Progress at Region 7
National Priorities Lisit (NPL)
Superfund Sites
      August, 1994
  726 Minnesota Ave, Kansas City, Kansas


                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

 A Brief Overview 	

 How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites?	  4


 Bee Cee Manufacturing Plant.......
 Big River Mine Tailings/st. Joe Mineral." .*.".".".".*""*	
 Conservation Chemical Company..
 Ellisville Area Site	
 Fulbright Landfill	
 Kern-Pest Laboratories	
 Lake City Army Ammunition Plant...!."!."!!26

 SSfcS/S&^iii'i^fiit;::::	•• - K::::::::::,»
 Missouri Electric Works site		' ,7
 North-u Drive Well Contamination Site!'.'.'.'." ''''	 ,?
 Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt	             	 f „
 Quality Plating		 39
 Shenandoah Stables	          	*"	 41
 solid state Circuits,  Inc... 11111111	 ll
 St.  Louis Airport/HIS/Futura Coating...'.'.'.'.'.    	1?
 Syntex  Facility-Verona		 2L
 Times Beach.		• • 5O
 Valley Park TCE	!I!I!"!!!!I!I!I	  52
 Weldon Spring Quarry/PLNT/PiTS" (USDOE) .*	S
 Weldon Spring Ordnance Works (FORMER)		  60
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets,


                                                                      •g~——    '——

         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 Supcrfund
 — was the first Federal law established to deal
 with the dangers posed by the Nation's hazard-
 ous waste sites.

 After Discovery, the Problem

 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

Since the Supcrfund program began, hazard-
 ous waste has surfaced as a major environ-
 mental concern in every pan of the United
 States. It wasn't just the land that was con-
 taminated by pjist disposal practices.  Chemi-
 cals in the soil were spreading into the ground-
 water (a source of drinking water for many)
 and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
 Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
 sites, while improperly disposed or stored
 wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
 community and the environment at others.

 The EPA Identified More than 1,200
 Serious Sites
 The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
 sites as the most serious in the Nation. These
 sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
 targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
 site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
 mates that, while some will be deleted after
 lengthy cleanup!?, 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.


From the beginning of the program, Congress
recognized that the Federal government could

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 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

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

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
stan of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through  the
cleanup pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining


The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup construction to understand that envi-
ronmental protection does not end when  the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies — like those designed to clean up ground-
water —must operate for many years in order
to accomplish their objectives.

The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed. No matter
who has been delegated responsibility for
monitoring the cleanup work, the EPA will
assure that the remedy is carefully followed
and that it continues to do its job.

Likewise, the EPA does not abandon a site
even after the cleanup work is done. Every
five years, the Agency reviews each site where
residues from hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public and environmental

  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.


  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.


 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 noit receive this overview volume,
  ordering information is provided in the front of
  this book.
 This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
 on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
 up under the Superfund program. These sites
 represent the most serious hazardous waste
 problems in the Nation and require the most
 complicated and  costly site solutions yet
 encountered.  Each book gives a "snapshot" of
 the conditions and cleanup progress that has
 been made at each NPL site. Information
 presented for each site is current as of April
 1991. Conditions change as our cleanup
 efforts continue, so these site summaries will
 be updated annually to include information on
 new progress toeing 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 glossziry defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.

      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 pan of the process is that any time
                       How  Does
                     Program  Wor
                            to  Clean  U

     Discover site and
     determine whether
     an emergency
11 lit
   STEP 2

Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or

Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
    • Emergency actions an 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 i
                  three-step process.

                  Although this book provides a current "snap-
                  shot" of site progress made only by emergenc
                  actions and long-term cleanup actions at
                  Superfund sites, it is important to understand
                  the discovery and evaluation process that lead!
                  to identifying and cleaning up these most   I
                  serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous

  waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
  evaluation process is the starting point for this
  summary description of Superfund involve-
  ment at hazardous waste sites.
      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 (CERCLJS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.

     What happens If there is an Imminent

 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 immedialte action is taken.

      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 ciken, 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:            \

   o  Are hazardous substances likely to be

    •   How are they contained?

    •   How might contaminants spread?

    •   How close is the nearest well, home, or
       natural resource area such as a wetland
       or animal sanctuary?

    •   What may be harmed — the land,
       water, air, people, plants, or animals?

Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that
they do not threaten public health or the envi-
ronment. But even in these cases, the sites
remain listed in the Superfund inventory for
record-keeping purposes and future reference.
Currently, there are more than 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.

      If the preliminary assessment
      shows a serious threat may exist,
      what's the next step?
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional
information to evaluate its hazard potential.
During this site inspection, they look for
evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking
drums and dead or discolored vegetation.
They may take some samples of soil, well
water, river water, and  air. Inspectors analyze
the ways hazardous materials could be pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access to
the site.
     How does the EPA use the results of
     the site Inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRSl
The HRS is the scoring system the EPA uses j
assess the relative threat from a release or &
potential release of hazardous substances fror
a site to surrounding groundwater, surface
water, air, and soil. A site score is based on
die likelihood that a hazardous substance will]
be released from the site, the toxicity and
amount of hazardous substances at the site,i
the people and sensitive environments poten- ]
daily affected by contamination at the site.

Only sites with high enough health and envi-
ronmental risk scores are proposed to be adde
to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on ithe|
NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can j
have a long-term cleanup paid for from
Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust I
fund. Superfund can, and does, pay for emer-j
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 evaluat
through the scoring process as the most seriou^
problems among uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites in the U.S. In addition,.
site will be proposed to the NPL if the Agency |
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
issues a health advisory recommending thatt
people be moved away from the site. The
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-

 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.
      After a site Is added to the NPL, what
      are the steps to cleanup?
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent, long-term cleanup.
Since every site presents a unique set of chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:

  1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
    detail the extent of the site contamination
   2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
     possible cleanup remedies

   3. Record of 'Decision or ROD: decide
     which remedy to use

   4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy

   5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy

 This remedial response process is a long-term
 effort to provide a permanent solution to an
 environmental problem that presents a serious
 threat to the public or environment.

 The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
 a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
 ity study (RI/FS) that determine the nature and
 extent of contamination at the site and identify
 and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These
 studies may be conducted by the EPA or the
 State or, under their monitoring, by private

 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 iis 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

 a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
 be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
 cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose
 of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi-
 nary and conservative assessment of potential
 risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
 EPA may find either that there is no real threat
 or that the site does not pose significant human
 health or environmental risks.
      How are cleanup alternatives
      identified and evaluated?
 The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
 ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
 cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
 information collected during the remedial
 investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
 tives is called a. feasibility study.

 Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
 to the needs of each individual site, more than
 one possible cleanup alternative is always
 considered. After making sure that all potential
 cleanup remedies fully protect human health
 and the environment and comply with Federal
 and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
 tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
 carefully. These comparisons are made to
 determine their effectiveness in the short and
 long term, their use of permanent treatment
 solutions, and their technical feasibility and

 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 thq
      Does the public have a say in
      final cleanup decision?
 Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
 public be given the opportunity to comment!
 the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns;
 considered carefully before a final decision ]

 The results of the remedial investigation amj
 feasibility study, which also point out the
 recommended cleanup choice, are publishe
 a report for public review and comment.
 EPA or the State encourages the public to
 review the information and take an active:
 in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets an|
 announcements in local papers let the i
 nity know where they can get copies of the
 study and other reference documents conce
 ing the site.  Local information repositories, |
 such as libraries or other public buildings,;
 established in cities and towns near each'
 site to ensure that the public has an opportur
 to review all relevant information and the
 proposed cleanup plans. Locations of info
 tion repositories for each NPL site descrii:
 this volume are given in Appendix B.

The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan;
is published. These comments can be writ
or given verbally at public meetings that the j
EPA or the State are required to hold. Nek
the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and pic
ing written answers to specific community
comments and concerns. This";
summary" is pan of the EPA's write-up of i
final remedy decision, called the Record of
Decision, or ROD.

The ROD is a public document that explains
the cleanup remedy chosen and the reason it]

 was selected. Since sites frequently are large
 and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD may
 be necessary for each contaminated resource or
 area of the site. This may be necessary when
 contaminants have spread into the soil, water,
 and air and affect such sensitive areas as
 wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned
 up in stages. This often means that a number
 of remedies, using different cleanup 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,

 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 groundwacer or
 dredging contaminattsd 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 jui 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, in the site
      automatically "deleted" from the

 No. The deletion of a site from the NFL 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 tthe cleanup goals speci-
 fied in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."

It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected

 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

 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
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 j
parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it
has the authority under the Superfund law to
legally force those potentially responsible fen-
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 Superfu
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.
site may worsen, it could be necessary to start]
the cleanup right away. Those responsible fc
causing  site contamination are liable under 1
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 paj
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Supcrfur
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.!

