REGION 7
PROGRESS AT REGION 7
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
(NPL) SUPERFUND SITES
NEBRASKA
AUGUST 1995
i
726 MINNESOTA AVE., KANSAS CITY, .KANSAS
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview '...-.. '.,;.. .. 1
SUPERF17ND:
How Does the Program Work to Cleari up .Sites? 4
THE NPL PACT SHEETS:
10th Street Site. . 11
Bruno Co-op Association/Associated Prop i 13
Cleburn Street Well Site * 15
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant .. 17
Hastings Ground Water Contamination 20
Lindsay Manufacturing Company* 26
Nebraska Ordnance Plant (Former) 28
Ogallala Ground Water Contamination 30
Sherwood Medical Company 32
Waverly Ground Water Contamination....- 34
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets. ...-., i 35
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a close, a series of
headline stories gave Americans a
look at the dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the land. First there
was New York's Love Canal. Hazardous
waste buried there over a 25-year period
contaminated streams and soil, and endangered
the health of nearby residents. The result:
evacuation of several hundred people. Then
the leaking barrels at the Valley of the Drums
in Kentucky attracted public attention, as did
the dioxin-tainted land and water in Times
Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human health and the envi-
ronment were threatened, lives were disrupted,
and property values were reduced. It became
increasingly clear that there were large num-
bers of serious hazardous waste problems that
were falling through the cracks of existing
environmental laws. The magnitude of these
emerging problems moved Congress to enact
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980.
.CERCLA commonly known as Superfund
was the first Federal law established to deal
with the dangers posed by the Nation's hazard-
ous waste sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the problem until the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began the process of site discovery and site
evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste sites existed, and
they presented the Nation with some of the
most complex pollution problems it had ever
faced.
Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
A
BrieJ
Overview!
ous waste has surfaced as a major environ-
mental concern in every part of the United
States. It wasn't just the land that was con-
taminated by past disposal practices. Chemi-
cals in the soil were spreading into the grourid-
, water (a source of drinking water for many)
and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
sites, while improperly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
community and the environment at others.
The EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites
The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
sites as the most serious in.the Nation. These
. sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
mates that, while some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list, commonly called
the NPL, will continue to grow by approxi-
mately 50 to 100 sites per year, potentially
reaching 2,100 sites by the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL CLEANUP
EFFORT IS MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the. beginning of the program. Congress
recognized that the Federal government could
-------
INTRODUCTION
not and should not address all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target.
Sites on the NPL (1,245) thus are a relatively
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and compelling cases. The
EPA has logged more than 35,000 sites on its
national inventory of potentially hazardous
waste sites and assesses each site within one
year of being logged.
THE EPA IS MAKING PROGRESS
ON SITE CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund program is to tackle
immediate dangers first and then move through
the progressive steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public health and the
environment.
Superfund responds immediately to sites
posing imminent threats to human health and
the environment at both NPL sites and sites not
on the NPL. The purpose is to stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a release of
hazardous substances,-or the threat of one; into
the environment. These might include tire '
fires or transportation accidents involving the
spill of hazardous chemicals. Because they
reduce the threat a site poses to human health,
and the environment, immediate cleanup
actions are an integral part of the Superfund
program.
Immediate response to imminent threats is one
of Superfund's most noted achievements.
Where imminent threats to the public or
environment were evident, the EPA has initi-
ated or completed emergency actions that
attacked the most serious threats of toxic
exposure in more than 2,700 cases.
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent solution to an environ-
mental problem that presents a serious threat
to the public or the environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. The EPA has
aggressively accelerated its efforts to perform
these long-term cleanups of NPL sites. More
cleanups were started in 1987, when the
Superfund law was amended, than in any
previous year. By 1991, construction had
started at more than four times as many sites as
in 1986! Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly halfhave had '""
construction cleanup activity. In addition,
more than 400 more sites presently are in the
investigation stage to determine the extent of
site contamination and to identify appropriate
cleanup remedies. Many other sites with
cleanup remedies selected are poised for the
start of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through the
cleanup pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining
momentum.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup construction to understand that envi-
ronmental protection does not end when the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies like those designed to clean up ground-
water must operate for many years in order
to accomplish their objectives.
The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed. No matter
who has been delegated responsibility for
monitoring the cleanup work, the EPA will
assure that the remedy is carefully followed
and thatJit continues to do its job.
Likewise, the EPA does not abandon a site
even after the cleanup work is done. .Every
five years, the Agency reviews each site where
residues from hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public and environmental
-------
INTRODUCTION
health are being safeguarded. The EPA will
correct any deficiencies discovered and will
report to the public annually on all five-year
reviews conducted that year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also depend upon local
citizen participation. The EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and to deploy the experts,
but the Agency needs citizen input as it makes
choices for affected communities.
