dunklin County Library, 113 N. Madison, Maiden, MO 63863
August 1995
BEE GEE MANUFACTURING CO.
-------
BIG RIVER MIN
TAILINGS/ST. JO
MINERALS CORP.
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD981126899
St.
EPA REGION 7
Francois County
Desloge
Site Description
The Big River Mine Tailings/St. Joe Minerals Corp. site is located in a former mining region
known as the "Old Lead Belt", which is 70 miles south of St. Louis. Numerous tailings ponds
and piles are found in this rural region, approximately 110 square miles in size. From 1929 to
1958, mine tailings rich with lead, cadmium, and zinc were disposed of at the 600-acre Big
River Mine Tailings area by the St. Joe Minerals Corp. Three sides of this site are bounded
by Big River. In 1972, St. Joe Minerals Corp. donated 502 acres of land in the area to St.
Francois County. In 1973, St. Francois County Environmental Corp. (SFCEC) leased
approximately 60 acres of the southern portion of the tailings pile from the county to operate
a sanitary landfill; the landfill is no longer in operation. A transfer station and recycling
center is now located on site. In 1977, heavy rains caused an estimated 50,000 cubic yards of
tailings to slump into Big River. In 1981, St. Joe Minerals Corp. made an attempt to stabilize
the tailings. Elevated levels of lead were first detected in bottom-feeding fish by the Missouri
Department of Conservation, and then in 1982 in surface water by the Columbia National
Fisheries Research Laboratory. Local residents were advised not to eat the fish. Big River is
used for recreational purposes such as fishing, as well as for commercial activities such as
watering livestock. Approximately 23,000 people reside within 4 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPI. LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 02/07/92
Final Date: 10/14/92
733
Elevated levels of lead, cadmium, and zinc have been detected in the tailings pile.
Surface water and various forms of biota in Big River contain elevated
concentrations of lead. Wind erosion and airborne dust have contaminated the
surrounding air and are a potential hazard to on-site workers, residents, and
children at a nearby day care center. People on site risk being exposed to
contaminants in the soil.
H
July 1995
-------
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 parties potentially responsible for site contamination have
begun in place stabilization of the pile, designed to keep the pile from sloughing
into the river. Other activities that will be performed include the revegetating of
the area to control contaminant run-off, covering the site with a soil and clay caprand
vegetating the cap.
Entire Site: Investigations to determine the nature and extent of contamination
are being conducted and are scheduled for completion in 1996. Following the
investigations, a remedy for final site cleanup will be selected.
Site Facts: An Administrative Order on Consent was signed in mid-1994 by the SFCEC and
the Doe Run Company, requiring them to conduct removal activities at the site.
Environmental Progress -f.
Stabilizing the pile, covering the site with a clay cap, and revegetating the area has reduced
the potential for exposure to site contaminants at the Big River Mine Tailings/St. Joe
Minerals Corp. site while investigations are underway and activities are being planned for
cleanup of the site.
Site Repository
Desloge Public Library, 209 N. Desloge Drive, Desloge, MO 50613
July 1995 \§ BIG RIVER MINE TAILINGS/
ST. JOE MINERALS CORP.
-------
CONSERVATI
CHEMICAL CO-
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD000829705
EPA REGION 7
Jackson County
Other Names:
CCC
Site Description
The Conservation Chemical Company site, located in eastern Kansas City, operated as a
chemical storage and disposal facility from 1960 until 1980. The owners began waste disposal
operations almost immediately after building chemical treatment basins, a process area, and a
roadway ramp. Waste disposal basins, which either were unlined or poorly lined, were used to
store and receive wastes, and also served as drying beds and containers for by-product
sludges. Many operating records were destroyed in a 1970 fire; those records that survived
listed organic chemicals, solvents, acids, caustics, metal hydroxides, and cyanide compounds as
some of the materials accepted for disposal at the site. Reports also indicate that pesticides,
herbicides, waste oils, organic solvents, halogenated compounds, arsenic, and elemental
phosphorus were handled by the facility, as well as pressurized cylinders and other metal
containers placed in the lagoons. Information is incomplete, but it is estimated that the
facility handled at least 48,000,000 gallons of liquids and sludges and 1,144 tons of solids.
About 93,000 cubic yards of materials including drums, bulk liquids, sludges, and solids were
buried at the site. By-products from any treatment processes used on the waste materials also
were dumped on site. An attempt was made to neutralize hazardous chemicals by blending
some wastes and to stabilize the upper waste layers on the site by mixing acidic metal
finishing wastes with fly ash and certain sludges, which produced a mixture consisting largely
of gypsum. In 1977, the Missouri Clean Water Commission ordered the sate closed and
covered, and the owner covered the soil caps with gypsum. The site is located in the 100-year
flood plain of the Missouri River, about 500 feet away from its banks, and near its confluence
with the Little Blue River. The site itself was raised about 10 feet above the surrounding
area, but most of it would be immersed during a flood. Private wells provide drinking water to
approximately 120 people within 3 miles of the property. The Courtney Bend well field is
downstream from the site; it supplies drinking water to the City of Independence, which is 5
miles from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/10/85
Final Date: 10/04/89
August 1995
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater both on and off the site contains heavy metals including arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, and lead; cyanide; phenolic compounds; and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including vinyl chloride and trichloroethylene. Surface and
subsurface soil on the site contained all of the above, as well as dioxins and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Contaminants entered the Missouri River via
groundwater that feeds the river. The Missouri River is used locally and regionally
for recreation, industry, irrigation, and as a municipal water supply. People on or
near the site may have been exposed by coming in direct contact with
contaminated soils or eating food grown in contaminated soil or game that feeds
on contaminated plants before site cleanup.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focused on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status —
Entire Site: The EPA selected a remedy for this site in 1987. It featured the
following source control and groundwater cleanup measures: surface cleaning
including demolition and disposal of existing buildings, tanks, and debris and
placing them on-site below a clean soil cap; installing a withdrawal well system designed to
keep groundwater from moving away from the site; building a groundwater extraction and
treatment system to remove contaminants; and monitoring the quality and level of off-site
groundwater. The surface cleanup began in early 1989 and was completed by August 1989.
Installation of the well networks was started in 1989 and was completed in early 1990.
Construction of the treatment plant began in 1989 and was completed in March 1990. The
groundwater extraction system will be in operation for 30 years, after which the E^A will
evaluate if cleanup goals have been met.
Site Facts: In November 1982, the United States filed suit against the parties it deemed
responsible for the site contamination; these defendants in turn sued a host of other
potentially responsible parties in 1984. By August 1985, the defendants had agreed to design
and conduct a cleanup on the site that included the construction of a slurry wall and to
reimburse the Government for its costs to date. However, new information about the expense
and construction difficulty associated with the slurry wall caused a delay in actions. After
additional negotiations, the potentially responsible parties agreed to perform a cleanup based
on hydraulic control through extraction wells.
August 1995
CONSERVATION CHEMICAL CO.
-------
Environmental Progress
Construction of the remedies selected by the EPA to clean up the Conservation Chemical
site has been completed. These actions have eliminated surface contamination-and have
halted further pollution of surface and groundwater resources. The EPA and the potentially
responsible parties are actively monitoring the effectiveness of the continuing groundwater
cleanup.
Site Repository
Mid-Continent Public Library, 317 W. Highway 24, Independence, MO 64050
CONSERVATION CHEMICAL CO.
August 1995
-------
-------
ELLISVILLE
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980633010
EPA REGION 7
Sit. Louis County
Near Ellisville, 20 miles west of
downtown St. Louis
Other Names:
Mario Angelo Site
Rosalie (investment Co.
Miid-America Arena
Cullahan Property
Bliss, Russell Site Bliss Ranch
Site Description
The Ellisville Site consists of three nearby non-contiguous subsites: the Bliss property, the
Callahan property, and the Rosalie property. Initial investigations at the site focused on these
three properties. During the investigations, an additional four contaminated properties were
discovered adjacent to the Bliss Property and were added to that subsite. During the 1960s
and 1970s, Russell Bliss owned and operated the Bliss Waste Oil Company, a business
engaged in the transportation and disposal of waste oil products, industrial wastes, and
chemical wastes. These wastes were disposed of in pits, drums, and on the surface of
properties around the company's headquarters in Ellisville. The Bliss property subsite is
located in western St. Louis County and covers approximately 11 acres of land. Developed
portions of the subsite include the Mid-America Arena and associated buildings and stables.
The property is drained by Caulks Creek, which empties into a tributary to the Missouri
River. Pits were dug on the property and were used for industrial waste disposal. Drums of
wastes had been buried, and liquid wastes had been dumped on the ground. The Callahan
property is an 8-acre tract of land located approximately a mile from Ellisville. Drummed
liquid and solid wastes were disposed of on the property during the 1970s.. The Callahan
subsite is situated on a steep-walled gully that drains into a tributary to the Missouri River.
The Rosalie property is a portion of an 85-acre tract of land. Drummed liquid and solid
wastes were disposed of on approximately 4 acres of the subsite. A housing development now
is located near the Rosalie subsite. Approximately 1,000 people live within a 1-mile radius of
the subsites; 5,000 live within 3 miles. Residents rely on drinking water drawn from private
wells and the public distribution system. Roughly 265 wells exist within 1 mile, and 789 wells
are within 3 miles of the sites.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
August 1995
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Soil is contaminated with dioxin and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at the
Bliss properties. Soils at the Callahan and Rosalie properties contain VOCs.