EPA ID# MOD980860522
    Dunklin County
    City of Maiden
Site Description  —	'•	

The former owners of the Bee Cee Manufacturing Co., a 2-acre site in Maiden'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
ended2the 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.
  Proposed Date: 10/15/84
   Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
          Off-site groundwater and on-site soils are contaminated \vith 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 1994

 Cleanup Approach
 The site is addressing the groundwater remediation phase of the site.
 Response Action Status
          Entire Site: A removal was conducted to removed contaminated soil in 1992. A
          feasibility study was started after the removal to address the contaminated
          groundwater.  This study is expected to be completed in September 1994.
 Environmental Progress
 After adding the Bee Cee Manufacturing site to the NPL, the EPA performed a preliminary
 evaluation and determined that no immediate actions were necessary to protect the nearby
 population or the environment while the investigations leading to a final cleanup solution are
 taking place.  EPA removed the contaminated soil from the site. The state investigated the
 grundwater and determined that a area of contamination has stablized under sitgiand is not
 moving off site.
Site Repository
Maiden Branch - Dunklin County Library, 113 N. Madison, Maiden, MO 63863
August 1994

EPA ID# MOD981126899
    Francois County
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. Since 1973, St. Francois County Environmental Corp. (SFCEC) has leased
approximately 60 acres of the southern portion of the tailings pile from the County to
operate a sanitary landfill, that is no longer being operated. A transfer station and recycling
center is now on site. In 1977, heavy rains caused an estimated 50,000 cubic yards of tailings
to slump into Big River. Elevated levels of lead were first detected in bottom-feeding fish by
the Missouri Department of Conservation and then later in surface water by the Columbia
National Fisheries Research Laboratory in 1982. Local residents were advised not to eat the
fish.  In 1981, St. Joe Minerals Corp. made an attempt to stabilize the tailings. Big River is
used for recreational purposes such as fishing, as well as for commercial activities such as
watering livestock. Some 23,000 people reside within 4 miles of the site.
 Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
                    Federal actions.
Proposed Date: 02/07/92
  Final Date: 10/14/92
 Threats and Contaminants
          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.
                                                                       August 1994

 Cleanup Approach
An Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis has been prepared for the conduct of a non-time
critical removal action to stabilize and contain contamination onsite.  An Administrative
Order on Consent to conduct the removal has been signed by the Doe Run Company
(successor to St. Joe Minerals) and the SFCEC. A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
•will be performed for groundwater at the site subsequent to site stabilization activities.
Response Action Status
          Surface Soil/Stream Sediment: An investigation will be performed to
          determine the nature and extent of contamination.  This investigation will
          conclude with recommendations for final site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
Initial investigations indicate that the Big River Mine Tailings/St. Joe Minerals Corp. site
poses no immediate threat to the health and safety of the nearby population 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
August 1994

EPA ID# MOD000829705
     Jackson County
3900 Front Street, Kansas City

      Other Names:
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 iis estimated that the
facility handled at least 48,000,000 gallons of liquids and sludges ami 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 site 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-lead enforcement of
                      potentially responsible parties'
    Proposed Date: 04/10/85
      Final Date: 10/04/89
                                                                           August 1994

  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 benzene, chloroform, and toluene. Surface and
           subsurface soil on the site contained all of the above, as well as dioxins and
           polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Contaminants were entering 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
 Response Action Status
           Entire Site: The EPA selected a remedy for this site in 1987. It featured both
           source control and groundwater cleanup measures: surface cleaning including
           demolition and disposal of existing buildings, tanks, and debris and placing them in
 an on-site 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 EPA 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 1994

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 continuing to actively monitor the effectivemsss of the continuing
groundwater cleanup.
Site Repository
Mid-Continent Public Library, 317 W. Highway 24, Independence, MO 64050
August 1994


EPA ID# MOD980633010
      St. Louis County
Near Ellisville, 20 miles west of
    downtown St. Louis

       Other Names:
     Mario Angelo Site
   Rosalie Investment Co.
    Mid-America Arena
     Callahan Property
Bliss, Russel 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 sites 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 at the site and were used for industrial waste disposal. Drums of wastes
had been buried at the site, 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 tributaiy to the Missouri River.
The Rosalie property is an 85-acre tract of land. Drummed liquid and solid wastes were
disposed of on approximately 4 acres of the site. A housing development now is located on
the Rosalie subsite. Approximately 1,000 people live within a 1-mile radius of the subsites;
5 000 live within 3 miles. Residents rety on drinking water drawn from private wells and the
public distribution system. Roughly 265 wells exist within 1 mile, atid 789 are within 3 miles of
the sites.
 Site Responsibility:  This site is being addressed through
                      Federal and State actions.
     Proposed Date: 10/23/81
      Final Date: 09/08/83
                  September 1994

 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 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 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 the TWI 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 properly cleanup remedy includes:
          (1) controlling erosion and slippage of the fill area where drums had been
 excavated from 1980 to 1981 and removing what remained of that cleanup; (2) removing and
 disposing of the plastic cover and hold-down blocks from the fill area; (3) regrading the fill to
 a more stable slope, covering it with a compacted soil layer, and reseeding; and (4) removing
 and salvaging fences and gravel from the former drum-storage areas. The Rosalie subsite
 cleanup remedy includes: (1) excavating contaminated soil from two locations and removing it
 to an EPA-approved hazardous waste facility; (2) placing debris in drums; (3) excavating  and
 overpacking buried drums and sampling and testing their contents; (4) disposing of drums at
 an EPA-approved disposal facility; (5) testing soil to verify the effectiveness of the cleanup;
 and (6) 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 mid-1990.
 Work at the Callahan property is expected to be completed by the end of 1992.
September 1994

           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 dioxin-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: (1) excavating dioxin-contaminated soils and containerizing
them; (2) storing the containers of waste temporarily in a metal building on the site; and (3)
maintaining security, controlling surface drainage at the site, and sampling the groundwater.
The drum and other cleanup remedies include: (1) excavating, sampling, and  overpacking
buried drums; (2) excavating hazardous wastes and contaminated soils and materials; (3)
taking drums and waste mixtures  suitable for land disposal to an appropriate  EPA-approved
facility; (4) incinerating drums and waste mixtures unsuitable for land disposal off site at an
EPA-approved facility; and (5) disposing of non-hazardous material and debris at a permitted
sanitary landfill. For both components of this remedy, site restoration activities win 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 siubsite.  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 is
currently being reviewed for operation of the temporary thermal treatment unit at Times
 Environmental Progress

 All contaminated materials have been removed from the Rosalie and Callahan subsites. 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 630215
                                                                          September 1994


EPA ID# MOD980631139
                                   EPA REGION 7
                                      Greene County
                                  3 miles north of Springfield

                                       Other Names:
                                 Springfield 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 Fulbright
Landfill, consisting of 98 acres, accepted waste from 1962 through 1968. The Sac River
Landfill, which consists of 114 acres, 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 clrurns 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. An estimated
10,000 people live within a 3-mile radius. 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 wast<:water treatment plant.
The  local drinking water supply is drawn from a municipal well and a lake upgradient of the
site.  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
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
  Final Date: 09/08/83
 Threats and Contaminants
          The groundwater 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 Sac River, which also receives treated municipal wastewater.
          Since the landfill is in the flood plain of the Little Sac l&ver, high waters may have
          spread site contaminants.
                                                    August 1994

 Cleanup Approach
 Responsible parties have completed short term remedial actions, consisting of drum and
 waste removal for offsite disposal under EPA.  EPA has not yet identified the need for any
 additional long term, response actions.
 Response Action Status
           Entire Site: Under monitoring by the EPA, the parties potentially responsible for
           the site contamination completed a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS)
           of the site in 1988. The following short term remedies was 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 for a 30-year maintenance period; monitoring the
 leachate that occasionally seeps from the landfill during this period 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 will 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 RI/FS under the
 EPA's oversight. In January 1990, the EPA issued a Consent Decree for the potentially
 responsible parties to design the short term remedy selected by EPA in this ROD.
 Environmental Progress
The removal and disposal of contaminated soils from the sinkhole and trench area has
eliminated the threat of exposure to contamination at the Fulbright Landfill. The
implementation of restrictions on land and groundwater use and continual groundwater and
surface water monitoring to ensure that there is no potential future risk to human health or
the environment.
Site Repository
Springfield/Greene County Library, 397 E. Central, Springfield, MO 65801.
August 1994

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
          endrin 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.
                                                                     September 1994

  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, EPA and
           the parties potentially responsible for site contamination conducted additional
 sampling.  The EPA has excavated approximately 6,075 cubic yards of contaminated soil and
 sediment and has disposed of them at a federally approved off-site land disposal facility.
 Sampling was conducted to confirm that all contaminated soils above health based levels were
 removed,  dean soil has been placed in the excavated areas with vegetation to minimize
 erosion. These cleanup activities were completed in mid-1992.