Because the people in a community where a
Superfund site is located will be those most
directly affected by hazardous waste problems
and cleanup processes, the EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in cleanup decisions.
Public involvement and comment does influ-
ence EPA cleanup plans by providing valuable
information about site conditions, community
concerns, and preferences.
The State and U.S. Territories volumes and the
companion National overview volume provide
general Superfund background information
and descriptions of activities at.each NPL site.
These volumes clearly describe what the
problems are, what .the EPA and others partici-
pating in site cleanups are doing, and how we,
as a Nation, can move ahead in solving these
serious problems. . .
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES TOGETHER
To understand the big picture on hazardous
waste cleanup, citizens need to hear about both
environmental progress across the country and
the cleanup accomplishments closer to home.
Citizens also should understand the challenges
involved in hazardous waste cleanup and the
decisions we must make, as a Nation, in
finding the best solutions.
The National overview, Superfund: Focusing
on the Nation at Large (1991), contains impor-
tant information to help you understand the
magnitude and challenges facing the
Superfund program, as well as an overview of
the National cleanup effort. The sections
describe the nature of the hazardous waste
problem nationwide, threats and contaminants
at NPL sites and their potential effects on
human health and the environment, vital roles
of the various participants in the cleanup
process, the Superfund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's serious hazardous
waste sites, and the current status of the NPL.
If you did not receive this overview volume,
ordering information is provided in the front of
this book.
This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
up under the Superfund program. These sites
represent the most serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation and require the most
complicated and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each bopk gives a "snapshot" of
the conditions and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site. Information
presented for each site is current as of April
1991". Conditions change as our cleanup
efforts continue, so these site summaries will
be updated annually to include information on
new progress being made.
To help you understand the cleanup accom-
plishments made at these sites, this volume
includes a description of the process for site
discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
cleanup of Superfund sites. This description,
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up
Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
which to review the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.
-------
-------
.SUPERFUND
The diverse problems posed by hazard-
ous waste sites have provided the EPA
with the challenge to establish a consis-
tent approach for evaluating and cleaning up
the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, the
EPA has had to step beyond its traditional role
as a regulatoiy agency to develop processes
and guidelines for each step in these techni-
cally complex site cleanups. The EPA has
established procedures to coordinate the
efforts of its Washington, D.C. Headquarters
program offices and its front-line staff in ten
Regional Offices, with the State and local
governments, contractors, and private parties
who are participating in site cleanup. An
important part of the process is that any time
How Does the
Program Work
%^ - vygg;''?''**.-
to Clean Up
THREE-STEP SUPERFUND PROCESS
STEP 1
Discover site and
determine whether
an emergency
exists *
Hill
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
environment
Illll
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process.
during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible
for .site contamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases 'of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
flow diagram above provides a summary of the
three-step process.
Although this book provides a current "snap-
"shot" of site progress made only by emergency
actions and long-term cleanup actions at
Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads
to identifying arid cleaning up these most.
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
-------
SUPERFUND.
waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this
summary description of Superfund involve-
ment at hazardous waste sites.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND
EMERGENCY EVALUATION
How does the EPA learn about
potential hazardous waste sites?
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways.
Information comes from concerned citizens.
People may notice an odd taste or foul odor in
their drinking water or see half-buried leaking
barrels; a hunter may come across a field
where waste was dumped illegally. There may
be an explosion or fire, which alerts the State
or local authorities to a problem. Routine
investigations by State and local governments
and required reporting and inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about actual or potential threats of
hazardous substance releases. All reported
sites or spills are recorded in the Superfund
inventory (CERGLIS) for-further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
What happens If there Is an imminent
danger?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
reported, the EPA determines whether there is
an emergency requiring an immediate cleanup
action. If there is, they act as quickly as
possible to remove or stabilize the imminent
threat. These short-term emergency actions
range from building a fence around the con-
taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
rarily relocating residents until the danger is
addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
dents while theu: local drinking water supply is
being cleaned up or physically removing
wastes for safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at
any time an imminent threat or emergency
warrants them. For example, if leaking barrels
are found when cleanup_crews start digging in
the ground or if samples of contaminated soils
or air show that there may be a threat of fire or
explosion, an immediate action is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
If there Isn't an imminent danger, how
does the EPA determine what, If any,
cleanup actions should be taken?
Even after any imminent dangers are taken
care of, in most cases, contamination may
-remain at the site. For example, residents may
have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contami- .
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up. The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so any long-term threats
need to be evaluated. In either case, a more
' comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious, but not
imminent, danger and whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-
mation not only from their own files, but also
from local records and U.S. Geological Survey
maps. This information is used to identify the
site and to perform a preliminary assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the
questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
SUPERFUND
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or
natural resource area such as a wetland
or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land,
water, air, people, plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that .
they do not threaten public health or the envi-
ronment. But even in these cases, the sites
remain listed in the Superfund inventory for
record-keeping purposes and future reference.