Potential health risks exist through the airborne migration of contaminated fugitive
dusts and the potential for leachate migrating into the groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases directed at cleanup of the Callahan and Rosalie subsites and the Bliss subsite, which
includes four adjacent contaminated properties.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1981, the State removed, covered, and overpacked
drums; took samples; and staged the drums from the Callahan subsite. Workers
posted signs and the State maintained 24-hour security at the site. Excavation
activities revealed up to 1,000 drums buried on the site. In early 1982, EPA emergency
workers performed the following activities: posted additional warning signs; drained and
sealed the farm pond; built runoff control and leachate interception trenches; excavated and
overpacked buried drums; sampled and sorted drums; built an on-site storage area; and
removed and disposed of contaminated soil. In late 1984, drums and other wastes were
delivered to an incinerator in Illinois for disposal. In 1990, the EPA steam-cleaned some drum
fragments on the site and constructed a fence to restrict site access. In 1992, the EPA
performed maintenance on the synthetic cover in the creek bank at the Bliss subsite.
Callahan and Rosalie Subsites: The EPA selected a remedy for the Callahan
and Rosalie properties in 1985. The Callahan property cleanup remedy includes:
controlling erosion and slippage of the fill area where drums had been excavated
from 1980 to 1981 and removing what remained of that cleanup; removing and disposing of
the plastic cover and hold-down blocks from the fill area; regrading the fill to a more stable
slope, covering it with a compacted soil layer, and reseeding; and removing and salvaging
fences and gravel from the former drum-storage areas. The Rosalie subsite cleanup remedy
includes: excavating contaminated soil from two locations and removing it to an EPA-
approved hazardous waste facility; placing debris in drums; excavating and overpacking buried
drums and sampling and testing their contents; disposing of drums at an EPA-approved
disposal facility; testing soil to verify the effectiveness of the cleanup; and backfilling
excavated areas with clean soil and reseeding disturbed areas. Under State supervision,
cleanup at the Rosalie property was completed. The design of the technical specifications for
the cleanup of the Callahan property subsite was completed in early 1991, and cleanup
activities are expected to be completed soon.
August 1995 3£> ELLISVILLE SITE
-------
Bliss and Adjacent Properties: During the investigation of the Bliss property
subsite, contamination was discovered on four neighboring parcels: the Dubman
and Weingart property, Primm property, Wade and Mercantile Trust Company
property, and the Russell, Evelyn, and Jerry Bliss property. The EPA selected a remedy for
these properties in 1986. The first part of the cleanup focuses on dkodn-contaminated soils;
the second entails excavation and off-site disposal of buried drums and materials
contaminated with chemicals other than dioxin. The Bliss/contiguous properties soils cleanup
remedy selected in 1986 includes: excavating dioxin-contaminated soils and containerizing
them; storing the containers of waste temporarily in a metal building on the site; and
maintaining security, controlling surface drainage at the site, and sampling the groundwater.
The drum and other cleanup remedies include: excavating, sampling, and overpacking buried
drums; excavating hazardous wastes and contaminated soils and materials; taking drums and
waste mixtures suitable for land disposal -to an- appropriate EPA-approvedfacility; incinerating
drums and waste mixtures unsuitable for land'disposal" off site at an EPA-approved facility;
and disposing of non-hazardous material and debris at a permitted sanitary landfill. For both
components of this remedy, site restoration activities will include backfilling, regrading, and
seeding, where needed. In late 1991, the EPA issued an amended cleanup remedy for the
dioxin-contaminated materials at the Bliss subsite. Under this remedy, interim storage of
dioxin-contaminated material was eliminated. Instead, these materials will be excavated and
transported directly to the nearby Times Beach site, where contaminated materials will be
destroyed by thermal treatment. A permit application was issued by EPA and the state for
the thermal treatment unit at Times Beach in April, 1995. Excavation and off-site
management of contaminants at the Bliss subsite is planned to begin in 1996.
Environmental Progress
All contaminated materials have been removed from the Rosalie subsite. Cleanup of the
Callahan subsite is underway. The perimeter fence installed at the Bliss subsite has
controlled unauthorized access to this portion of the site, thereby reducing the potential for
direct contact with contaminated soils while final cleanup activities are being planned.
Site Repository
EPA Information Trailer, 1-44, Lewis Exit, Times Beach, MO 63025
ELLISVILLE SITE
August 1995
-------
-------
FULBRIGHT
LANDFILL
, MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980631139
EPA REGION 7
Greene County
3 miles north of Springfield
Other Names:
Springlfield Fulbright Landfill
Sac River Landfill
Murray Landfill
Highway 13 Landfill
Site Description
The 212-acre Fulbright Landfill site consists of the Fulbright and Sac River Landfills
(formerly known as the Murray Landfill). The City of Springfield used these landfills, both of
which now are closed, for the disposal of municipal and industrial wastes. The 98-acre
Fulbright Landfill accepted waste from 1962 through 1968, The 114-aere Sac River Landfill
operated from 1968 until 1974. Industrial wastes disposed of in these landfills included
cyanides, acids, plating and paint sludges, pesticide residues, waste oil, and solvents The
contents of between 1,200 and 2,600 drums were dumped into pits at the site with the empty
55-gallon drums left in the pits or in the general landfill areas. In 1967, a waste hauler died
from toxic fume inhalation when he inadvertently dumped a drum of acid into a pit
containing cyanide. A sinkhole on the bluff above the Fulbright Landfill contained a few
dozen drums and waste residues which remedial were during the remedial action An
estimated 10,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site. The landfill lies in a semi-rural
area in the flood plain of the Little Sac River. Surrounding land use includes a police
shooting range, a dog pound, an active wastewater treatment plant, and an inactive
wastewater treatment plant. Lake McDaniel and a series of wells northeast of the site are
used as sources of some of the municipal drinking water. Groundwater also is used for crop
irrigation and industrial processes. The nearest population and well are 1,000 feet upgradient
of the landfills.
Site Responsibility: This site has been addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposal Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
HAJ
The groundwater and drums on the site contained a wide variety of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and other organic chemicals, as well as heavy metals
and cyanide from former waste disposal practices. Chromium was found in
sediments. Groundwater flows into the adjacent South Dry Sac River and Little
Sac River which also receives treated municipal wastewater. Since the landfill is in
the flood plain of the Little Sac River, high waters may have spread site
contaminants.
July 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach —
The site was addressed by remedial actions selected by EPA in a Record of Decision signed
on September 30, 1988 and implemented by the Springfield Steering Committee.
Response Action Status ——— " :
Entire Site: Under EPA oversight, the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination completed a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) in
1988. The following remedial actions were selected for the site: removing drums
and drum remnants from the sinkhole and the associated trench east of the Fulbright
Landfill; sampling drum contents to establish the hazardous nature of their contents;
disposing of the removed contents at an off-site EPA-approved facility; performing
groundwater and surface water monitoring; checking for leachate that occasionally seeps from
the landfill to determine if future action is warranted to curtail it; and imposing deed
restrictions to prevent future development on the site and groundwater use prohibitions. The
cleanup activities began in 1990 and were completed in early 1992. Groundwater and surface
water monitoring begun in 1992 and continue.
Site Facts: In March 1986, the EPA issued a Consent Order to the City of Springfield,
Litton Industries, Inc., and Litton Business Systems, Inc., which had all been identified as
potentially responsible parties. The Order required them to conduct an extensive site
investigation under the EPA's oversight. In January 1990, the EPA and these parties entered
into a Consent Decree for the potentially responsible parties to design and implement the
remedial actions selected in the 1988 ROD.
Environmental Progress
The removal and disposal of contaminated soils from the sinkhole and trench area has reduce
the threat of exposure to contamination at the Fulbright Landfill. Restrictions on land and
groundwater use and continual groundwater and surface water monitoring will ensure that
there is no potential future risk to human health or the environment. The EPA expects to
complete a 5-year review of the effectiveness of these remedial actions in 1995.
Site Repository
Springfield/Greene County Library, 397 E. Central, Springfield, MO 65801
July 1995
FULBRIGHT LANDFILL
-------
KEM-PEST
LABORATORIES
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980631113
EPA REGION 7
Cape Girardeau County
Near Cape Girardeau
Site Description — . ——
The Kern-Pest Laboratories site covers 6 acres and is located near Cape Girardeau.
Beginning in 1965, Kern-Pest formulated various pesticide products, including liquid'pesticides
granular insecticides, granular herbicides, and pesticide dust. The company suspended
operations in 1975. There have been no production, treatment, or disposal activities at the
site since 1977. A building on site has been used to store equipment and materials. A 1 250-
square-foot lagoon at the facility formerly was used to dispose of plant waste and sewage
When the company closed the lagoon in 1981, it was filled with compacted clay'An EPA
inspection in 1983 revealed that the lagoon cover was eroding and that no vegetation existed
on the clay cap. Cape Girardeau, with a population of 60,925, draws drinking water from the
Mississippi River, located less than a mile downstream of the site. Approximately 200 people
live within a mile of the site, and 1,284 live within 3 miles. The site is adjacent to the flood
plain of the Mississippi River. A freshwater wetland is located within a mile of the site
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Sampling in 1984 and 1989 detected pesticides including heptachlor, chlordane and
endnn in the shallow aquifer. Drainage channel sediments contained pesticides
including aldrin and dieldrin. Pesticides and various volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) were detected in subsurface and surface soil samples. Potential risks may
exist for those who come in direct contact with the contaminated building
structures or the soil on the site.