           Groundwater and On-Site Structure: The EPA selected a remedy in 1990 to
           address this portion of the site. The EPA concluded that groundwater did not
           require any cleanup activities, although the EPA will continue monitoring to
 ensure that groundwater meets acceptable standards. The remedy to address the
 contaminated building structure includes decontamination of the building and off-site
 incineration in a federally approved facility of the debris. In 1993, EPA amended the remedy
 to include demolition of the building. This remedy is currently on hold pending review of the
 Environmental Progress
The excavation and disposal of contaminated soil and sediment at the Kern-Pest Laboratories
site have reduced the threat from hazardous materials to the nearby population while
remaining activities for the building.
Site Repository
Cape Girardeau Public Library, 711 N. dark Street, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
September 1994

EPA ID#MO3213890012
   Jackson County
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 n. 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.
 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. All on-site personnel and on-site residences'
          water supplies are served from a water treatment plant at the site.
                 August 1994

 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 will continue monitoring contaminant migration in
 accordance with the Groundwater Monitoring Plan approved by EPA and MDNR.
           Installation-Wide Area: The Department of 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
 and identified additional source areas.  Additional fieldwork was completed in 1992.

           Northeast Corner: The Army initiated an investigation in 1990 to determine the
           extent and type of contamination present in the northeastern corner.  Following
           review of the preliminary data, the Army has determined that additional field work
 is required. This fieldwork was completed in 1992 and the Remedial Investigation Report will
 be completed in 1995.

          Area 18: Previous environmental data from the installation-wide site investigation
          indicate this site has contaminated the soil and  groundwater at LCAAP. An
          investigation of Area 18, which will provide additional information  needed to
 determine the magnitude and extent of contamination, was completed in 1992 and the
 Remedial Investigation Report wfll be completed in 1995.

          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.
She 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 1994

Environmental Progress
The installation of air strippers, closure of lagoons, and the LCAAP 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
August 1994


EPA ID# MOD980853519
                                                        EPA REGION 7
                                                             Clay County
                                                       3 miles southeast of Liberty

                                                            Other Names:
                                                      Liberty Public Water Supply
Site Description	7—	

The 1-acre Lee Chemical site 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. Although the
City, which owns the property, has removed the building and visible contamination from the
site and taken soil samples, analyses indicate that trichloroethylene (TCE) is still present on
the site. During a drinking 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 a
                     combination of 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 1994

 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 has 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 will be used through the installation of an infiltration field
on site. Construction was completed in March of 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 wUl be responsible for the design and
implementation of cleanup activities under State supervision.
Environmental  Progress
The immediate actions described above, including the removal of contaminated barrels from
the site and the monitoring of well water, have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances at the Lee Chemical site. The groundwater cleanup is expected to take
approximately 5 years.
Site Repository
Liberty Public Library, 1000 S. Kent, Liberty, MO 64048
August 1994
                               LEE CHEMICAL

EPA ID# MOD980741912
   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-containinated 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 and State actions.
 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 haaird if eaten.
 Cleanup Approach  —	——	j——	—	
 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.                   ;
              September 1994

  Response Action Status
            Immediate Actions: Between 1985 and 1989, the EPA excavated about 12,000
            cubic yards of soil at the Minker area, at the Suffins and Cashel residences,
            Romaine Creek, and the Stout area. The soil was placed in steel storage
 structures at the Minker area.
            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 dioxin-contaminated site. The soil will be incinerated, which
 permanently removes the contaminants. The ash from the incinerator will be disposed of on
 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 is currently under review.

           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 12 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 to operate 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 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 completes the remaining cleanup
September 1994

Site Repository
EPA Information Trailer, 1-44, Lewis Exit, Times Beach, MO 63025
September 1994


 EPA ID# MOD980965982
Site Description
                                    EPA REGION 7
                                     Cape Girardeau County
                                        Cape Girardeau
Missouri Electric Works, located on this 6 1/2-acre site, has been in operation at its present
location since 1953 and sells, services, and reconditions electric motors, transformers, and
transformer controls. In addition, it recycles transformer oil and copper wire. The transformer
oil was filtered and reused, with about 90 percent being salvaged. The remaining waste oil
either was sold to local residents for dust control purposes, disposed of by a contractor, or
simply was allowed to leak or spill onto the ground around the facility. Some waste oil
reportedly was burned on site. The  total amount of waste oil generated was about 28,000
gallons. The facility was issued an order during August 1988, prohibiting the company from
accepting electrical equipment containing oil with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) levels in
excess of 1 part per million (ppm). Approximately 37,800 people lives within 3 miles of the site,
while 1,000 people live within a mile of the site. The land around the site is used for
industrial and commercial purposes. Prime agricultural land is less than a mile away. The
Mississippi River, 2 miles from the site, is used for fishing, recreational and commercial
boating, and swimming. The Cape La  Croix Creek, which flows into the Mississippi, receives
runoff from the site through a series of drainage ditches. Most of the water needs of the City
of Cape Girardeau are provided by the Mississippi River. However, groundwater from a
public well 2 miles south of the site supplements river water during peak demand periods. A
wetland area is located immediately to the south of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
  Final Date: 02/21/90
                                                     August 1994

Threats and Contaminants
          The EPA found PCBs from site operations in on- and off-site air sampling during
          1987. The soils in the area are somewhat permeable, and the bedrock is highly
          fractured. These conditions have made it easier for PCBs and volatile organic
          compounds (VOCs) such as trichloroethylene (TCE) to flow into the groundwater.
          VOCs, chlorinated hydrocarbons and PCBs have been found in the groundwater
          below the site. Sediments in channels draining the site and areas off site contain
          PCBs. PCB contamination of the soil is widespread and occurs to a depth of at
          least 5 feet from leakage and disposal of contaminated transformer oil. Residents
          who eat produce from gardens at the site could be at risk from the contaminated
          soil. Breathing contaminated airborne dust near the site could affect the health of
          those on or near the site.
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. The
design for incinerating contaminated materials is scheduled to begin in 1995.
Site Facts: Over 100 potentially responsible parties signed an Administrative Order on
Consent to study site contamination and the feasibility of various technologies for cleanup.
In late 1991, a Consent Decree was signed between EPA and 175 potentially responsible
parties to design the remedy and cleanup the soil under EPA supervision. The decree was
lodged in the US Court during June 1992. The motion for entry of the Consent Decree was
made March 9,1993. A motion for a status conference was made during early June 1994.
The Judge has not yet ruled on the Consent Decree.
August 1994
                    MISSOURI ELECTRIC WORKS

Environmental Progress
The immediate actions undertaken by the EPA and the potentially responsible parties have
reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the Missouri Electrical Works
site while final remedies are being designed to clean up the soil and additional groundwater
investigation is being conducted.
Site Repository
Cape Girardeau Public Library, 711 N. Clark Street, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
August 1994


EPA ID# MOD007163108
                                 EPA REGION 7
                                     Greene County
                                   North of Springfield
                                     Other Names:
                                   oirtgomery Metal Craft
Site Description 	—	

In 1983, the residents near the North-U Drive Well Contamination site became concerned
over the taste of their water. When the State investigated, it was discovered that seven
private wells at five locations were contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
The EPA extended public water supply lines to the affected homes. The source of the
contamination is unknown. Sinkholes in the area could have been used for waste disposal and
might also have served as a conduit for migration of contaminants to the groundwater.
There is no defined site boundary. This site is in a rural residential surea with approximately
300 people living within a 1/4 mile radius. The contaminated wells are  1,500 feet west of
Fulbright  Spring, a major water source for the City of Springfield, which has a population of
133,000.                                                 i
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
  Final Date: 06/10/86
 i   Deleted: 9/8/94
Threats and Contaminants
         Soil and groundwater in the private wells are contaminated with VOCs including
         toluene and benzene. The majority of the private wells have been plugged and,
         therefore, do not pose a health threat. However, a few owners have refused to
         have their wells plugged; people who use the contaminated drinking water may
         suffer adverse health effects.  Recently, metals were found in some nearby private
         wells. However, there are no nearby sources of metal contamination. The metals
         found in groundwater may be a natural phenomenon resulting from metals in
         alluvial soils, bedrocks, or groundwater, or could be attributed to plumbing.
         Because the bedrock is fractured, it may allow contaminants to migrate from the
         immediate area in directions and velocities which would not otherwise be expected.
                                                September 1994

           Cleanup Approach
           In March of 1993, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) in which EPA
           determined that it could not undertake response action to address the organic
           contaminants in the groundwater because the CERCLA Tetroleum Exclusion"
           precludes Superfund response actions for the release of petroleum products.
           Response Action Status
                     Immediate Actions: In 1985, the EPA extended the Springfield
                     public water supply lines to North-U Drive. In addition, 67 private wells
                     permanently were plugged to prevent their use and to prevent the well
                     casings from serving as avenues of deep aquifer contamination.