Currently, there are more than 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.
If the preliminary assessment
shows a serious threat may exist,
what's the next step?
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional
information to evaluate its hazard potential.
During this site inspection, they look for
evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking
drums and dead or discolored vegetation.
They may take some samples of soil, well
water, river water, and air. Inspectors analyze
the ways hazardous materials could be pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access to
the site.
How does the EPA use the results of
the site inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment.- This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the.worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
The HRS is the scoring system the EPA uses to
assess the relative threat from a release or a
potential release of hazardous substances from
a site to surrounding groundwater, surface ~
water, air, and soil. A site score is bas«£oiP^
the likelihood that a hazardous substance will
be released from the site, the toxicity and*^.
amount of hazardous substances at the site; and
the people and sensitive envirorimentsi>6ten-
tially affected by contamination at the site.' .,
Only sites with high enough health and envi-
ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
to the NPL. Thafs why 1,245 sites are on the
NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can
have a long-term cleanup paid for from
Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
fund. Superfund can, and does, pay for emer-
gency actions performed at any site, whether
or not it's on the NPL.
Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the. most serious
problems among uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites in the U.S. In addition, a
site will be proposed to the NPL if the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
issues a health advisory recommending that
people be moved away from the site. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list. !
"Listing on the NPL does not set the order in
which sites will be cleaned up. The order is
influenced by the relative priority of the site's
health and environmental threats compared to
other sites, and such factors as State priorities,
engineering capabilities, and available tech-
-------
SUPERFUND.
nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.
A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.
How do people find out whether the
EPA considers a site a national
priority for cleanup under the
Superfund Program?
All NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
After a site is added to the NPL, what
are the steps to cleanup?
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent, long-term cleanup.
Since every site presents a unique set of chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:
I. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
detail the extent of the site contamination
2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
possible cleanup remedies
3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
which remedy to use
4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy
5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy
This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity study (RI/FS) that determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and identify
and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These
studies may be conducted by the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private
parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, .the remedial investigation .
is much more detailed and comprehensive than
the initial site inspection. ,
A remedial investigation can best be described
as a carefully designed field study. It includes
extensive sampling and laboratory analyses to
generate more precise data on the types and
quantities of wastes present at the site, the type
of soil and water drainage patterns, and specific
human health and environmental risks.
The result of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is
.needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
SUPERFUND
a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose
of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi- ,
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
.information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called a feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
. determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered effective. Often, special pilot studies are
conducted to determine the effectiveness and :
feasibility of using a particular technology to
clean up a site. Therefore, the combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study can
. take between 10 and 30 months to complete,
depending on the size and complexity of the
problem.
Does the public have a say in the
final cleanup decision? -
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the .
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan.* Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made.
The results of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, which also point out the
recommended cleanup choice, are published in
a report for public review and comment. The
EPA or the State encourages the public to
review the information and take an active role
in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets and
announcements in local papers let the commu-
nity know where they can get copies of the
study and other reference documents concern-
ing the site. Local information repositories,
such as libraries or other public buildings, are
established in cities and towns near each NPL
site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
to review all relevant information and the
proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
tion repositories for each NPL site described in
this volume are given in Appendix B.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan after-it
is published. These comments can be written
or given verbally! at public meetings that the
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
.the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
ing written answers to specific community
t comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
'summary" is part of the EPA's write-up of the
final remedy decision, called the Record of
Decision, or ROD. .
The ROD is a public document that explains
the cleanup remedy chosen and the reason it
-------
: - - ^ '- - --
SUPERFUND.
was selected. Since sites frequently are large
and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD may
be necessary for each contaminated resource or
. area of the site. This may be necessary when
contaminants have spread into the soil, water,
and air and affect such sensitive areas as
wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned
up in stages. This often means that a number
of remedies, using different cleanup technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.
If every cleanup action needs to be
tailored to a site, does the design
ofthe remedy need to be tailored,
too?
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried
out, it must be designed in detail to meet
specific site needs. This stage of the cleanup is
called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected rem-
edy will be engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may
appear to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to two years to
complete. This blueprint for site cleanup
includes not only the details on every aspect of
the construction work, but a description of the
types of hazardous wastes expected at the site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
how long does it take to actually
clean up the site, and how much
does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site
cleanup, called the remedial action, are as
varied as the remedies themselves. In a few
cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup measures that can take a long time..
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or
dredging contaminated river bottoms can take
several years of complex engineering work
before contamination is reduced to safe levels.
Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site.