August 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the soil
and sediments, and cleanup of the groundwater and the contaminated on-site structure.
Response Action Status —— •
Soil and Sediments: In 1984, the EPA installed five monitoring wells on site
and collected groundwater, soil, and sediment samples. In 1988 and 1989, the EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination conducted additional
sampling. The EPAhas excavated approximately 6,075 cubic yards, of contaminated soil and
sediment and has disposed of them at afederally..approved off-site land disposal facility.
Sampling was conducted to confirm that all soils contaminated above health based levels were
removed. Clean soil has been placed in the excavated areas with vegetation to minimize
erosion. These cleanup activities were completed in 1993.
Groundwater and On-Site Structure: In 1990, a remedy was selected to
address this portion of the site. The EPA concluded that the groundwater did not
, require any cleanup activities, but monitoring would continue to ensure that the
groundwater continues to meet safety standards. The remedy to address the contaminated
building structure includes decontamination of the building and off-site incineration of the
debris in a federally approved facility. In 1993, EPA amended the remedy to include
demolition of the building. This remedy is currently on hold pending review of the decision.
Environmental Progress
The excavation and disposal of contaminated soil and sediment at the Kem-Pest Laboratories
site has reduced the threat of exposure to hazardous materials to the nearby population while
further cleanup activities are being planned.
Site Repository
Cape Girardeau Public Library, 711 N. Clark Street, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
August 1995
KEM-PEST LABORATORIES
-------
LAKE CITY AR
AMMUNITION P
(NORTHWEST
LAGOON)
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MO3213890012
EPA REGION 7
Jackson County
Independence
Site Description
The Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (LCAAP) occupies approximately 4,000 acres
LCAAP has manufactured, stored, and tested small arms ammunition continuously since
1941, except for a five year period following World War II. Virtually all waste treatment and
disposal has been on site. LCAAP has relied heavily on lagoons, landfills, and burn pits for
waste disposal. Industrial operations have generated large quantities of potentially hazardous
waste including oils, greases, solvents, explosives, and metals. There are 11 residences on the
grounds served by LCAAP's water treatment plant. Adjacent to the northern boundary of the
site is Lake City, with a population of approximately 50 people. Private residences off site use
groundwater from private wells. There are 13 production wells that supply water for base
personnel. The Missouri River and Little Blue River, located near the site are used for
recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater beneath the site, soil, and surface water are contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), various explosives, and heavy metals including
lead, arsenic, and chromium from former waste disposal practices. Potential threats
exist for those who accidentally have direct contact with or ingest contaminated
groundwater, surface water, or soil. Water supplies for on-site personnel and on-
site residences' are provided from a water treatment plant at the site.
August 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach — —
This site is being addressed in five stages: immediate actions and four long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of the installation-wide area, the northeast corner, Area 18 and
Area 8.
Response Action Status • ;
Immediate Actions: Four air strippers were installed in the plant's drinking
water supply facilities to remove contaminants before reaching the water
treatment plant. LCAAP is also continuing to monitor contaminant migration in
accordance with the approved Groundwater Monitoring Plan.
Installation-Wide Area: The Army initiated an investigation in 1987 to
determine the extent and type of contamination on site and to identify alternative
technologies for the cleanup. The study confirmed contamination of the
groundwater beneath the entire site and identified several source areas of concern with
respect to potential environmental contamination. In 1991, the investigation was expanded,
identifying additional source areas for which fieldwork was completed in 1992. Groundwater
monitoring initiated in 1994 will continue through 1995. A draft Remedial Investigation
Report is currently being reviewed.
Northeast Corner: The Army initiated an investigation in 1990 to determine the
extent and type of contamination present in the northeastern corner. In 1992,
following review of the preliminary data, the Army completed additional fieldwork.
The Remedial Investigation Report is currently being reviewed.
Area 18: Previous environmental data from the installation-wide site investigation
indicate this site has contaminated soil and groundwater. An investigation of Area
18 was completed in 1992, which provided additional information needed to
determine the magnitude and extent of contamination. The Remedial Investigation Report
was completed in March 1995. The Feasibility Report is currently being reviewed.
Area 8: Previous sampling activities have identified contamination of the soil and
groundwater in Area 8. Additional information is needed to characterize the
nature and extent of the contamination. Additional field sampling was completed
in 1992. Remedial design is underway for an extraction system. The draft Remedial
Investigation Report is currently being reviewed.
Site Facts: The plant is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a specially
funded program established by the DOD in 1978 to identify, investigate, and control the
migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DOD facilities. An Interagency
Agreement (IAG) between the EPA, the Army, and the State of Missouri was signed in 1989,
covering the remaining investigative, design, and cleanup activities throughout the installation.
August 1995
2.1
LAKE CITY ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
(NORTHWEST LAGOON)
-------
Environmental Progress
The installation of air strippers, closure of lagoons, and the: water, treatment plant has greatly
reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the Lake City Army
Ammunition Plant (Northwest Lagoon) site while further investigations leading to final
cleanup activities are taking place.
Site Repository
Mid-Continent Public Library-South, Blue Springs, MO
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, Independence, MO
LAKE CITY ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
(NORTHWEST LAGOON)
August 1995
-------
-------
CHEMICAL
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980853519
EPA REGION 7
Clay County
3 miles southeast of Liberty
Other Names:
Liberty Public Water Supply
Site Description
A urC Chenucal Slte was used for packaging a variety of chemicals from 1966 until
1974, when Lee Chemical abandoned the facility. City officials found several hundred drums
of chemicals on site in 1976, most of which were removed by the City in 1977 The City
which owns the property, has removed the building and visible contamination from the site
boil sample analyses from the site indicate that trichloroethylene (TCE) is still present
S^ff.8 dnnking water study in 1980, the EPA sampled the city's water wells and found
TCE. Since then, the most contaminated wells have not been used for drinking water The
water from the remaining wells no longer contains detectable levels of TCE There are
approximately 24,000 people living within a 3-mile radius of the site. The nearest residence is
approximately 1/4 mile from the site. The City's drinking water supply wells are 1/4 mile away
from the site; abandoned, unplugged drinking water supply wells are also on the site There
are several irrigation wells near the site. Industrial and commercial facilities near the site use
groundwater for cooling or process water.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and City actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, and soil are contaminated 'with TCE.
Contaminated groundwater, surface water, and soil could adversely affect the
health of individuals through direct contact or ingestion. In addition
bioaccumulation of contaminants in fish, water fowl, livestock, and commercial
agricultural products may be another exposure pathway. The Town Branch of the
Shoal Creek is located approximately 2,000 feet downslope from the site and
receives contaminated water discharged from one city well and an on-site
extraction well. The creek empties into the Missouri River about 1 mile
downstream.
August 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach
This 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: The City removed several hundred barrels of chemicals and
arranged to clear the land surrounding the old treatment plant left by Lee
Chemical. In 1983, a contractor working for the City demolished the plant,
cleared the site, and disposed of the waste material. The City has monitored the well water
and drinking water and has managed the use of supply wells to eliminate TCE in the drinking
water. The City installed two new supply wells in 1982.
Entire Site: The City completed a study of the extent and nature of the
contamination in 1990. Following a public comment period, the EPA selected a
remedy, which includes installation of a more efficient purge well on site and
continuation of the interim action requiring discharge of extracted groundwater to a nearby
creek. In-situ aqueous soil flushing is being used through the installation of three infiltration
fields on site. Construction was completed in early 1994 and the system is in full operation.
Site Facts: The State of Missouri and the City of Liberty signed a Consent Order in March
1992. Under the terms of the order, the City will be responsible for the design and
implementation of cleanup activities under State supervision.
Environmental Progress
Removing contaminated barrels from the site and monitoring well water have reduced the
potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the Lee Chemical site while soil flushing
activities are being completed.
Site Repository
Liberty Public Library, 1000 S. Kent, Liberty, MO 64048
August 1995
LEE CHEMICAL
-------
ROMAINE CREE
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980741912
EPA REGION 7
Jefferson County
Near Imperial
Site Description
The Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek site covers about 10 acres of non-contiguous properties
near Imperial. In the early 1970's, the Bubbling Springs Ranch horse arena was sprayed with
dioxin-contaminated oil for dust control. Afterward, several horses became ill, and seven died.
The horse arena was excavated in 1972, and the dioxin-contaminated soil was used as fill
material in residential areas, including the Minker, Stout, Cashel, and Sullins residences.
Much of the fill from the Minker residence eroded into Romaine Creek. In 1983, the EPA
detected dioxin in the soil on site and in sediments of Romaine Creek. Approximately 500
people live within 1 mile of the site. The sediments of Romaine Creek were contaminated as
far as 6,000 feet downstream; however, the creek was not used as a drinking water source.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The sediments and soil from Romaine Creek were contaminated with dioxin from
the soil that was used as fill in the residential areas. People who came into direct
contact with or accidentally ingested the contaminated soil or sediments were at
risk. The fish of Romaine Creek may pose a health hazard if eaten.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in five stages: immediate actions and four long-term remedial
phases focusing on final treatment of contaminated soil, cleanup of Romaine Creek, cleanup
of the Stout area, and relocation activities.