                    Entire Site: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources conducted
                    a remedial investigation at this site. Data from this investigation was
                    used by EPA to determine the releases were from petroleum products.
          Environmental Progress
          The immediate actions described above have eliminated the potential of exposure
          to hazardous substances in the drinking water and will continue to protect
          households around the North-U Drive Well Contamination site. Site cleanup has
          been completed and the EPA deleted the site from the NPL,
          Site  Repository
          Kearny Branch Library, 630 W. Kearney, Springfield, MO  65801.
September 1994

EPA ID# MOD980686281
Site Description
    Jasper County
2 miles northeast of Joplin

    Other Names:
Tar Creek-Jasper County
  Til-State Mining Area
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, Cherokee County in Kansas and Tar Creek in Oklahoma, were placed on the NPL in
1983. Lead and zinc ores, as well as some 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.
Site Responsibility:  This site is being addressed through
                     Federal and potentially responsible
                     parties' actions.
  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 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 1994

 Cleanup Approach	

 This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
 entire site.
 Response Action Status
          Entire Site: An investigation by the EPA into the extent and type of
          contamination at the site began in 1991. Once the investigation is completed,
          scheduled for 1994, alternatives for cleanup will be reviewed and selected, and
 cleanup work will begin.

 Site Facts: This mining site is potentially eligible for cleanup funds from the State of
 Missouri's approved program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
 1977. The EPA is developing a policy for listing such sites. An Interagency Agreement was
 signed with the U.S. Geological Survey in April 1990 to provide technical assistance at this
Environmental Progress
During the investigations performed by the PRPs in 1993, EPA determined that numerous
private wells used for consumption, were contaminated with heavy metals. Currently,
approximately 100 residences are being provided bottled water as an alternative to the
contaminated wells.  EPA is exploring long-term solutions to the contaminated private wells.
Site Repository
Three site repositories have been established within Jasper County:
1) Webb City Public Library
   101 S. Liberty
   Webb City, Missouri 64870
2) Joplin Public Library
  300 Main Street
  Joplin, Missouri 64801
3)  Carl Junction City Hall
    105 N. Main Street
    Carl Junction, Missouri 64834
August 1994

EPA ID# MOD980860555
    Scott County
Site Description
The Quality Plating site covers approximately 5 acres in Sikeston. The site originally consisted
of a 1-acre unlined lagoon and the 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 1/4
mile of the site obtain drinking water from shallow wells.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
                    Federal and State actions.
 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
 phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
    a long-term remedial
                 August 1994

  Response Action Status  _ _ _ __ _ _

            Immediate Action:  The Further Investigation of Groundwater Report indicated
            the need to do a feasibility study for remediating contaminated groundwater.

           Entire Site: Under monitoring by the EPA, the State began an investigation of
           the site and alternative cleanup methods in mid-1991. To date,  soil sampling,
           installation of groundwater monitoring wells and groundwater sampling has been
  conducted. The final feasibility study for the groundwater contamination was completed June
 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 to perform a study at the site, led by the State. This study
 indicated the groundwter is contaminated with chromium and the plume is moving south of
 the site.
 Environmental Progress
 The removal of contaminated soils from the Quality Plating site has greatly reduce 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 1994
                                                                      QUALITY PLATING

MISSOURI           r"
EPA ID# MOD980685838   h
                                  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. Afterward, numerous birds,
rodents, and over 40 horses died. Several adults and children also became ill. In 1971, the top
6 to 8 inches of contaminated soil were excavated and used as fill material in a new highway.
In 1972, more soil was removed from the arena and placed in a swampy area on site. The
EPA sampling in 1982 indicated that the top 30 inches of soil in the arena and soil in the
slough are contaminated with dioxin. Approximately nine houses are located in the rural area
within a 1/4-mile radius of the Shenandoah Stables. The adjacent properties are mostly
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.
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
  Final 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.                         i
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases directed at cleanup of the soil and solid waste and disposal of the soil.
                                                                    September 1994

 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 and Solid Waste:  The EPA selected the methods for cleanup of the site in
           summer 1988. These cleanup activities included: (1) excavating the soil to health-
           based standards; (2) placing the soil in plastic bags and storing the bagged soil on
 site in an approved facility; (3) decontaminating on-site structures; and (4) fencing and
 posting the area. The EPA completed  the cleanup in 1990, which included the excavation and
 on-site interim storage of dioxin-contaminated soils above the 1 part per  billion (ppb) action

           Soil Disposal: In September 1990, the EPA selected a remedy to dispose of the
           soil; it will be completed in conjunction with the cleanup  of the Times Beach site.
           The selected action is to transport the bags of dioxin-contaminated soil to Times
 Beach for incineration, once the Times Beach incinerator is operable. A permit application is
 currently under review for the Times Beach thermal treatment unit.

 Site Facts: Pursuant to an EPA Administrative Order, the parties potentially responsible for
 site 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, and removing the contaminated soil, the
EPA has eliminated immediate threats to the community or the environment at the
Shenandoah Stables site. Contaminated soils from the site will be transported to the Times
Beach facility for final destruction of dioxins by incineration.
Site Repository
Moscow Mflls City Hall, 500 Highway MM, Moscow Mills, MO 63362
September 1994

EPA ID# MOD980854111
    Greene County
    Other Names:
 Republic Plant, SSC
Site Description	

The Solid State Circuits, 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, with an estimated
population of 5,535, potentially is endangered by contaminated groundwater. There are
  "  , _  _ tt _	1	*i	~11_ .-«4'1-.*— r*. O WV*IA *>ns4iiid X>P *-Vt£» Olf-C3  I\T\f* /»/*\tVltnilHl1""tf U/P1!
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.
  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
          measured 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 ai long-term remedial phase
 focusing on cleanup of the entire site.                        j
                 August 1994

 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 wells, perform on-site
 treatment of extracted  groundwater using two existing air strippers, discharge treated water to
 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.  Installation of
 the automated data collection and controller system began in late  1991, replacing the original
 air stripper towers.  The design was completed in late 1992. A groundwater pump  and treat
 system was installed in  1993 which is expected to operate for 40 years.

 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 secured the
site, removed contaminated soil and debris, sealed the basement area, and installed wells to
extract and treat the contaminated groundwater. These actions reduced the potential for
exposure to hazardous substances while final remedy design and cleanup activities are
Site Repository
Springfield/Greene County Library, 393 E. Central, Springfield, MO 65801
August 1994

EPA ID# MOD980633176
       St. Louis County
Approximately 15 miles northwest of
   bert/St. Louis International Airport

       Other Names:
   wood Interim Storage & Vicinity
        Latty Avenue
    mlbert-St Louis Intl. Airport
Site Description
The St. Louis Airport/Hazelwood Interim Storage/Futura Coatings Co. site consists of three
areas covering approximatety 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 iremoved. 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.
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
1/2 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.
     Proposed Date: 04/28/89
       Final Date: 10/04/89
                                    47 '-
                    August 1994

  Threats and Contaminants
           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
 The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
 directed at cleanup of the entire site.
 Response Action Status
           Immediate Actions: In 1984, the DOE cleared the HIS and Future 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. DOE is expected to propose
 further interim actions in 1995.

          Entire Site: The DOE has investigated the site under its Formerly Utilized Sites
          Remedial Action Program (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 wfll 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 H was completed in 1994.
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 at
the site.
August 1994

Site Repository
St. Louis Public library, 1301 Olive Street, St. Louis, MO 63102
August 1994


                                                        EPA REGION 7
                                                           Lawrence County
                                                  Verona, 30 miles southwest of Springfield


MISSOURI              h~Q^VnIT>f>v         Other Names:
EPA ID# MOD007452154   tfl-P^H-ftim       sPrln9 Rlver Basln
                                                         Syntex Tank Spill Area
                                                      Hoffman-Taff Lagoons-Former
                                                       Syntex Detoxification Area
                                                           Syntex Trenches
                                                    Slough Area-Hoffman/Taff Lagoons

Site Description	—	

The Syntex Facility is a 180-acre site located in rural, predominantly agricultural Verona.
Syntex Agribusiness, Inc. acquired the plant in 1969 from the Northeastern Pharmaceutical
Chemical Company (NEPACCO) and has produced vitamins and prepared animal feeds and
feed ingredients since 1971. From 1969 to 1971, NEPACCO leased a portion of the facility
from Syntex and used it to manufacture hexachlorophene. The production of
hexachlorophene generated the by-product dioxin. Dioxin residues were disposed of in five
areas at the Verona facility. The major areas identified as being contaminated are: the slough
area, lagoon area, spill area/irrigation area, burn area, and trench area. In 1989, Syntex
excavated and transported the lagoon wastes to a mobile incinerator to destroy the dioxin.
The incineration was completed in 1989. The population within 3 miles of the Syntex Facility
site is approximately 650 people. The active portion of the facility is located within the Spring
River 100-year flood plain.
Site Responsibility:
                     This site is being addressed through
                     Federal and potentially responsible
                     parties' actions.
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
          downstream. The soil, pools, puddles, and groundwater on the site also are
          contaminated with dioxin. However, groundwater contamination is only slightly
          higher than background levels. Exposure to dioxin-contaminated soil, drinking
          contaminated water, or eating fish that have been contaminated by dioxin could
          present a health threat.
                                                                       September 1994

 Cleanup Approach
 The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of dioxin-
 contaminated materials and cleanup of the groundwater.
 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
           cleanup methods include: (1) excavating and off-site thermal treatment of dioxin-
 contaminated soil that exceeds a health-based criteria for an industrial site; (2) dismantling
 and decontaminating equipment with a series of solutions and water rinses; and (3) installing
 a clay cap with a vegetative cover over the trench area and portions of the slough area and
 revegetating areas contaminated with dioxin below the action level. Syntex removed
 contaminated soil and transported it off site for incineration. The ash residue was disposed of
 off site as well. This action also involved clay capping and revegetating over the trench area
 and all areas where waste levels were below 20 parts per billion (ppb). The final cleanup
 action also will include decontamination of the equipment at the  site. Decontamination and
 dismantling of contaminated photolysis and old NEPACCO equipment was initiated in 1990.
 Completion of this cleanup action is contingent upon the availability of a Federally-approved
 disposal facility.