Once the cleanup action is
completed, is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20. years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term, monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent"
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. 6u. .a mis unai monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected
-------
SUPERFUND
remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
until public comments are taken into consid-
eration that a site actually can be deleted from
the NPL. All sites deleted from the NPL and
sites with completed construction are included
"in the progress report found later in this book.
Can a site be taken off the NPL if
no cleanup has taken place?
Yes. But only if further site investigation
reveals that there are no threats present at the
site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
sary. In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
action" remedy and may move to delete the
site when monitoring confirms that the site
does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
the NPL if new information concerning site
cleanup or threats show that the site does not
warrant Superfund activities.
A site may be removed if a revised HRS
scoring, based on updated information, results
in a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
A site also may be removed from the NPL by
transferring it to other appropriate Federal
cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
cleanup actions. ' .
Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
serves Superfund monies for the,Nation's most
pressing hazardous waste problems where no
other cleanup authority is applicable.
Can the EPA make parties
responsible for the contamination
pay?
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters
should pay," after a site is placed on the NPL,
the EPA'makes a thorough effort to identify
and find those responsible for causing con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
EPA is willing to negotiate with these private
parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it
has the authority under the Superfund law to
legally force those potentially responsible for
site hazards to take specific cleanup actions.
All work performed by these parties is closely
guided and monitored by the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for actions
financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the EPA may decide to use Superfund
monies to make sure a site is cleaned up
without unnecessary delay. For example, if a
site presents an imminent threat to public
health and the environment or if conditions at a
site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for
causing site contamination are liable under the
law (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay .
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites .
where no responsible panics can be identified.
-------
-------
10THSTREE
NEBRASKA
EPAID#NED98171383
EPA REGION 7
Platte County
Columbus
; Other Names:
Columbus Public Water Supply
Site Description ^
The 10th Street Site consists of nine municipal wells located in the Qty of Columbus and
, certain potential sources of ground water 'contamination. Sampling has revealed that several
of the existing municipal drinking water supply wells are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Groundwater in the vicinity of the municipal well field is also
contaminated with VOCs. The highest contaminant level in a monitoring well was detected
under a city parking lot that formerly was used as a scrap .metal yard. Other potential
sources of soil include a dry cleaning facility behind the lot and a laundromat. The municipal
wells provide drinking water to approximately 19,000 people. All the wells use the alluvial
aquifer, which is known to have been contaminated, as their water source. However, the
supply has been in consistent compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPl. LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater serving municipal wells is contaminated with the VOCs
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE). PCE and TCE also have
been found in the soil. People could be exposed to these contaminants through
'the use of the municipal water supply. Additional exposure; is possible if private
.wells are installed and used in areas of high levels .of groundwater contamination.
Cleanup Approach
The EPA signed a Record of Decision on this site on February 23,- 1995. The ROD includes
a contingency for ground water collection and EPA reassessment of risk determine such
action is necessary. -
August 1995
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA has begun an investigation of the site to evaluate the
nature and extent of contamination. The EPA is considering a remedy to contain
groundwater contamination. After completion of the investigation, scheduled for
late 1994, the EPA will be able to determine the best methods for the site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the 10th Street Site while studies are
taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
Site Repository
Columbus Public Library, 2504 Fourteenth Street, Columbus, NE
August 1995
10TH STREET SITE
-------
BRUNO CO4
ASSOCIATI
ASSOCIATED
PROPERTIES
NEBRASKA
EPA ID# NED981713829
EPA REGION 7
Butler County
Bruno
Site Description
The Bruno Co-op Association/Associated Properties site consists of two contaminated
municipal wells in Bruno. One well is located at the intersection, of Pine and Third Streets.
The second well, 1,000 feet northwest of the first, is located on property that has been used
to store grain since the 1940s. The site was originally owned by C & NW Railway Co. From
1947 to the 1960s, part of the property was leased to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), which used it as a Federal grain storage facility. Local farmers purchased all but
one of the corn crib bins in 1964 and moved them off site. Bruno Co-op purchased the
remaining bin. In 1988, the company also purchased Wagner Mills, Inc., a second business
operating on the site. Currently, Bruno Co-op has two functional bins. Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) were first detected in 1986. These contaminants had been poured or
pumped into the grain as fumigants. The surrounding area is primarily agricultural,
commercial,.and residential. [. '
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/14/92
Tjhreats and Contaminants
Both the EPA and the Nebraska Department of Health (NDH) conducted tests
from 1986 to 1988 and detected various VOCs, including carbon, tetrachloride, and
chloroform, in the two wells. Elevated levels of carbon tetrachloride have been
identified in the Fremont well and the grain storage facilities. People who touch or
ingest contaminated groundwater could be at risk.
13
August 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on the cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The EPA supplied bottled water to 150 residents of Bruno from
mid-1989 to late 1990 as the Bruno Public Water Supply Co. constructed new
wells. : .