2>\
August 1995
-------
Response Action Status — ——
Immediate Actions: Between 1985 and 1989, the EPA excavated about 14,000
cubic yards of soil at the Minker area, the Sulliris and Cashel residences, Romaine
Creek, and the Stout area. The soil was placed in steel storage structures at the
a.
Soil: The EPA selected a remedy to clean up the soil, which includes thermally
treating previously-excavated contaminated soils from this site at the Times Beach
site, another dioxm-contaminated site. The soil will be incinerated, which
permanently removes the contaminants. The ash from the incinerator will be disposed of at
the Times Beach site. The design of the final remedy was completed in coordination with the
remedy design, for the. Times Beach site. A permit application for thermal treatment activities
at Times Beach was approved by EPA and the state in April, 1995. It is planned-that
contaminated soil will be removed to the Times Beach site for final treatment in spring, 1996.
Romaine Creek: In 1987, the EPA selected a remedy to clean Romaine Creek,
which included excavating the contaminated soil and sediments and temporarily
storing them in steel structures on site. The excavated areas were backfilled with
clean material suitable for a natural creek. In 1989, the EPA completed the excavation and
storage of contaminated materials.
Stout Area: In 1987, the EPA selected a remedy to clean the Stout property,
which included excavating the contaminated soil and placing it in interim on-site
storage. The EPA completed excavation and storage activities at the Stout
property in 1988.
Relocation: In 1983, the EPA permanently relocated 11 families. Two other
families temporarily were relocated by the State during excavation of the Minker
area; they have been returned to their residences.
Site Facts: Under the terms of a Consent Decree entered in Federal Court in
December 1990, several settling defendants were given the responsibility for operating a
thermal treatment unit at the Times Beach site for treatment of all contaminated materials
excavated from the Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek site. The EPA is responsible for
transporting the soils from these areas to the Times Beach site for treatment.
Environmental Progress
The relocation of affected residents and the excavation and temporary storage of
contaminated soils and sediments from all portions of the site have reduced the potential for
exposure to hazardous materials at the Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek site while the EPA
awaits removal of the wastes to the Times Beach site for final treatment.
August 1995
MiNKER/STOUT/ROMAINE CREEK
-------
Site Repository
EPA Information Trailer, 1-44, Lewis Exit, Times Beach, MO 63025
MINKER/STOUT/ROMAINE CREEK
August 1995
-------
-------
MISSOURI EL
WORKS
M MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980965982
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
Cape Girardeau County
Cape Girardeau
from 1954 ™* 1992- Missouri
durins peak " periods- A
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
T
fr°m Ske °Perations in on~
off-site air sampling during
, and the bedrock is hlgWy g
dsr ft easier for pCBs and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) such as tnchloroethylene (TCE) to migrate into the
groundwaerVOCs chlorinated hydrocarbons and PCBs have been found in the
groundwater below the site. Sediments in channels draining the site and aras
^zssEtS* crrinatio,n of the soa is ****** -d °cc- * -
Res tots who eJ H f ge a dlSP°Sal of contami^ted transformer oil.
Residents who eat produce from gardens at the site could be at risk from the
the hea^r ^ C°"taminated airb°me dust nea]' the site c™* "feet
the nealth of those on or near the site.
August 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach
This 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: The site owner erected barriers to stop PCBs from
migrating off site via drainage ditches and conducted sampling of a" structure on
— site When it was determined that the site owner did not adequately perform
these activities, the EPA-resampled the structure and erected new barriers across the
drainage ditches to reduce the migration of.PCB-contaminated soil off site. „
Entire Site: In 1990, the EPA selected a remedy which includes on-site
incineration of the PCB-contaminated soil and pumping and treatment of the
. • . groundwater via air stripping, followed by carbon adsorption. After the site soils
have been incinerated, a further investigation of groundwater contamination is planned ine
delfgn for Srating contaminated materials began in the fall of 1994 and is scheduled for
completion late in 1997.
Site Facts- Over 100 potentially responsible parties signed an Administrative Order on
Consent to study site contamination and the feasibility of various cleanup technologies. In
S19?!a Consent Decree was signed between EPA and 175 P^^^^J^S
to design the remedy and cleanup the soil under EPA supervision. The Federal District
Court approved the Consent Decree on August 29, 1994. Solicitation for the soils
remediation contractor was made during February 1995. The EPA approved the MEW
Donor Committee's selection of soils remediation contractor on June 2U, lybtt.
Environmental Progress
Erecting barriers across drainage ditches to reduce the migration of
-------
ORONOGO-
MINING BELT
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980686281
EPA REGION 7
Jasper County
2 miles northeast of Joplin
Other Names:
Tar Creek-Jasper County
Trli-State Mining Area
Site Description
The Oronogo-Duenweg, Mining- Belt site, which covers 6,400 acres, is considered to be part of
the Tri-State Mining District of Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Two other sites in the
district, Gherokee County in Kansas andTar Greek in Oklahoma, were placed on the NPL in
1983. Lead and zinc ores, as well as soine cadmium ores, were mined from 1848 to the late
1960s, with the greatest activity occurring in an area between Oronogo and Duenweg,
northeast of Joplin. Mining efforts originally were performed by independent operations that,
in later years, were organized by several area mining companies. The site is honeycombed
with underground workings, pits, shafts (open, closed, and collapsed)., mine tailings, waste
piles, and ponds holding tailing waters. An estimated 10 million tons of wastes or tailings are
on the site. Throughout the mining era, groundwater had to be pumped to prevent the
flooding of mines. When mining ceased, the shafts and underground workings filled with
water. Tailing piles have been left uncovered and unstabilized. Leachate and runoff from the
piles can enter open shafts and pits. Approximately 1,500 people obtain drinking water from
private wells within 3 miles of the site.
At the turn of the century, at least 17 primary lead and zinc smelters were located within the
site. One of these smelters, located in northwest Joplin, continued processing and smelting
lead ore until the mid-1900's. Smelting operations resulted in release of fugitive dust and
stack emissions fallout that has contaminated soil in large areas of 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: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Tests conducted in 1977 by the U.S. Geological Survey, and by the potentially
responsible parties in 1993 and 1994, found soil, on-site groundwater, and surface
water to be contaminated with heavy metals including lead, zinc, and cadmium
from the mining operations. Potential risks may exist through drinking
contaminated surface water and groundwater or coming into direct contact with
contaminated soil or mine wastes.
August 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in five phases: two time-critical removals and three remedial
actions directed at cleanup of residential soil contaminated from smelters and mining wastes;
establishing public water supplies in areas where residents consume shallow groundwater from
private wells; and cleanup of mining wastes that contribute contamination to surface and
groundwater.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The EPA and the parties potentially; responsible:for site
contamination are providing 100 affected residences with bottled water. Six
daycare centers and several residential yards have been cleaned up.
Entire Site: Remedial investigations directed at the mining wastes were
completed in 1995. The feasibility study is scheduled for completion in 1996.
Cleanup alternatives will be reviewed and selected and cleanup work will begin.
Evaluation of homes built in smelter areas and on mining wastes is underway. A time-critical
removal action is also being conducted at home will high soil lead levels. Remedial actions in
these areas are scheduled for 1997.
Feasibility studies are being conducted to provide public water supplies to areas where
residents consume shallow groundwater. Construction of these systems is scheduled for late
1996.
Site Facts: EPA signed an Administrative Order on Consent with PRPs to investigate the
mining waste in 1991. A Unilateral Administrative Order was issued to the PRPs to provide
bottled water to residents in 1994. EPA is conducting cleanup activities in the smelter areas.
Environmental Progress
Investigation of homes in the smelter area showed several thousand yards had high lead
levels. Time-critical removals of the worst areas are underway. Long-term cleanup actions
will follow in 1996.
August 1995 ^ ORONOGO-DUENWEG MINING BELT
-------
Site Repository
' Three site repositories have been established within Jasper County:
Webb City Public Library, 101 S. Liberty, Webb City, Missouri 64870
Joplin Public Library, 300 Main Street, Joplin, Missouri 64801
Carl Junction City Hall, 105 N. Main Street, Carl Junction, Missouri 64834
ORONOGO-DUENWEG MINING BELT
August 1995
-------
-------
I
QUALITY PLA1
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980860555
EPA REGION 7
Scott County
Sikeston
Site Description __
The Quality Plating site covers approximately 5 acres in Sikeston. The site originally consisted
oirarl-acre unlined lagoon and manufacturing plant. From 1978 until the facility was
destroyed by fire in early 1983, Quality Plating was engaged in-contract electroplating of
common and precious metals. Untreated wastewater originating from the flow-through rinse
tanks, as well as acid, alkaline, and metal-plating batch solutions, were continuously
discharged into the lagoon at a rate of at least 10,000 gallons per day. The State detected
elevated levels of chromium and lead in an on-site well. The area now is used for hay
production. The population within a mile of the site is 120 people. Six residences within k
mile of the site obtain drinking water from shallow wells.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and on-site soils are contaminated with metals such as lead and
chromium from the former electroplating operations. Drinking or bathing with the
contaminated groundwater could cause adverse health effects.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a two phases: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
August 1995
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: The EPA removed contaminated soil from the site in 1992.