          Groundwater: Syntex completed the groundwater Remedial Investigation
          /Feasibility Study. A ROD has been issued  in April 1993 for the grbundwater
          operable unit requiring no further action at  this time, however, groundwater
 monitoring wfll continue on a quarterly basis for 2 years.

 Site Facts: In August 1982, Syntex signed a Consent Order with the EPA, agreeing to study
 the disposal sites and Spring River, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
 (RCRA). In September 1983, Syntex Agribusiness and  the EPA entered into a Consent
 Agreement, which outlined the plan for cleanup of the Syntex site.
 Environmental Progress
Much of the cleanup work at the Syntex site has been completed. Contaminated soils have
been removed and areas of former contamination have been capped and revegetated, actions
which have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to dioxin-contaminated soil or surface
water at the site. Further investigations into a cleanup remedy for groundwater are taking
place. Dioxin levels in Spring River fish populations have steadily decreased over the past
several years.
Site Repository
Varon Elementary School, loll Ella, Verona, MO 65769
September 1994

 SITE                       *
 EPA ID# MOD980685226
   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. The buy-out of the
remaining vacant parcels was completed in 1992. 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-hoiur basis. Most of the
former community lies within the 25-year flood plain of the Meramec River. The population
within a 1/2-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.
 Proposed Date: 03/04/83
  Final Date: 09/08/83
             September 1994

 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 Times Beach. On-site workers,
          security guards, and trespassers could be exposed to dioxin through direct contact
          or accidental ingestion of dioxin-contaminatecl 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

           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 management was completed in September, 1994.  The
engineering design for the remaining cleanup activities, including the thermal treatment unit,
September 1994

was completed in 1992. A permit application is currently under review for the thermal
treatment unit.

          Relocation: This third cleanup phase addresses the permanent relocation of
          residents and businesses and the acquisition of all remaining properties. In 1983,
          the EPA provided $30 million to FEMA in a transfer allocation to conduct this
phase of the cleanup. FEMA has completed purchase of all the 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 contract for permanent relocation. 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
Consent Decree, under which  cleanup activities with be conducted for the Times Beach site
and 27 other dioxin sites in eastern Missouri.  Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the
EPA is responsible for excavation and transportation of dioxin-contaminated soils from the 27
eastern Missouri sites to Times Beach. The defendants  are responsible for demolition and
disposal of structures and debris, and operation of the thermal treatment facility, and
restoration of the site.
Environmental Progress
The Times Beach area has been stabilized, and numerous cleanup actions have been
completed. A security fence was completed in 1992, controlling unauthorized access to the
site. All residents and businesses have been permanently relocated, the purchase of the
remaining parcels by FEMA has been completed and the ownership of the parcels of land has
been conveyed to the State of Missouri. The demolition and disposal of the structures at
Times Beach has been completed. Excavation of dioxin-contaminated soils and placement in
temporary on-site storage pending final management has been completed. Thermal treatment
of dioxin-contaminated soils from Times Beach and other sites is scheduled to begin soon.
Site Repository
EPA Information Trailer, 1-44, Lewis Exit, Times Beach, MO 63025
September 1994


EPA ID# MOD980968341
Site Description
  I St. Louis County
     Valley Park
    Other Names:
     TCE Study
The Valley Park TCE site is located in the city of Valley Park.  The site is a plume of
contaminated groundwater in the Meramec River alluvial aquifer. In 1982, the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) detected a number of volatile organic chemicals
(VOCs) including trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and trichloroethane
(TCA) in all three municipal water supply wells serving the community. Private wells within
the vicinity of the site also are contaminated with VOCs. However, area private wells
reportedly are used only for industrial purposes.  Possible sources cif contamination include
the industries located in Valley Park.  One source has been identified, but not all
contaminants in the groundwater can be attributed to the responsible party.  There are
approximately 3,000 people in the community who obtained drinking water from the affected
groundwater.                                             i
Site Responsibility: This site is managed through State-
                    lead enforcement of Potentially
                    Responsible Parties' actions.
 Proposed Date: 04/10/85
  i Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
         The groundwater and soil located at the sources, are contaminated with VOCs
         including TCE, PCE and TCA. Drinking water from the; contaminated aquifer
         poses a potential health threat to area residents using polluted groundwater
                                                                       August 1994

  Cleanup Approach
 The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phases
 focusing on cleanup of the groundwater.
 Response Action Status
           Immediate Actions: In 1986, Valley Park installed aeration equipment at its
           water plant in order 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, the potentially responsible party for the identified source 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.

           Long-Term Remedial Phases: The investigation and remedy selection process
           has been divided into two phases: The Wainwright Operable Unit (WOU) and the
           overall Valley Park TOE Site. The WOU is a known source of groundwater
 contamination for which under the supervision of MDNR, Wainwright Industries agreed to
 investigate the contamination on their property.  The remedial investigation (RI) and
 feasibility study (FS) reports were completed in the summer of 1994.  The MDNR and EPA
 wfll complete the remedy selection in a Record of Decision document for the WOU during
 the Fall of 1994.

 The MDNR and EPA will begin negotiations for the RI/FS work for the overall Valley Park
 TCE Site during the Fall of 1994.
 Environmental  Progress
By connecting the affected residences to the public water system and removing contaminated
sofl, the potential for exposure to contaminated drinking water or soil has been reduced at
the Valley Park TCE site while further investigations leading to the selection of a remedy for
the Wainwright Operable Unit and a remedy for the overall Valley Park TCE Site.
Site Repository
Valley Park City Library, 320 Benton Street, Valley Park, MO 63088
August 1994

EPA ID# MO5210021288
      EPA REGION 7
        St. Charles County
      25 miles west of St. Louis

          Other Names:
Weldon Springs National Guard Facility
      U£i Army Training Center
   eldon Springs-Ex Army Ordnance
        Ft Leonard Wood
Site Description  	———	—	

The Weldon Spring Former Army Ordnance Works site occupied more than 17,000 acres and
operated from 1941 to 1944. During its operation, the site produced explosives including
trinitrotoluene (TNT) and dinitrotoluene (DNT) for the U.S. Armed Services. A series of
land transfers left the Army with 1,655 acres, which it has operated since 1959 for the Army
Reserve as the Weldon Spring Training Area. Contaminated areas are spread throughout the
17,000 acres of the site, with the greatest concentration in the Training Area. Some of the
transferred land that covered two small areas of the original Ordniance Works area now are
owned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and listed on the National Priorities List  as
Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits site. Investigations have identified a number of potentially
contaminated areas, including seven unlined lagoons where TNT wrastewater was stored, TNT
production lines, two DNT production lines, drainage ditches below TNT production lines,
and nine areas where explosive wastes were burned. Approximately 5,000 people live within 3
miles of the site, and approximately 70,000 people obtain drinking water from St. Charles
County wells within 3 miles of the hazardous substances at the site;. Surface water in the area
flows either to the Mississippi River watershed to the north or the Missouri River watershed
to the south. Surface waters within 3 miles are used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:  This site is being addressed through
                     Federal actions.
        Proposed Date: 07/14/89
         Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
          In 1987, a DOD investigator found explosives such as I^NT 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 runoff 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 health. DNT is a probable human
          carcinogen and may be absorbed through  direct contact
                       August 1994

  sEJaCleanup Approach
 This site is being addressed in two stages: and initial action 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 n. Explosive contaminants were discovered within the
 interior wooden boards after wipe samples from the building were taken.  The interior
 wooden boards were removed and replaced with sheetrock. As part of a removal action
 burning ground number 1 was fenced to eliminate any potential  exposures while investigatory
 actions are on going.  Surface chunks of TNT have also been removed from the burning
 grounds to eliminate any direct contact threat.
           Entire Site: In 1987, the Department of Defense (DOD) identified a number of
           contaminated areas on the site. Under EPA direction, DOD began a complete
           investigation into the extent and type of contamination at the site in early 1990.
 The study will identify the nature and extent of contaminants and wfll recommend cleanup
 technologies for soils, pipelines, and groundwater. The site was divided into two cleanup
 phases reflecting these contaminated areas. Phase H 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 Mechanical City.  A source control ROD to address surface soil,
 buried wooden pipeline and miscellaneous structures is scheduled to be issued in late Fiscal
 Year 1994. Groundwater wfll continue to be monitored to determine the impact of surface
 contamination on the groundwater.
Site Facts: This site is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a specialty
funded program established by the DOD in 1978 to identify, investigate, and control the
migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DOD facilities.
August 1994