Entire Site: An investigation into the nature and extent of contamination is
being planned. After the investigation is completed, the EPA will select a final
remedy to clean up site contamination. ,
Site Facts: The EPA has identified four parties potentially responsible for site
contamination in addition to Bruno Co-op and the USDA.
Environmental Progress
By providing a drinking water supply to affected residents, the EPA has reduced immediate
threats posed to the nearby population. Additional cleanup activities will be selected
following a full-scale study into site conditions.
Site Repository
Not yet established.
August 1995
BRUNO CO-OP ASSOCIATION/
ASSOCIATED PROPERTIES
-------
CLEBURN STR
WELL ^
NEBRASKA
EPA ID# NED981499312
EPA REGION 7
Hal! County
Grand island
Site Description
The Cleburn Street well was once a drinking water source for the Cky of Grand Island. The
municipal water system, serving 38,500 people, consists of 12 wells within city limits and 12
wells in the Platte River Island Well field southeast of the city. Now disconnected from the -.
municipal water supply, the contaminated Cleburn Street well was found to be contaminated
with tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in 1986. Subsequent studies indicated PCE-contamination in
the groundwater and sub-surface soils. Results of EPA investigations indicate four separate
areas of contamination: a former solvent company; and three dry cleaners who have used or
stored PCE. The EPA is currently investigating the extent of contamination at all four areas
and is evaluating cleanup alternatives. Some 1,100 residents not served by the municipal
water system draw water, from shallow private wells. The Cleburn Street Well is within 4 miles
of food and forage crops irrigated by 333 wells.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed by
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/29/91
Final Date: 10/14/92
Threats and Contaminants
PCE and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were first discovered in the
Cleburn Street well in 1986: PCE-also was detected in pn-site soils. Recent studies
show PCE contamination of the shallow ground water used by the city for drinking
water. Ingestion of, or other contact with, contaminated groundwater or soil is a
risk to public health. :
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and long-term remedial actions
focusing on cleanup of all four source areas.
15
August 1995
-------
Response Action Status :
Immediate Actions: The Cleburn Street well was disconnected from the
municipal water supply in 1986. In the summer of 1993, the EPA installed a
ground water extraction well at the primary source area and began pumping to
contain the most highly contaminated ground water and to prevent further migration of the
contaminants toward other municipal wells. In June 1995, EPA collected samples from inside
the building at the-primary source area. Sample results should indicate whether EPA can use
its removal authorities to demolish the building,-which has become severely deteriorated over
time. Activities related to the building are being conducted in close coordination with the
city. " ' . ' -
Entire Site: The EPA conducted a soil-gas investigation in 1988; PCE and other
VOCs were detected in three areas on site. Site-wide investigations into the nature
and extent of ground water and soil contamination were initiated in 1991 and are
expected to be completed in 1995. A treatability study was conducted in March 1994 to
determine the applicability of various soil and ground water treatment technologies and to
gather important design information. The EPA is currently evaluating alternatives for long-
term cleanup of ground water and subsurface soils and expects to select a final remedy, in
1995 for three of the four source areas.
Environmental Progress
Disconnecting the contaminated Cleburn Street well from the municipal water supply and
containing the contaminated ground water plume to prevent further migration of
contaminants toward other municipal supply wells reduced the risk of residents coming into
contact with contaminants from the site while investigations leading to final cleanup are
underway. ,
Site Repository
Edith Abbott Memorial Library, 211 N. Washington Street, Grand Island, NE 68801
August 1995 -lit) CLEBURN STREET WELL
-------
CORNHUSK
AMMUNITiO
PLANT
NEBRASKA
EPA ID# NE2213820234
EPA REGION 7
Hall County
miles west of Grand Island
Site Description
The 19-acre Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant is a U.S. Army Armament, Munitions, and
Chemical Command facility. On standby status since 1973, the operation leases 16 square
miles of land for agriculture, grazing, and wildlife management activities. The plant was built
in 1942 to produce munitions and to provide support functions during World War II and has
gone in and out of production over the years. It consists of five major components: (1) five
major production areas where munitions were loaded, assembled, and packed; (2) a fertilizer
manufacturer; (3) two major storage facilities; (4) a. sanitary landfill; and (5) a burn ground
where materials contaminated with explosives were ignited. When the plant was active, staff
disposed of wastewater contaminated with explosives into 56 earthen surface impoundments,
which were located near the five production areas. Dried solids from the bottom of the pits'
periodically were scraped and ignited at the burning ground. Releases from the surface
impoundments have contaminated about 500 private wells. Activities at the site currently are
limited to maintenance and leasing operations. Once the environmental studies required for
real estate transactions are completed, the Army plans to sell the property. Polluted
groundwater has migrated off the site and has been detected as far as 3^ miles beyond the
plant's border. The area affected by groundwater contamination is mostly suburban, and
residents rely on public and private wells for drinking water. Approximately 3,000 people live
within 1 mile, and 27,000 live within 3 miles of the site. Groundwater also is used for
farmland irrigation and for watering livestock. ' ',
Site Responsibility: .This site is being .addressed through
. . Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater both on and off the site are contaminated with various explosives.