Entire Site: Under monitoring by the EPA, the State began an investigation of
the site and alternative cleanup methods in mid-1991. Soil sampling, installation of
groundwater monitoring wells and groundwater sampling have been conducted.
Initial studies have indicated the groundwater is contaminated with chromium and the plume
is moving south of the site. A Record of Decision was signed January 1995 which provides for
a groundwater cleanup by pump and treat.
Site Facts: The State repeatedly has cited the company for discharging untreated plating
waste into subsurface waters. This was in violation of the company's permit under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The EPA and the State have entered into
a Cooperative Agreement for the state to design a pump and treat system.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated soils from the Quality Plating site has reduced the potential for
future contamination of local groundwater while further investigations leading to final
cleanup activities are taking place.
Site Repository
Sikeston Public Library, 221 N. Kings Highway, Sikeston, MO 63801
August 1995
QUALITY PLATING
-------
SHENANDOA
STABLES
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980685838
EPA REGION 7
Lincoln County
Moscow Mills
Other Names:
.Arena 1 - Shenandoah Stables
Highway 61 Fill
Slough Area
Site Description . _
The Shenandoah Stables site covers about 7 acres near Moscow Mills! In 1971 the horse
arena became contaminated with dioxin when a St. Louis waste oil hauler sprayed it with
approximately 2,000 gallons of contaminated oil for dust control. Aftemard, numerouT birds
rodents, and over 40 horses died. Several adults and children also became ill. InT9Tthe top
6 to 8 mches of contaminated soil were excavated and used as fill material in a new Wgnway
fci 1972, more soil was removed from the arena and placed in a swampy area on site IhT
EPA sampling in 1982 indicated that the top 30 inches of soil in the arena and sdHn fee
slough are contaminated with dioxin. Approximately nine houses are located in the rural area
a±u1ta f ~THC S °f ^ Shenandoah Stabies« ^ Adjacent properties are
agricultural. The nearest residence is approximately 330 feet east of the site
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Filial Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The soil in the arena and slough is contaminated with dioxin from the placement
of contaminated oil on the site and from earlier cleanup attempts Because
cleanup activities have taken place, the site no longer poses a threat to public
health or the environment.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases directed at cleanup and treatment of contaminated soil.
August 1995
-------
Response Action Status ~~ ~
Immediate Actions: In 1988, the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination closed the stables, posted warning signs, and restricted access to
the property. Sampling also was done at this time to determine the amount of
contamination at the site.
Soil' The EPA selected the methods for cleanup of the contaminated soil in the
summer of 1988. These cleanup activities included: excavating the soil to health-
based standards; placing the soil in plastic,bags and storing the-bagged soil on site
in an approved facility; decontaminating on-site structures; and fencing and posting the
sto'ge'a'rea. T^e EPA completed the cleanup in 1990, which included^ excavatio^and on-
site interim storage of dioxin-contaminated soils above the. 1 part per billion (ppb) action
level.
Soil Disposal: In the fall of 1990, the EPA selected a remedy to dispose of the
soil which will be completed in conjunction with the cleanup of the Times Beach
, , Site The selected action is to transport the bags of dioxin-contammated soil to
Times Beach for incineration once the Times Beach incinerator is operable. A permit
Ration was approved in April, 1995 for the Times Beach thermal treatment unit, which is
scheduled to begin full scale operation in spring, 1996.
Site Facts: Pursuant to an EPA Administrative Order, the parties potentially responsible for
sill contamination restricted public access to the site in 1983. The site initially was identified
due to citizen complaints concerning illnesses in children who had visited the site.
Environmental Progress
By closing the stables, restricting access to the site, decontaminating on-site structures, and
Soring the contaminated soil on site in an approved facility, the EPA has eliminated
Sate threats to the community and the environment at the ShenandoahCables site.
Contaminated soils from the site will be transported to the Times Beach facility for final
destruction of dioxins by incineration, once the permit application is approved.
Site Repository
Moscow Mills City Hall, 500 Highway MM, Moscow Mills, MO 63362
August 1995
SHENANDOAH STABLES
-------
SOLID STATE
CIRCUITS, INC
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980854111
EPA REGION 7
Greene County
Republic
Other Names:
Republic Plant, SSC
Site Description
The Solid State Circuit^ Inc. (SSC) site covers 1 acre in Republic. During a 1980 drinking
water study, trichloroethylene (TCE), a volatile organic compound (VOC), was detected in
one of the City of Republic's public water supply wells. Further investigation by the State
identified the site, at which SSC formerly manufactured printed circuit boards, as the source
of the contamination. Allegedly, barrels of solvents, including TCE that was used as a copper
residue stripper and plating wastes were stored in a sump pit in the basement of the facility
The State learned that after a fire destroyed the building, the new property owner (not SSC)
buried the remaining structure and its contents in the basement, where there also was an
unplugged well. SSC excavated material from the basement and installed three monitoring
wells in response to an order from the State. The Town of Republic, wth an estimated
population of 5,535, potentially is endangered by contaminated groundwater. There are
private wells and community wells within a 3-mile radius of the site. One community well was
closed as a result of the contamination. Schuyler Creek is located downgradient from the site
approximately 2 miles away. '
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 on and off site is contaminated with VOCs including TCE,
methylene chloride, and chloroform from the former site operations. TCE was
found in on-site soil prior to immediate response actions. Removal of
contaminated surface and subsurface soils eliminated the risk of exposure. Sewer
line and utility workers could be exposed to contaminated groundwater; however,
standard safety procedures eliminate unacceptable risks.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
-term remedial phase
August 1995
-------
Response Action Status •
Immediate Actions: In 1984, the EPA fenced the area where the building once
stood. In 1985, following SSC's initial cleanup actions at the site, the EPA
removed approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil from the basement, the soil
underneath the basement, and debris to further stabilize the site. The basement was sealed
with a gravel and soil cover to bring it up to grade. The EPA plugged the abandoned well,
and two wells were installed to extract contaminated groundwater.
Entire Site: Under the supervision of the State, SSC conducted an investigation
at the site to determine the extent and nature of contamination and to identify
. alternative technologies, for cleanup- As. a result of the-investigation, SSC will
extract the contaminated groundwater by using new and existing wellsrperform on-site
treatment of extracted groundwater using two existing air strippers; discharge-treated-water tcr
the city sewer system to receive further treatment at the publicly owned treatment works; and
implement a city ordinance to prevent construction of drinking wells in or near the
contaminated groundwater plumes. Monitoring of the groundwater will continue to ensure
groundwater quality. SSC began designing the remedy in the spring of 1991, which was
completed in late 1992. A groundwater pump and treatment system was installed in 1993,
which is expected to operate for 40 years to meet established cleanup standards.
Site Facts: The EPA, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and Solid State
Circuits signed a Consent Decree in July 1990, requiring SSC to conduct the remedy design,
construction and operation activities, under the supervision of the State. The Consent
Decree was entered by the Court in May, 1991.
Environmental Progress
After the initial cleanup actions undertaken by Solid State Circuits, Inc., the EPA reduced
remaining risks to people and the environment by securing the site, removing contaminated
soil and debris, sealing the basement area, and installing wells to extract and treat the
contaminated groundwater. Construction of the groundwater pump and treatment system has
been completed and is expected to operate for 40 years to meet established cleanup
standards.
Site Repository
Springfield/Greene County Library, 393 E. Central, Springfield, MO 65801
August 1995
SOLID STATE CIRCUITS, INC.
-------
ST. LOUIS Al
HAZELWOOD
INTERIM
STORAGE/FUTl
COATINGS CO.
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980633176
EPA REGION 7
St. Louis County
Approximately 15 miles northwest of
, downtown
lambert/St. Louis International Airport
Other Names:
Iwood [Interim Storage & Vicinity
Latty Avenue
imbert-St Louis Intl. Airport
Site Description
The St. Louis Airport/Hazelwood Interim Storage/Futura Coatings Co; site consists of three
areas covering approximately 32 acres. These areas were used for storing radioactive and
other wastes resulting from uranium processing operations conducted in St. Louis.
Radioactive scrap, drums of waste, and bulk waste were stored in the airport area in
uncovered and unstabilized piles from 1947 to the mid-1960s, when they were transferred to
the 9200 Latty Avenue area, later known as the Hazelwood Interim Storage (HIS) site.
Buildings in the airport area were razed, buried, and covered with clean fill after 1967. In
1973, the land was conveyed to the St. Louis-Lambert Airport Authority. The HIS and the
Futura Coatings Co. plant cover 11 acres adjacent to Coldwater Creek. In 1966, Continental
Mining and Milling Co. acquired the property and recovered uranium from wastes purchased
from the Atomic Energy Commission's (AEC) St. Louis operations. In 1967, the company
sold the property, and by 1973 most processing residues had been removed. Under the
direction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the present owner excavated
contaminated soil and is storing it in two large piles in the eastern portion of the 11 acres
adjacent to Coldwater Creek. Since the 1970s, Futura Coatings, a manufacturer of plastic
coatings, has leased the western portion of the site. A McDonnell Douglas office building
housing 24,000 employees is within % mile of the airport area. An estimated 35,420 people
reside within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/28/89
Final Date: 10/04/89
August 1995
-------
Threats and Contaminants
II
Radon-222 was present in the air near the airport area in tests conducted by the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 1986. Elevated levels of uranium, thorium,
and radium are present in groundwater near the airport area and in surface and
subsurface soils. Direct contact with or accidental ingestion of contaminated soils
or groundwater on or near the sites may pose health risks to individuals.