 Environmental Progress
 The removal and replacement of interior wooden boards in a storage room at the site has
 reduced the potential for exposure to explosive contaminants at the site while further
 investigations leading to a final cleanup remedy continue.
 Site Repository
Weldon Training Area, 7301 Highway 94 South, St. Charles, MO 63304
August 1994


 EPA ID# MO3210090004
   St. Charles County
 25 miles west of St. Louis

     Other Names:
'eld on Sprlng-Raffinate Pits
[don Springs Chemical Plant
 Site Description —	—		
                                                  •       |
 The Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits (USDOE/Army) site covers 230 acres and is located
 between the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. This site is closely assciciated with the nearby
 Weldon Spring Former Army Ordnance Works NPL site. A series of land transfers in the
 1950s gave the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), later called the U.S. Department of
 Energy (DOE), 220 acres of the original Ordnance Works area. The DOE now is responsible
 for the contamination, both radioactive and non-radioactive, on the property. The site
 includes a 51-acre disposal area, a 169-acre abandoned uranium feed materials plant, various
 smaller properties and a 9-acre former limestone quarry located 4 miles from the plant. From
 1941 to  1944, the Department of the Army operated an explosives production plant on 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 H,
 and the processing structures were demolished. In 1955, the AEC acquired a portion of the
 Ordnance Works area for construction of a uranium feed materials plant. Mallinckrodt, Inc.
 operated the plant under a contract with the AEC from 1957 to 19*16. The plant converted
 uranium concentrates to uranium tetrafluoride and uranium metal, irhorium ore, also a
 radioactive metal, was processed. The residues from the processing were disposed of in four
 large open pits. During that period, the plant, buildings, equipment, 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, the U.S. Army used an
 abandoned limestone quarry located about 3 miles southwest of the plant site for the disposal
 of unknown quantities of materials contaminated with trinitrotoluene (TNT) and
 dinitrotoluene (DNT) residues. The AEC acquired the site in 1958 smd used the quarry from
 1959 to 1966 to dispose of uranium, thorium, and radium residues and contaminated
 materials and equipment. From 1966 to 1969, the Army deposited additional TNT-
 contaminated materials in the quarry. The quarry is located 3/4 of a mfle from the St. Charles
 County well field, which is used as a drinking water source for approximately 70,000 people.
The population living within 3 mfles of the site is 5,000 people.
Site Responsibility:  This site is being addressed through
                    Federal actions.
 Proposed Date: 10/15/84
   Final Date: 07/22/87
                                                                      August 1994

  Threats and Contaminants
            Off-site groundwater is contaminated with TNT, DMT, and other explosive
            materials. The soil is contaminated with radionuclides, TNT, DNT, polycyclic
            aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 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 potential threat 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 of
 the quarry bulk waste, the groundwater at the chemical plant area, and 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,
            consolidation and storage of containerized chemicals, removing electric lines and
 poles, cleaning up radioactive soil from Army Reserve properties, dismantling the chemical
 plant structures, removing PCB transformers, constructing a stormwater diversion dike to
 reduce off-site migration, and constructing two wastewater treatment plants.  Approximately
 13,000 gallons of PCB fluids and flushing solutions were removed and transported to an off-
 site incineration facility. Summer 1994, all building and other structures (40 structures) have
 been dismantled and placed in temporary storage. Treatment and discharge of storm water
 and impounded surface water wfll continue through the life of the project.

          Source Control, Treatment, and Disposal: Li 1986, the DOE began an
          investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination of the air,  lakes
          and streams, sludges, and 40 structures, and to identify cleanup alternatives for the
 site. The studies were completed in 1993 and final cleanup strategies for site contaminated
 areas are documented in the ROD signed September 1993.  The major RD/RAs intiated to
 date include building foundation removal and preparation of the subbase for the disposal cell
 disposal cell construction, and pilot scale treatment facility construction.
August 1994

            Quarry Bulk Waste: In 1990, the EPA chose to excavate and to temporarily
            store quany bulk wastes on site. Wastes are being transported over a haul road

  h«on ™» ^T^ f°T^S pUrpOSe'  ** °f *"&** 1994' TOU^y 2'000 truckloads have
  been CTcavated and placed into temporary storage.  This action is approximately 20%


            Quarry Residuals: An investigation focusing on residual and groundwater
            contamination at the quarry is ongoing.  The full scope of study cannot be
            completed until bulk waste excavation is complete (early 1996).

  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
 Environmental Progress
 The removal of contaminated soil and materials and structures, and treatment of impounded

 surface water described above, have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous^

 substances at the Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits site while major construction activities

 have begun to implement the selected Removal Action.
 Site Repository
 Spencer Creek Branch, St Charles City-County Library, 425 Spencer Road,
 St. Peters, MO 63376                                         \
August 1994


 EPA ID# MOD079900932
   St. Louis County
 Site Description  	.—	

 The 200-acre Westlake Landffll site is adjacent to prime agricultural land and is in the flood
 plain 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
 industrial wastes, municipal refuse, and construction debris. In 1973, Cotter Corp. disposed of
 over 47,000 tons of uranium ore processing residues mixed with soil in two areas covering a
 total of 16 acres of the site. A radiological survey conducted for the Nuclear Regulatory
 Commission (NRC) in 1981, and 1982, documented radioactive wastes on site.  Property
 adjacent to the Landfill was investigated in 1990 which identified radiological contamination
 that migrated from the Landfill.
 Site Responsibility:  This site is being addressed through
                     Federal and potentially responsible
                     parties' actions.
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 those 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 1) cleanup of
radiological areas and 2) addressing the landfill.
                                                                       August 1994

   Response Action Status
            thr                    ; ,    ta'lenSive mvestiga«°n of contamination within
            toe radiological areas is scheduled to begin in 1994.  This study will explore the

            nature and extent of the contamination and will identify the bLTSi^te

             Landfill: Li 1995, an investigation is scheduled to begin to explore the nature

             and extent of the contamination. This study will resulfm theTeleSionoffinal

             cleanup strategies to address contamination from the landfill.
  Environmental Progress
  Site Repository

  Contact the Region 7 Superfund Community Relations Office
August 1994
                                                                  WESTLAKE LANDFILL

 EPA ID# MOD000830554
 Site Description
      Andrew County
   1 mile south of Amazonia
      Other Names:
Wheeling Waste Disposal Site
 The Wheeling Disposal Service Company operated a landfill that covers approximately 20
 acres centrally located on two adjacent areas totaling about 200 acres. The landfill was
 established in the early 1970s, and the facility received a State permit in 1975 to operate as
 an industrial waste disposal facility. Between 1980 and 1981, the company voluntarily ceased
 operations. The facility resumed operations under the authority of a special waste disposal
 permit issued by the State of Missouri until it voluntarily closed in 1986. The Missouri
 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
 disposed in the landfill. In field investigations conducted by the EPA, contaminants were
 detected in monitoring wells and springs on the site. Drinking water is supplied to
 approximately 4,000 residents of Savannah through wells that are within 1 to 2 miles of the
 site.  There are private wells within 1/4 mile of the site. The shallow groundwater below the
 site supplies water to the aquifer, potentially contaminating it.      !
Site Responsibility: This site, is being addressed through
                    Federal enforcement of potentially
                    responsible parties' actions.
   Proposed Date: 12/22/87
     Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and  Contaminants
         The groundwater on site is contaminated with various volatile organic compounds
         (VOCs) and heavy metals including arsenic, chromium, nickel, and lead from the
         former waste disposal activities. Several seeps in Mace Creek are contaminated,
         indicating that local surface water is a potential threat.  Eating crops grown in
         contaminated on site soil could expose people to contaminants from the site.
                                                                       August 1994

   Cleanup Approach

                                          remedial Phase focusinS
                                                                          of the
   Response Action Status
                   r      p          P°tentially responsible parties completed remedial
            investigation and feasibility study for the site, and the EPA selected the remedial

                  ****"** mdudes we» caPP™& surface water and groundwater

                                   landfi11 C0ver to *"*& ^ State ^d Federal
remedial Design was approved in September 1993. The construction for the remedial acti
  Environmental Progress
 Site Repository
 Rolling Hills Library, 514 W. Main Street, Savannah, MO 64458
August 1994
                                                        WHEELING DISPOSAL SERVICE
                                                                COMPANY LANDFILL

       This glossary defines terms used
       throughout the NPL Volumes. The
       terms and abbreviations contained in
 this glossary apply specifically to work
 performed under the Superfund program in
 the context of hazardous waste management.
 These terms may have other meanings when
 used in a different context.
           Terms  Used
 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 parries potentially responsible for site
 contamination. Under the terms of the Order,
 the potentially responsible parries (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
 parries. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
 government; it does not require approval by a

 Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A
 legally binding document issued by the EPA,
 directing the parries potentially responsible to
 perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
 the EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for
 site studies).