Soils are contaminated with various explosives and heavy metals such as lead,
chromium, and cadmium. Human and livestock health can be adversely affected
by drinking the contaminated groundwater or through direct contact with
contaminated soil.
August 1995
-------
Cieanup 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 Army provided bottled water to the 250 homes with
contaminated wells until residences could be hooked up to the city's water system.
In 1986, the municipal water system was extended to 800 residences in Grand
Island. A dewatering system was completed to control "the high water table. In 1987, the
Army started an incineration program to treat the contaminated soil in the 56 surface
impoundments. Workers excavated the soil and then incinerated it to destroy the
contaminants. The excavated pits were backfilled with sand and gravel from off the site, and
the ash from the incinerator was landfilled on the site. The Army had burned 40,000 tons of
soil by 1988, when the State-monitored operation ended. In 1991 and 1992, the Army
provided bottled water to additional homes with contaminated wells until residences were
hooked up to the city's water system which has been completed. In addition, the EPA
constructed a protective barrier around the burning grounds unexploded ordinance in 1993.
Entire Site: An investigation by the Department of the Army in 1990 identified
several areas of potential contamination. The Army is investigating the plume of
groundwater that has moved off the site to determine the types and levels of
contaminants present, and the extent of its threat to human health and the environment. The
Army submitted a draft report on their investigation in early 1993, but the EPA, the Army,
and the State of Nebraska, agreed that additional work would be necessary due to data gaps.
This work involved dividing the site into smaller areas to facilitate the additional field work
required. A Focused Feasibility Study to study ways to prevent further contaminant
migration for the groundwater contaminated with explosives was completed in 1994. An
interim cleanup remedy involving groundwater containment was signed in 1994. The remedial
design for a groundwater pump and treat system is underway. Additional fieldwork is planned
forthe second area in 1995 to address data gaps identified in the final Site Characterization.
The Army, has completed a soils removal to remove explosive contaminants. .
Site Facts: Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant is participating in the Installation
Restoration Program, a specially funded program established by the DOD in 1978 to identify,
investigate, and control migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DOD
facilities. An Interagency Agreement between the EPA, Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control (NDEC), and the DOD was signed in 1990. Under this Agreement,
the Army will investigate and clean up the site.
August 1995 . /'£ CORNHUSKER ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
-------
Environmental Progress
The continuing extension of the municipal water supply to over 800 residences and the
provision of bottled water to additional homes has reduced the potential of exposure to
hazardous substances in the drinking water. The incineration of contaminated soil has
reduced other pathways of contamination at the Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant. These
actions will protect the public health and the environment while further studies are conducted
and cleanup activities are being planned. ,
Site Repository
Grand Island Public Library, 211 North Washington Street, Grand Island, NE 68802
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant, 102 North 60th Road, Grand Island, NE 68803
CORNHUSKER ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
August 1995
-------
HASTINGS
GROUND W
CONTAMIN
NEBRASKA
EPA ID# NED980862668
EPA REGION 7
Adams County and Clay County
City of Hastings
Other Names:
Blayney Ammunition Depot
ney ExNaval Ammunition Base
Hastings Plume
Former Naval Ammunition Depot (NAD)
Site Description
Approximately 23,000 people live in the City of Hastings. Like most communities,- industries
have expanded to areas outside of the city limits: Farms and pastures surround the urban
area, and many private and public wells lie within a 3-mile radius of the city. Ground water is
used to irrigate crops and water stock and provides water for home and business use.! A
nearby stream and lake are used for recreation.
Concerns regarding volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including commercial grain
fumigants in the Hastings city water supply, were investigated by the State in 1983. As a
result, Hastings took two municipal supply wells out of service and placed other contaminated
wells on a standby basis. Community Municipal Services, Inc. (CMS), a private water supply
system serving the areas east of Hastings, also took two of its three wells off-line due to
pollution. Testing by the City and the State is conducted to assure that the water supplied to
users by these two utilities is safe to drink.
Due to the size and complexity of the Hastings site, the following site description is organized
into its four geographical areas: Central Industrial Area; Commercial Area; Hastings East
Industrial Park/Former Naval Ammunition Dump; and South Landfill.
Central Industrial Area: This area encompasses commercial and industrial properties
situated in the heart of Hastings, along the Burlington-Northern railroad right-of-way. The
three subsites that make up this area are Colorado Avenue, Second Street, and Well #3.