Cleanup Approach
i
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
directed at cleanup of the entire site. Although not a part of the NPL listing, the downtown
Mallinckrodt plant, that processed the materials that contaminated the airport site, is included
in the comprehensive cleanup being addressed through DOE's Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP).
Response Action Status — — ____
Immediate Actions: In 1984, the DOE cleared the HIS and Futura Coatings
areas, constructed a vehicle decontamination facility, installed a perimeter fence,
excavated and backfilled the edges and shoulders of Latty Avenue, and
consolidated the resulting contaminated soils into one secured storage pile. In 1986, during a
city road improvement project, contaminated soil from roads leading to and from all three
areas was excavated and placed into a secured storage pile. In 1995, DOE excavated several
thousand cubic yards of contaminated soils from six residential properties and transported the
material to the Envirocare facility in Utah for disposal. In a jointly funded effort, DOE and
Mallinckrodt, dismantled and decontaminated one of the plant buildings with those materials
being shipped to Envirocare for disposal.
Entire Site: The DOE has investigated the site under its FUSRAP. In 1982, the
DOE conducted preliminary studies of radioactive contamination in the ditches
along the sides of the roads leading to and from the areas. In 1986, boreholes
were drilled to continue the contamination study and to collect geological information. The
DOE is continuing studies of all the site areas, which will lead to additional cleanup actions.
A more comprehensive investigation began in 1990 to determine the full extent of
groundwater and soil contamination and to identify alternative technologies for the cleanup.
Phase I of the investigation was completed in 1992. Phase II was completed in 1994. A
community task force sponsored by the DOE has been established to participate in the
decision-making process. It is hoped that a consensus will be reached in early 1996.
August 1995
ST. LOUIS AIRPORT/HAZELWOOD INTERIM
STORAGE/FUTURA COATINGS CO.
-------
Environmental Progress
The DOE is conducting intensive investigations into the cleanup alternatives for the St. Louis
Airport site. Until these investigations are completed, the immediate actions described above
have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials and further contamination of
the site.
Site Repository
St. Louis Public Library, 1301 Olive Street, St. Louis, MO 63102
ST. LOUIS AIRPORT/HAZELWOOD INTERIM
STORAGE/FUTURA COATINGS CO.
August 1995
-------
-------
SYNTEX
FACILITY
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD007452154
EPA REGION 7
Lawrence County
Verona, 30 miles southwest of Springfield
Other Names:
Spring River Basin
Syntex Tank Spill Area
Hoffman-Taff Lagoons-Former
Syntex Detoxification Area
Syntex Trenches
Slough Area-Hoffman/Taff Lagoons
Site Description - .
from Sftexand »sed it «o »Jire'h^^t^e^SS * ^ *""»
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The fish in the Spring River were contaminated with dioxin
up to 12 miles
August 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach — : - - -
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of dioxin-
contaminated soils and equipment and monitoring of the ground water.
Response Action Status - -- - " ~~~~
Dioxin-Contaminated Soils and Equipment: Syntex and the EPA reached an
agreement in 1988 on the cleanup methods to be used at the site. The selected
tJi^j cSanup methods include: excavating and off-site thermal treatment of dioxin-
and alt arels where waste levels were below 20 parts per billion (ppb). The final cleanup
action alowi^Sde decontamination of the equipment at the site. Decontamination and
SanSrig of contaminated photolysis and old NEPACCO equipment was mitiated m 1990.
Ground water: In early 1993, Syntex completed the ground water studies, and a
femedy dSon was issued in 1993 that states that no further action is reqmred at
this time, since contamination is within established health-based standards.
,=. ,
Ground water monitoring will continue on a quarterly basis for two years.
.
ur neoo and Recovery Act (RCRA). In September 1983, Syntex Agnbusmess
arS the EPA entered into a Consent Agreement, which outlined the plan for cleanup of the
Syntex site.
Environmental Progress
fish populations have steadily decreased over the past several years.
Site Repository
Varon Elementary School, 1011 Ella, Verona, MO 65769
August 1995
SYNTEX FACILITY
-------
1
TIMES BEACH
SITE
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980685226
EPA REGION 7
St. Louis County
City of Times Beach
Site Description
The Times Beach Site comprises an area of 1 square mile and is located 20 miles southwest
of St. Louis. The site is a formerly incorporated city whose road system was sprayed annually
with waste oil for dust control in the early 1970s. The oil later was found to be contaminated
with dioxin during an investigation of the city's road systems by the EPA in 1982. During the
same period, the nearby Meramec River flooded the city, and residents were forced to
evacuate their homes. Subsequently, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended
that the residents who had been evacuated, as well as those who had returned following the
1982 flood, be permanently relocated. The EPA transferred funds to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) for the permanent relocation of residents and businesses in
1983. By the end of 1986, all residents were relocated permanently. Upon completion of the
permanent relocation, title to the site was conveyed to the State of Missouri. Currently, the
site is completely vacant and fenced. All roads leading into the city are blocked and posted
with no trespassing signs. The site is patrolled by security guards on a 24-hour basis. Most of
the former community lies within the 25-year flood plain of the Meramec River. The
population within a 25-mile radius of the site is approximately 2,000, and includes the
community of Crescent, and a portion of Eureka. The site is located in a mixed-use
residential and agricultural area.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL. LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 03/04/83
Final Date: 09/08/83
August 1995
-------
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site surface soils along the roadways are contaminated with dioxin. Human
exposure to dioxin has been limited by the evacuation of the residents, excavation
of contaminated soils, and access restrictions to the Times Beach site. On-site
workers, security guards, and trespassers could be exposed to dioxin through direct
contact or accidental ingestion of dioxin-contaminated soil currently in interim
storage. Fish in the Meramec River show elevated levels of dioxin. Area residents
who consume these fish could be exposed to this contaminant. Data indicate that
sources downstream of Times Beach are the primary contributors of dioxin into
the Meramec River.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on stabilization of
Times Beach, excavation and treatment of the soil and other materials, and the permanent
relocation of residents and businesses from the Times Beach area.
Response Action Status
Stabilization: The remedies selected by the EPA in 1984 to stabilize Times
Beach and three nearby sites included: construction of an approximately 50,000-
cubic-yard interim storage facility at Times Beach, and excavation of the dioxin-
contaminated soil from Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek, Quail Run Mobile Manor, and the
Castlewood Area sites. Construction of a series of spur levees also was selected in order to
control water velocity during flooding and to limit erosion of contaminated soils. Due to State
legislative and administrative actions, the interim storage facility that was planned to contain
contaminated soils could not be constructed. Only the spur levee portion of the remedy could
be implemented. In 1985, the EPA raised an existing levee constructed by the Missouri
Highway Department as the first phase in the construction of a three-phase spur levee. In
1989, the second and third phases of the spur levee were completed, including relocation of
roadways.
Soil, Structures, and Debris: This phase of the cleanup includes excavation and
thermal treatment of contaminated soil and the final disposal of structures and
debris. Cleanup activities include: demolition and disposal of uncontaminated
structures and debris at Times Beach in a facility meeting solid waste disposal requirements;
construction of a ring levee to protect a temporary thermal treatment unit from a 100-year
flood; mobilization of a temporary transportable thermal treatment unit to Times Beach;
excavation of all dioxin-contaminated soils at Times Beach exceeding the levels for protection
of human health and the environment; thermal treatment of excavated soils to destroy
contaminants; and on-site disposal of treatment residue (ash), after receiving EPA approval
of its chemical content, in a facility meeting solid waste management requirements. The
design and construction activities involved in the demolition and disposal of uncontaminated
structures and debris were completed in 1992. Excavation and interim on-site storage of
dioxin-contaminated soils pending final treatment was completed in the fall of 1994. The
engineering design and construction of the thermal treatment unit, was completed in 1995. A
August 1995
51
TIMES BEACH SITE
-------
trial burn and dioxin stack test is planned for the thermal treatment unit in fall 1995 Full
scale operation is planned to begin in spring, 1996.
Relocation: This third cleanup phase addresses the permanent relocation of
the'EPA To^de'S65 ^ ^ aCquisiti°n °f a11 remaini»g properties. In 1983,
nnr,Sl0ff19f' *" residents we^ ^located permanent^ FEMA tacompleted^Te "^ %
purchase of aU remaining properties. FEMA, the State of Missouri, the trustee for the
former City of Times Beach, and St. Louis County entered into a four-party con rac for
permanent re ocation. Ownership of the properties has been conveyed to the State in
accordance with the four-party agreement.