Aeration: A process that promotes break-
down of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
 Registry (ATSDR): The Federal agency
 within the U.S. Public Health Service charged
 with carrying out the health-related responsi-
 bilities of CERCLA.

 Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
 organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
 contaminated material by forcing a stream of
 air through it in a pressurized vessel The
 contaminants are evaporated into the air
 stream. The air may be further treated before
 it is released, into the atmosphere.

 Ambient Air: Any unconfined pan of the
 atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
 inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity
 of contaminated air sources.

 Aquifer: Ain underground layer of rock,
 sand, or gra^rel 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. Tide water contained in the aquifer
is called groiindwater. A sole source aquifer
supplies 50% or more of the drinking water of
an area.    j

 Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling
into the earth until water is reached, which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a foun-
 tain.       ;

  Attenuation: The naturally occurrine pro-
  conc   *    3 compound is rcaucecTin
            .M                      on,
          n, dilunon, 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.

 Baghoiise pust:Dust accumulated in remov-
 ing pamculates from the air by passing it
 through cloth bags in an enclosure.

 Bases: Substances characterized by high nH
 (greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive
m chemical reactions.  When bases are mixed
with acids, they neutralize each other, form-
   Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth
   used to prevent the migration of contami-

  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
  otner microfaial organisms to break down
  toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
 and water.

 Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
 nanirally occurring or specially cultivated
 microorganisms to digest contaminants and
 break them down into non-hazardous comuo-
 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].                 F
    Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
    floating on a body of water or to resmct 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-

    Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil
    sand, or gravel has been dug up for use   '

   Cap: A layer of material, such as clav or a
   synthenc 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 i
   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 Disuifide:  A degreasing agent
  formerly used extensively for pans 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-

 Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series
 of holes in a landfill where waste is dumped.
 compacted, and covered with layers of din.

 CERC£A: [see Con»P«faensive Environ-
 mental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
 ity Act].

Characterization: The sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis of a site to determine the

  extern and nature of toxic releases. Character-
  ization provides the basis for acquiring the
  necessary technical information to develop,
  screen, analyze, and select appropriate
  cleanup techniques.

  Chemical Fixation:  The use of chemicals to
  bind contaminants, thereby reducing the
  potential for leaching or other movement.

  Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecti-
  cide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
  metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This
  salt is used extensively as a wood preservative
  in pressure-treating operations.  It is highly
 toxic and water-soluble, making it a relatively
 mobile contaminant in the environment.

 Cleanup: Actions taken to eliminate a
 release or threat of release of a hazardous
 substance. The term "cleanup" sometimes is
 used interchangeably with the terms remedial
 action, removal action, response action, or
 corrective action.

 Closure: The process by which a landfill
 stops accepting wastes and is shut down,
 under Federal guidelines that ensure the
 protection of the public and the environment.

 Comment Period:  A specific interval during
 which the public can review and comment on
 various documents and EPA actions related to
 site cleanup. For example, a comment period
 is provided when the EPA proposes to add
 sites to the NPL. There is minimum 3-week
 comment period for community members to
 review and comment on the remedy proposed
 to clean up a site.

 Community Relations:  The EPA effort to
 establish and maintain two-way communica-
 tion with the public. Goals of community
 relations programs include creating an under-
 standing of EPA programs and related ac-
tions, assuring public input into decision-
making processes related to affected comnra-
 nines, and making certain that the Agency is
 aware of, zind responsive to. public concerns.
 Specific community relations activities arc
 required in relation to Superfund cleanup
 actions (see Comment Period].

 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
 Compensation, and Liability Act
 (CERCLA): Congress enacted the
 CERCLA, known as Superfund, in 1980 to
 respond directly to hazardous waste problems
 that may pose a threat to the public health and
 the environment. The EPA administers the
 Superfund program.

 Confluence: The place where two bodies of
 water, such, as streams or rivers, come to-
 gether.    !

 Consent Decree:  A legal document, ap-
 proved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
 agreement between the EPA and the parties
 potentially responsible for site contamination.
 The decree describes cleanup actions that the
 potentially responsible parties are required to
 perform an
    Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
    biological, or radiological material or sub-
    stance whose quantity, location, or nature
    produces undesirable health or environmental

    Contingency Plan:  A document setting out
   an organized, planned, and coordinated course
   of acnon 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 parries can be required
  to pay back the Superfond program formoney
  « spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
  nally Responsible Parries].

  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 PNAsj. Comamina^^
 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

Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
- »>,
    Degradation:  The —
    chemical is reduce ----- ess complex form.

    Degrease:  To remove grease from wastes
    soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.'

   Deminimis: This legal phrase pertains to
   settlements with parries 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, savine time
   money, and effort.

   Dewaten  To remove water from wastes
   soils, or chemicals.

   Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
  prevent a spill from spreading.

  Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
  toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
  banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
  soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
  als.  Disposal may be accomplished through
  the use of approved secure landfills, surface
  impoundments, land farming, deep well
  injection, or incineration.

  Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
  slope that causes groundwater to move toward
  lower elevations.  Therefore, wells downgra-
 aient 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

Emulafiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix;  e.g^ oil
and water.

 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 parries to
 clean up a site or pay for the cleanup. An
 endangermem assessment supplements an
 investigation of the site hazards.

 Enforcement: EPA, State, or local legal
 actions taken against parries 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
 nearsnorc 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

 Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out.
 Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
 potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
 feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
 remedial investigation is underway; together.
 they are commonly referred to as the RI/FS
 [see Remisdial Investigation).

 Filtration: A treatment process for removing
 solid (pardculate) matter from water by
 passing the water through sand, activated
 carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
 often used to remove panicles that contain

 Flood  Plaiin: 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 sifter combustion in the burner
 occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
 carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides.
    and willingness ro perform a site studv or

    Groundwater: Underground water that fills
    pores in soils or openings in rocks to the point
    of saturation. In aquifers, groundwater occurs
    in sufficient quantities for use as drinking and
    irrigation water and other purposes.

    Groundwater Quality Assessment: The
   process of analyzing the chemical characteris-
   tics of groundwater to determine whether any
   hazardous materials exist.

   Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as
   chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very
   good oxidizing agents and, therefore, have
   many industrial uses.  They are rarely found
   by themselves; however, many chemicals
   such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
   some volatile organic compounds (VOCs)'
   and dioxin are reactive because of the pres-
  ence of halogens.

  Hazard Ranking System (HRS):  The
  principal screening tool used by the EPA to
  evaluate relative risks to public health and the
  environment associated with abandoned or
  uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS
  calculates a score based on the potential of
  hazardous substances spreading from the site
  through the air, surface water, or groundwater
 and on other factors such as nearby popula-
 tion. The HRS score is the primary factor in
 deciding if the site should be on the NPL.

 Hazardous Waste: By-products of society
 that can pose a substantial present or potential
 hazard to human health and the environment
 when improperly managed. It possesses at
 least one of four characteristics (ignitability,
 conosivity, reactivity, or toxiciry), or appears
 on special EPA lists.                 *^

Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site con-
taining exceptionally high levels of contami-
    Hydrogeology: The geology 01 groundwater
    with particular emphasis on the chemistry anc
    movement of water.

    Impoundment: A body of water or sludge
    confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other

   Incineration: A group of treatment technolo-
   gies involving destruction of waste by con-
   trolled burning at high temperatures, e.g.,
   burning sludge to reduce the remaining
   residues to a non-burnable ash that can be
   disposed of safely on land, in some waters, or
   m 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

  Injection Well:  A well into which waste
  fluids are placed, underpressure, for purposes
  of disposal.

  Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical substances
  of mineral origin, not of basic carbon struc-

 Installation Restoration Program:  The
 specially funded program established in 1978
 under which the Department of Defense has
 been identifying and evaluating its hazardous
 waste sites and controlling the migration of
 hazardous contaminants from those sites.

 Intake: The source from where a water
 supply is drawn, such as from a river or water

Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment between the EPA andaFederai agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,

 setting forth the roies and responsibilities of
 the agencies for performing and overseeing
 the activities. States often are panics 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.1: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and
carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
 Leacttate Collection System: A system th I
 gathers liquid that has leaked into a landfill I
 other waste disposal area and pumps it to it I
 surface for treatment.                    I
 Liner: A relatively impermeable barrier
 designed to prevent leachate (waste residue
 from leaking from a landfill.  Liner materia
 include plastic and dense clay.

 Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, oft
 incremental, steps that are taken to solve sit
 pollution problems. Depending on the com
 piexity, 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 dominatec  j
 by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh  !
 saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetianc

 Migration: The movement of oil,  gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids throug
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, uraniun
 and arsenic or other heavy meals.

 Mitigation: Actions taken to improve site
 conditions by limiting, reducing, or control-
ling toxiciry and contamination sources.
 Modelling: A technique using a mathemark
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
 systemi components have on the overall
performance of the system.

 Monitoring Wells:  Special wells drilled at
 specific locations within., or surrounding, a
 hazardous waste site where groundwater can
 be sampled at selected depths and studied to
 obtain such information as the direction in

    which groundwaier flows and the types and
    amounts of contaminants present.

    National Priorities List (NPL): The £PA'S
    list of the most serious uncontrolled or aban-
    doned hazardous waste sites identified for
    possible long-term cleanup under Superfund.
    i ne fcFA 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
   mto the environment. Naphthalene, pyrene
   and trichlorobenzcne are examples of

   Nitroaromatics: Common components of
   explosive materials, which will explode if
  activated by very high temperatures or pres-
  sures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoiuene (TNT) is a

  Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter
  nonnes the parries potentially responsible for
  site contamination of their possible liability
  A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
  formal period of negotiation during which the
  tPA 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 received a good faith
 offer within that period.

 On-Scene Coordinator (OSC): The
 predesignated EPA, Coast Guard, or Depart-
 ment of Defense official who coordinates and
 directs Superfund removal actions or Clean
 water Act oil- or hazardous-spill corrective

 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, hvdro-
   gen, and oxygen.

   Outfall: The place where wastewater is
   discharged into receiving waters.

   Overpaying: Process used for isolating
   large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
   sulating waste to prevent further spread or
   leakage of contaminating materials. Leaking
   drums may be contained within oversized
   barrels as an interim measure prior to removal
   and final disposal.

   Pentachiorophenol (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
  orrock.                              7

  Percolation: The downward flow or filtering
  of water or other liquids through subsurface
  rock or soil layers, usually continuing down-
  ward to groundwater.

 Petrochemicals:  Chemical substances
 produced from petroleum in refinery opera-
 tions and as fuel oil residues. These include
 fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirit* 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 compouuua u«~ ore used
 in plastics manufacturing and arc by-products
of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye,
and resin manufacturing. Phenols arc highly

  Physical Chemical Separation: The treat-
  ment process of adding a chemical to a sub-
  stance to separate the compounds for further
  treatment or disposal.

  Pflot Testing:  A small-scale test of a pro-
  posed_ treatment system in the field to deter-
  mine its ability to clean up specific contami-

  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

  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

 Polycydic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or
 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs):
 PAHs, such as pyrene, are a group of highly
 reactive organic compounds found in motor
 oil They are a common component of creo-
 sotes and can cause cancer.

 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A
 group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
 purposes including electrical applications,
 carbonless copy paper, adhesives. hydraulic
 fluids, microscope immersion oils, and caulk-
 ing compounds.  PCBs also are produced in
 certain combustion processes. PCBs are
 extremely persistent in the environment
 because  they are very stable, non-rcacrive,
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

 Polynudeiir Aromatic Hydrocarbons
 (PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and
 biphenyls, are a group of highly reactive
 organic compounds that are a common com-
 ponent of creosotes, which can be carcino-

 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
 from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
 PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats.
 and floor tiJies. Health risks from high con-
 centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
 cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
 the iymphaiic and nervous systems.

 Potable Water: Water that is safe for drink-
 ing and cooking.

 Potentially Responsible Parties (PRFs):
 Parties, including owners, who may have
 contributed to die 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 Older on
 Consent to participate in site cleanup activity
 without admitting liability.

 Precipitation:  The removal of solids from
 liquid waste so that the solid and liquid
 portions can be disposed of safely; the re-
 moval of particles from airborne emissions.
 Electrochemical precipitation is the use of an
 anode or cathode to remove the hazardous
 chemicals. Chemical precipitation involves
 the addition of some substance to c?w*y the
 solid pornoci to separate.

 Preliminary Assessment: The process of
collecting arid reviewing available informa-
 tion about a known or suspected waste site or
release to determine if a threat or potential
 threat exists,,

    Pump and Treat:  A groundwater cleanup
    tecnnique involving the extracting of contLii-
    nated groundwater from the subsurface anT
    tfte removal of contaminants, using one of
    several treatment technologies.

    Radionuciides: Elements, including radi.
    and uranium-235 and -238, which break d!
    and produce radioactive substances due to
    tneir unstable atomic structure. Some are
    man-made, and others are naturally occurring
   ofSriin?!1?nmenL  Radon<£he gaseous form
   or 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^) will be used to clean up sites
  listed on the NPL. It is base* 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 rmnimiang 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 Des:—         - -*-:
    where engineers o^.. M technical specS-
    canons for cleanup remedies and technolo-

    Remedial Investigation: An in-depth studv
    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 suppon the technical and cost analyses of
   the alternatives.  The remedial investiEation
   is usually done with the feasibility studv
   Together Th^v            •   ^^" •"•"*.••
   the RI/FS [see Feasibility Study].       **

   Remedial Project Manager (RPM):  The
   EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
   ing cleanup actions at a site.

  Remedy Selection: The selection of the
  final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
  sites where the EPA has determined that
  initial response actions have eliminated site
  contamination, or that any remaining con-
  tamination will be naturally dispersed with-
  out further cleanup activities, a "No Action-
  remedy is selected [see Record of Decision].

  Removal Action:  Shon-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 parriculates rernaining in air
 after the air passes through a scrubbing, a
 other, process.

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
 (RCRA):  A Federal law that established a
regulatory  system to track hazardous sub-
stancesifrom the time of generation to dis-
posal. The law requires safe and secure

 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 mm production facilities. Some-
 times retention ponds are used to expand the
 capacity of such structures as lagoons to store

 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

 Seeps: Specific points where releases of
 liquid (usually ieachate) 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 Ieachate. from waste disposal
areas. The liquid gradually leaves the pir, by
moving through the surrounding soiL

Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank
after the treatment process.
 Sinkhole:  A hollow depression in the land
 surface in which drainage collects: associated
 with underground caves and passages that
 facilitate the movement of liquids.

 Site Characterization: The technical pro-
 cess used to evaluate the nature and extent of
 environmental contamination, which is
 necessary for choosing and designing cleanup
 measures and monitoring their effectiveness.

 Site Inspection:  The collection of informa-
 tion from a hazardous waste site to determine
 the extent and severity of hazards posed by
 the site, h follows, and is more extensive
 than, a preliminary assessment. The purpose
 is to gather information necessary to score the
 site, using the Hazard Ranking System, and to
 determine if the site presents an immediate
 threat that requires a prompt removal action.

 Slag:  The fused refuse or dross separated
 from a metal in the process of smelting.

 Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial
 or water treatment processes that may be
 contaminated with hazardous materials.

 Slurry Wiili: 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 oajpped 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-
 tides of scnL Such gases can move through

    or leave the soil or rock, dependinn 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
   mem into a smaller volume of soil through
   •ample particle size separation techniaues [see
   Solvent Extraction].

  Stabilization:  The process of chansing an
  acnve substance into inert, harmiess"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 soakine up cr at-
    tracting substances. It is used ufmany 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

   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 Reauthorizarion
  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

  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-

 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.

Trich!oroethvlene(TCE):  A stable, color-
less liquid with a low boiling point. TGE has
many industrial applications, including use as

 a solvent and as a metal degreasing agent.
 TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled,
 ingested, or through skin contact and can
 damage vital organs, especially the liver (see
 Volatile Organic Compounds).

 Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
 Administrative Order].

 Upgradient: An upward hydro-logic slope;
 demarks areas that are higher than contami-
 nated areas and. therefore, are not prone to
 contamination by the movement of polluted

 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 soli.

 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

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as  secondary petro-
chemicals.  They include light alcohols,
acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chlorite,
toluene, and methyiene chloride. These
potentially toxic chemicals are used as sol-
vents, degrcasers. paints, thinners, and fuels.
Because of their volatile nature, they readily
evaporate into the air, increasing the potential
exposure to humans. Due to their low water
solubility, environmental persistence, and
widesprcsid industrial use. they are commonly
found in soil and groundwater.

Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that uses
a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from

Wastewaten The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.

Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.

Water Table: The upper surface of the

Weir: A barrier to divert water or other

Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions.  Wetlands are critical to
sustaining; many species offish 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 iireshwater. Coastal wetlands are an
integral component of estuaries.

Wildlife Refuge: Ah area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.