Well #3 subsite, named .for M-3, one of the city wells taken out of service, is contaminated
with carbon tetrachloride (CCl^), a grain fumigant. A second plume of contaminated ground
water containing chlorinated industrial solvents, was identified in EPA's most recent
investigation. At the Colorado Avenue subsite, three different industrial solvents have been
detected in soils. The source is suspected to be industrial.discharges into the storm or
sanitary sewers. The Second Street subsite was identified during the 1987 to 1988
investigation of Colorado Avenue. Pollution from an old coal gas plant operation was
detected in the soil at this subsite and in the downgradient ground water. Contaminants
include VOCs, polycyclie aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and phenols.
Commercial Area: This area, east of the Hastings city limits, contains the FAR-MAR-CO
and North Landfill subsites. Operators of the FAR-MAR-CO subsite stored and handled
agricultural products, mostly grains, for more than 30 years. VOCs, including toxic grain
fumigants, have seeped into the soils and ground water. Grain dust explosions and spills from
August 1995
-------
fumigant equipment on the subsite have contributed to the problem. While investigating soils
at the FAR-MAR-CO subsite, the EPA discovered trichloroethane (TCA) contamination on
a portion now owned by a different company. The new owner acknowledged the use of TCA
as a metal cleaning solvent. This area became the TCA Contamination Area portion of the
subsite, which was cleaned up in 1989. The North Landfill originally was a local brickmaker's
clay pit. Hastings operated it as a landfill in the 1960s to dispose of various municipal and
industrial wastes. Studies have revealed that the FAR-MAR-CO and North Landfill subsites
are polluting downgradient wells with VOCs.
Hastings East Industrial Park/Former Naval Ammunition Depot (NAD): The former
NAD, located about 2 miles east of Hastings, straddles two counties: Clay and Adams. The
48,000-acre NAD was used for loading armaments until-the. early 1950s, and later for the
demilling of armaments until it was decommissioned in the early 1960s. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers is conducting studies at the site under the authorization of the Department of
Defense (DOD). The Corps has discovered that explosives, heavy metals, and VOCs are the'
major contaminants. Although contaminants that have been detected are generally consistent
with the chemicals used by the Navy operations, the industries established in the Hastings
East Industrial Park (HEIP) since the 1960s may have generated some of the VOCs being
detected. The portion of this investigation focusing on surface soil contamination on 2,600
acres of the HEIP has been completed.
South Landfill: This landfill, southeast of the Hastings city limit, was operated by the City
and accepted industrial waste during the 1960s and 1970s. Contamination at this subsite
consists primarily of several types of VOCs.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, local, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Ground water and soils at the various subsites are contaminated with a wide range
of VOCs and other organic compounds. The NAD site is contaminated with heavy
metals and explosives in addition to VOCs, and the Second Street subsite also
contains PAHs. The city and CMS water supplies are safe for drinking. However,
people and livestock may experience adverse health effects from drinking
contaminated ground water around the subsites from domestic wells, which are
located outside the city limits.
Cleanup Approach .
This site has been divided into subsites and each subsite developed into a source and a
ground water operable unit. Source control (soil cleanup) actions have been given priority.
' _ I
August 1995 ^ BASTINGS GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION
-------
Because of the size and complexity of the site, a number of long-term remedial phases are
required to address the overall control of contamination in the ground water. Investigations
have been completed at most of the subsites to support focusing resources on the operable
unit cleanup.
Response Action Status
Well #3 Plume 1/Source Control: The EPA selected a remedy for the Well
#3 subsite in 1989, which focuses on cleaning up the source of CC14 in the
ground water. The remedy featured soil vapor extraction whereby volatile . -
contaminants are 'Vacuumed" from the soils, and the vapors are treated with activated carbon
to remove the contaminants. The EPA' and the State, completed the soil cleanup at the Well
#3-subsite in 1993.
Well #3 - Plume 2/Source Control: A second contamination plume, consisting
primarily of the VOCs TCA, trichloroethylene (TCE), and tetrachloroethylene
(PCE), was found in the EPA's most recent investigation in the fall of 1993. The
EPA and a party potentially responsible for site contamination have completed two soil gas
surveys to determine the sources of the plume. EPA released the results of its investigation
and the information collected by Dutton-Lainson in May 1995. EPA then held an availability
session for the EE/CA on June 14, 1995.
Well #3 Ground water - Plume 1 (CC14): Studies into the nature and extent
of ground water contamination at this subsite began in 1991 and were completed
in 1993. Currently, the EPA and the State completed the design for Phase I of
the ground water cleanup system. Cleanup actions begin in June 1995.
Well #3 Ground water - Plume 2: The EPA decided in 1993 to extract and
treat the second plume related to Well #3. As part of the plume 2 source control,
the EPA will determine those potentially responsible for contamination to lead
the implementation of the selected cleanup action. EPA will monitor the level of
contamination in Plume 2 to determine the appropriate course of action.