Site Facts: In 1990, the EPA, the State, and the potentially responsible parties signed a
£f^St^^^
rn S° " ex'avatlon and transportation of dioxin-contaminated soils from the 26
-—i sites to Times Beach. The potentially responsible parties are responsible for
ind disposal of structures and debris at Times Beach, excavation of dioxin-
ouiia, operation or tne thermal treatment facility to treal" materials from th 77
sites, and restoration of the site. '
the
Environmental Progress
stablhzed' and numerous cleanup actions have been
sAI re C°mpleted in 1992' C°ntrolIinS ^authorized access to the
site. Al residents and businesses have been permanently relocated, the purchase of the
remaining parcels by FEMA has been completed, and the ownership of ?he pScds ^oftand
has been conveyed to the State of Missouri. The demolition and disposal of thrstmctures at
Times Beach has been completed. Excavation of dfaxin^ntaminatJ,Qibld^Srm
temporary on-site storage pending final treatment has been completed. Thermal treaSt of
dioon-contammated soils from Times Beach and other sites is scheduled to b^n
Site Repository
EPA Information Trailer, 1-44, Lewis Exit, Times Beach, MO 63025
TIMES BEACH SITE
August 1995
-------
-------
VALLEY PARK
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980968341
EPA REGION 7
St. Louis County
Valley Park
Other Names:
TCE Study
Site Description
The Valley Park TCE site is located within the city limits of Valley Park. The site is a plume
of con aminated groundwater in the Meramec River alluvial aquifer. In 1982, the Mssouri
Departmen of Natura Resources (MDNR) detected a number of volatile organic chemicals
n£S°' m 1 Utfg tnchloroe^lene (TCE)5 tetrachloroethene (PCE), and tricLroetS
the ^' t. f^Ce ™C1P W3ter SUppIy WdIS Serving the com^nity,. Private wells within
the vicimty of the site also are contaminated with VOCs. However, area private wells
reportedly are used only for industrial purposes. Possible sources of contamination include
the mdustnes located in Valley Park. One source has been identified, bu? not aU
contaminants in the groundwater can be attributed to the responsible party. There are
gmundwafef ' "**" * ** ^"^ ^ ***** ***** ^from ^affected
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 located at the sources, are contaminated with VOCs
mcludmg TCE, PCE and TCA. Drinking water from the contaminated aquifer^
poses a potential health threat to area residents using polluted groundwater
resources.
Cleanup Approach
•53
August 1995
-------
Response Action Status —
Immediate Actions: In 1986, Valley Park installed aeration equipment at its
water treatment plant to remove the VOCs that had been detected in the
— drinking water. In 1989, Valley Park was connected to the St. Louis County public
water system, which now supplies its drinking water. Since Valley Park was connected to the
County public water system, the residents no longer are using contaminated water for
domestic purposes. In 1990, a potentially responsible party removed 331 cubic yards of PCE-
and TCE-contaminated soil and backfilled the area. The predetermined cleanup levels were
not attained; however, planned studies'and future activities are expected to attain the cleanup
levels.
Groundwater: Under supervision by the.MDNR, one of the potentially.
responsible parties, Wainwright Industries, agreed to conduct a site investigation
._. on their property. In the fall of 1994, EPA selected a remedy for cleanup of part
of the site (Wainwright area). The remedy includes: limited soil excavation; soil vapor
extraction and, after five years, additional soil excavation if needed; air sparging to accelerate
the soil cleanup; groundwater extraction, treatment by airstrippmg, and discharge of treated
groundwater into the public sewer system; and groundwater monitoring The mvestiga ion for
Se remainder of the site is scheduled to be completed in 1997, at which point EPA will select
a remedy for final cleanup.
Environmental Progress
Bv connecting the public water supply to the County water system and removing
contaminated soU, the potential for-exposure to contaminated drinking water or soil has been
reduced at the Valley Park TCE site while final cleanup remedies are being planned.
Site Repository
Valley Park City Library, 320 Benton Street, Valley Park, MO 63088
August 1995
51-
VALLEY PARK TCE
-------
WELDON S
FORMER AR
ORDNANCE
WORKS
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MO5210021288
EPA REGION 7
St. Charles County
25 miles west of St. Louis
Other Names:
Weldon Springs National Guard Facility
N US Army Training Center
'eldon Springs-Ex Army Ordnance
Plant
Ft Leonard Wood
Site Description - ___ _ . _ _
The Weldon Spring Former Army Ordnance Works site occupied more than 17 000 acres and
e°m
otoluene i » Pr°uCe «
nmtrotoluene (TNT) and dmitrotoluene (DNT) for the U.S. Armed Services. A series of
tend transfers left the Army with 1,655 acres, which it has operated since 1959 for the Army
HO™ ^ " f rid°n SP™\ TraininS AWL Contaminatedareas are spread througL
asa^
S^Srs-
and elght areas where explosive wastes were burned. Approximately 5 000 peoplJ Se Sin 3
mde. of the ^ and approximately 70,000 people obtafa drinking water from St SSs
County wells within 3 miles of the hazardous substances at the sife. Surface water in the area
flows either to the Mississippi River watershed to the north or the Missouri
to the south. Surface waters within 3 miles are used for recreational activities
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 02/21/90
August 1995
-------
.Threats and Contaminants
In 1987 a Department of Defense (DOD) investigator found explosives such as
TNT and DNT in monitoring wells near the lagoons. TNT, DNT, and lead have
been identified in soil in several areas at the site, and TNT was detected in 1987 in
surface water downstream of the lagoons. The Mississippi watershed, which
supports wetlands, wildlife, and recreational activities, may be threatened by runoil
from the site. The TNT and DNT contamination on the site represent a physical
hazard with some potential for explosion. Ingestion of polluted surface water,
groundwater, or contaminated soil may pose a threat to human healthv DNT is a
probable human carcinogen and may be absorbed through direct contact.
Cleanup Approach —
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the entire site. The first action will involve source control to address
all contaminated soil, pipeline and structures. A separate action will be taken to address the
groundwater.
Response Action Status — "
Initial Actions: In late 1992, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers removed the
interior wooden boards of a storage room used by the Francis Howell School
,,.^,,.^ District This storage room was a box factory during the operation of the former
Ordnance Works during World War II. Explosive contaminants were discovered within the
interior wooden boards after wipe samples from the building were taken. The inferior
wooden boards were removed and replaced with sheetrock. As part of a removal action
burning ground #1 was fenced to eliminate any potential exposures while investigative actions
are ongoing. Surface chunks of TNT have also been removed from the burning grounds to
eliminate any direct contact threat.
August 1995
Sit
WELDON SPRING FORMER ARMY
ORDNANCE WORKS
-------
!te u H %l A !87' ^ ^identified a number of contaminated areas on the
site. Under EPA direction, DOD began a complete investigation into the extent
nat, r ^ T% contammation at the s*e in early 1990. The study will identify the
nature and extent of contaminants and will recommend cleanup remedies for soils, pipelines
area? P±anof ,hC ^ T "^ ^ ^ deanup phaS£S reflectinS these conL'minaS'd
areas. Phase II of the investigation was completed in early 1992. Samples from various lakes
and springs-were collected as well as soil gas samples from an area known as MechaScal
6 C Ol ReC°rd °f
ine (R°D) t0 addreSS Surface «*• buried
pipeline and miscellaneous structures is scheduled to be issued in the fall of 1995
Groundwater will continue to be monitored to determine the impact of surface contamination
on the groundwater The DOD/DOE joint groundwater investigation began in May 1^95
Samples from both the DOD and DOE ^mtoring/^^M^-^edL^L^^ed
and radionuclides. Surface waters: was also: included.^
Sitl,iS ParticiPating in the Installation Restoration Program, a specially
ohbllShCdtby the DOD in 1978 to W«ntify, investigate'and'conLl the
of hazardous contaminants at military and other DOD facilities
Environmental Progress
The removal and replacement of interior wooden boards in a
reduced the potential for exposure to explosive contaminants
leading to a final cleanup remedy continue.
room at the site has
8
Site Repository
Weldon Training Area, 7301 Highway 94 South, St. Charles, MO 63304
WELDON SPRING FORMER ARMY
ORDNANCE WORKS
57
August 1995
-------
-------
WELDON SPR
QUARRY/PLAN
PITTS (USDOE/
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MO3210090004
EPA REGION 7
St. Charles County
25 miles west of St. Louis
Other Names:
'eldon Spdng-Raffinate Pitts
"|don Springs Chemical Plant
Site Description - .
The Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pitts (USDOE/Army) site covers 230 acres and is located
^WlSSS^—ffi
for the contamination, both radioactive and non-radioactive, on the property The Jf1181516
includes a 51-acre disposal area, a 169-acre abandoned uranium feed mLrials plan various
94 t mTTn a,9'aCre 'ff* limeSt°ne quan?located 4 "*« from the pla^ ?rom
ste Duerrrea^3-rnt f ^ ^ ^^ an eXpI°siv£S Production Pla* ™ the
site. Due to frequent spills, wastewater containing sulfonate derivatives contaminated surface
water and groundwater. The Ordnance Works area was closed at the end of World War II
Ordn^T8^ Stm?UreS WCre demolished' In 1955, the AEC acquired a por on of the
Ordnance Works area for construction of a uranium feed materials plant Mallincfarodt Inc
operated the plant under a contract with the AEC from 1957 to 1966. £e^Snt Invert?d
uranium concentrates to uranium tetrafluoride and uranium metal. Thoriumfore ako a
radioactive meta^ was processed. The residues from the processing werTZpo2k of in four
v^em ^h8' ^ ^ ^^ Pl^' ^"^ ^™^ soil surface, sewer
system, and the drainage into the Missouri River became contaminated with uranium
thorium, and their radioactive decay products. From 1943 until 1957
abandoned limestone quarry located' about 3 miles southwest of^the tf
of unknown quantities of materials contaminated with trinitrotoluene (TNT) and
°eTT) reSi,dUeS' ThC AEC 3Cquired the Site in 1958 and "-d the quarry from
P°Se °fI7Uranium'thorium' and rad^^ residues and contaminated
Gqi!lpm?nt- F^°m 1966 to 1969' the Army deposited additional TNT
?d TV" H^ anyn Thf-qUari7 " 10C3ted 3/4 °f a mile from the St. Charles
• r 1?- 3S a drmkmg W3ter S0urce for Approximately 70,000 people
The population living within 3 miles of the site is 5,000 people. >^peopie.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
August 1995
-------
Threats and Contaminants
m
Off-site groundwater is contaminated with TNT, DNT, and other explosive
materials. The soil is contaminated with radionuclides, TNT, DNT, polycychc
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from
transformers, and heavy metals. Off-site surface water is contaminated with
uranium. Accidental ingestion of and direct contact with contaminated
groundwater, surface water, or soil may cause a potential health hazard. Adjacent
wildlife and recreational areas may be threatened due to off-site migration of the
contaminants. Contaminant migration from the quarry to the adjacent Missouri
River alluvium poses a potentiaUhreat-to-the County well field.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four stages: immediate actions to stabilize the site and four
long-term remedial phases focusing on source control in the chemical plant area, cleanup ot
the quarry bulk waste, the groundwater at the chemical plant area, and cleanup of the quarry
residuals.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The DOE began interim cleanup actions at this site in
1987, which to date have included removing overhead piping and asbestos,
.^..— consolidating and storing containerized chemicals, removing electric lines and
poles cleaning up radioactive soil from Army Reserve properties, dismantling the chemical
plant structures, removing PCB transformers, constructing stormwater diversion dikes to
reduce off-site migration, and constructing two wastewater treatment plants. Approximately
13 000 sallons of PCB fluids and flushing solutions were removed and transported to an ott-
site incineration facility. As of the summer of 1994, all 40 buildings and other structures have
been dismantled and placed in temporary storage. Treatment and discharge of stormwater
and impounded surface water will continue through the life of the project.
Source Control, Treatment, and Disposal: In 1986, the DOE began an
investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination of the air, lakes
T - -- and streams, sludges, and 40 structures, and to identify cleanup alternatives. The
studies were completed in 1993, and final cleanup strategies for contaminated areas were
initiated to include removal of the building foundations, preparation of the subbase tor the
disposal cell, construction of the disposal cell, and construction of a pilot scale treatment
facility.
August 1995
WELDON SPRING QUARRY/PLANT/PITS
(USDOE/ARMY)
-------
Quarry Bulk Waste: In 1990, the EPA chose to excavate and to temporarily
store quarry bulk wastes on site. Wastes are being transported over a haul road
constructed solely for this purpose. As of the summer of 1994, roughly 2 000
truckloads of waste have been excavated and placed into temporary storage. Cleanup
activities are scheduled for completion in October 1995.
Quarry Residuals: An investigation focusing on quarry residuals and
groundwater contamination at the quarry is ongoing. The full scope of the
is scheduled '3111104 ^ C°mpleted until bulk waste excavation is complete, which
Site Facts: Under a 1992 Interagency Agreement with the EPA, the DOE will conduct -
cleanup actions at the quarry, as well as the plant area and nearby radioactive contaminated
prop crt ics.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated soil, materials, and structures, and the treatment of impounded
surface water described above, have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardou?
substances at the Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pitts site while further sludies and cleanup
activities are ongoing. v
Site Repository
425
WELDON SPRING QUARRY/PLANT/PITS
(USDOE/ARMY)
August 1995
-------
-------
WESTLAKE
MISSOURI
EPA ID#-MOD079900932
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
St. Louis County
Bridgeton
of ,h If ^ !?" ^ IS adJacent to prime agricultural land and is in the flood
in of the Missouri River, From 1939 to 1985, limestone was quarried on the site
Beginning in 1962, portions of the property were used for landfilling of solid and liquid
n^Tnnnf63' municiPal refuse' and Construction debris. In 1973, Cotter Corp. disposed of
tnS f'?f f TmUm f6 ProcessinS residues ™^d with soil in two areas covering a
total of 16 acres of the site. A radiological survey conducted for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission^NRC) m 1981 and 1982 documented radioactive wastes on site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater beneath the site and soil are contaminated with radioactive
contaminants. Potential threats exist for people who have direct contact with or
ingest contaminated groundwater or soil.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of
radiological areas and the landfill. P
August 1995
-------
Response Action Status
Radiological Waste Areas: An intensive investigation of contamination within
the radiological areas began in 1994. This study, which is expected to be
completed in 1996, is exploring the nature and extent of the contamination and
will identify the best strategies for cleanup.
Landfill: An investigation began this year to explore the nature and extent of
the contamination. This study will result in the selection of final cleanup
strategies to address contamination from the landfill.
Environmental Progress
After listing the site on the NPL, the EPA completed a preliminary study and determined
tha!"no immediate actions were necessary at the Westlake Landfill site while site studies are
underway.
Site Repository
Contact the Region 7 Superfund Community Relations Office
August 1995
WESTLAKE LANDFILL
-------
WHEELING
SERVICE
COMPANY LAN
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD000830554
EPA REGION 7
Andrew County
1 mile south of Amazonia
Other Names:
Wheeling Waste Disposal Site
Site Description
The Wheeling Disposal Service Company operated a landfill that covers approximately 20
acres centrally located on two adjacent areas totaling about 200 acres.: The larTdfiU was
estabhshed m the early 1970s, and the facility received a State permit in 1975 "00"^ e as
an industrial;waste disposal facility. Between 1980 and 1981, the company voluntarily
operations. The facility resumed operations under the authority of a spS^
perm* issued by the State of Missouri until it voluntarily closed in 1986. The Souri
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) periodically inspected the site and monitored
groundwater when the landfill was in operation. Based on MDNR hazardous waste records
wastes containing pesticides, heavy metals, paint, solvents, and leather tanning sludge were
detected 211 > ^ *? investi§ations conducted by ** EPA, contaminants w?re
detected m monitoring wells and springs on the site. Drinking water is supplied to
appropriately 4,000 residents of Savannah through wells that are within 1 to 2 miles of the
site. There are private wells within k mile of the site. The shallow groundwater below the
site supplies water to the aquifer, potentially contaminating it
Site Responsibility: This site was addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/22/87
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil on site was found to be contaminated with various
mP°dS V°CS 3nd ^
arsenic'
n ndfrof c' crom
nickel and lead from the former waste disposal activities. Several seeps on the
northside of the site are contaminated, indicating that local surface water was
potentially threatened.
August 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach
V>rlwwii iu|
-------
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
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 ofthe Order,
the potentially responsible parties (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 parties 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 unconfmed part 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.
-------
GLOSSARY.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring pro-
cess by which a compound is reduced in
concentration over time through adsorption,
degradation, dilution, and/or transformation.
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 are 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 contami-
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 water
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
-------
GLOSSARY
extent and nature of toxic releases. Character-
ization provides the basis fonacquiring 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 t* *t 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
sues 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
(CERCL A): 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 parties are required to
perform and/or ithe 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.
(fJ
-------
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 Parties].
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.
Deminimis: This legal phrase pertainrto
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 througn
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land farming, deep well
injection, or incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope mat 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.
-------
_r-^
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 Rl/FSr
[see Remedial .Investigation]. ..-,.;-.-.•
Filt ration: A (treatment process for removing
solid (paniculate) matter from water by
passing the waier through sand, activatedi.^
carbon, or a mam-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
-------
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
aood 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 HKi>
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 (igmtabihty,
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-
l._n«j i,,,™;ncr at hiffh temperatures* e.g.,
burning sludge to reuut,c m* »w«—--0
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
Ser which the Department of Defense to
been identifying and evaluating its hazardous
waste sites and controlling the migration ot
hazardous contaminants from those sites.
Intake: The source from where a water
supply is drawn, such as from a nver or water
body.
Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment bltweln the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,
-------
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.]: 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.
. i i _ : ,. .,
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 groundwaiercan
be sampled at selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in
-------
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 (OSO: The
predesignatedEPA, 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 wastewateris
discharged into receiving waters.
Overpacking: -Process used for isolating
large volumes orwaste 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
, fiuoranthene, 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.
-------
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 Biphenyis (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 bioaccumuiate in fatty
tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control ACL
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons ~
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and .
biphenyls, are a group o
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 paracipate 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.
-------
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 oversce-
_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
-------
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 Characterisation: The technical pro-
cess used to evaluate the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, which is 4
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.
i
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
75-
-------
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 Reauthprization
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
76
-------
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 then- low water
solubility, environmental persistence, and
77
widespread industrial use, they are commonly
found in soil and groundwater.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that uses
a series of tank!;, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from
water. -j
Wastewater:- The-spent ot 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 grpundwater 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.
-------
-------
-------
------- |