Colorado Avenue. Source Control: In 1988, the EPA selected a cleanup
approach" which focuses on cleaning up 42,700 cubic yards of soil polluted .with
VOCs that are associated with the contaminated sewers along Colorado Avenue.
The parties potentially responsible for the contamination at this subsite will "vacuum" volatile
chemicals from the soil without digging it up,-treat the removed vapor with activated carbon,
if necessary, and monitor soil, air, and ground water at the site. Design of the cleanup action
began in 1988, based on a pilot study of the proposed cleanup technology. The cleanup
actions are expected to begin in 1995.
Colorado Avenue Ground water: The EPA completed a study into the nature
and extent of ground water contamination at this subsite in 1991. The action
chosen by EPA is to extract and treat the ground water in the most contaminated
area of the plume. The potentially responsible parties began predesign work and completed
an aquifer/pump test at the subsite in 1993. Treatment of the ground water is expected to
HASTINGS GROUND WATER . ^ . August 1995
CONTAMINATION . .
-------
begin in 1996.
Second Street: The EPA completed an investigation of the Second Street area
in 1994. The EPA and the State are currently reviewing this subsite and its
cleanup needs. The EPA is planning a removal action at this subsite to stabilize
conditions prior to selecting a final remedy.
North Landfill Ground water: The EPA began an intensive study of ground
water contamination at this subsite in 1985. Workers installed three ground water
monitoring wells at the landfill and tested wells east of the site; Data revealed
contamination by a variety of VQCs. In 1989, the parties potentially responsible for
contamination at the landfill agreed to take over this study. This effort included
recommending to the EPA the best strategies for final cleanup. In 1991, EPA selected an
extraction and treatment remedy as an interim action. Design of the ground water extraction
treatment system, by the City of Hastings and Dutton Lainson Company, has been suspended
due to a-request by the PRP to consider an innovative remediation technology.
North Landfill Source Control: Studies to determine the sources of soil and
ground water contamination at the North Landfill and to determine cleanup
alternatives are complete. In 1991, a landfill cap and gas monitoring remedy was
selected as an interim cleanup measure. The design of the landfill cap has been completed by
the City of Hastings and Dutton Lainson Company.
FAR-MAR-CO Soil: The EPA selected a remedy for soil cleanup at this subsite
in 1988. A fumigant spill resulted' in contamination of about 33,800 cubic yards of
soil, and the ground water beneath it is also highly polluted. Features of the
remedy include soil vapor extraction, whereby volatile chemicals are "vacuumed" from the soil
without displacing it and treated with activated carbon to remove vapor, as well as monitoring
soil and air at the site. The parties potentially responsible for site contamination completed
the design of the.cleanup remedy in 1994. Cleanup actions.are expected to begin early in
FAR-MAR-CO Ground water: The potentially responsible parties are conducting
an investigation of the ground water contamination in the FAR-MAR-CO area.
The results of the investigation will be used to develop a technical approach for
restricting the flow of contaminated ground water beneath the site and to evaluate the need
for ground water treatment. These studies are expected to be completed in 1995 and ground
water containment activities will begin early in 1996. The potentially responsible parties, who
are conducting the investigation at this subsite, relocated two residents from this subsite'in
TCA Contamination Area: The party potentially responsible for the TCA
contamination removed the polluted soil and transported it to a licensed hazardous
waste disposal facility in 1989. The same-party signed a Consent Order with the
EPA and completed a study of the contamination in 1990. Based on the results of this study,
the EPA recommended that the potentially responsible party monitor the ground water for a
August 1995 ^3 HASTINGS GROUND WATER
i CONTAMINATION
-------
period of two years. This ground water testing showed no further contaminants, indicating
that the removal action effectively prevented migration of TCA to the ground water.
South Landfill: The EPA completed a soil gas investigation at the subsite in
1994. The field investigations needed to characterize the nature and extent of
contamination at this subsite have been discussed with the City of Hastings and
the other parties potentially responsible for its contamination. The EPA has determined that
further investigations are needed to define the nature and extent of the ground water
contamination. These investigations are planned to be completed, in late 1996.
s ,
Explosives Disposal Area/Yard Dump and Bomb and Mine Complex: As
part of the NAD investigation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently
evaluating the nature and extent of contamination in this area. The on-going
study is focusing on defining the extent of metals, volatiles and explosives contamination.
The area is located along the southern boundary of the NAD, approximately one mile north
of the town of Glenville. The study is expected to be completed in early 1996, at which time
a'cleanup approach will be selected, to address the contamination. Two removal actions are
scheduled to address sources of contamination at the Explosives Disposal Area and Yard
Dump.
Hastings East Industrial Park (HEIP) Surface Soils: The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers began an intensive study of ground water contamination at this
subsite in 1986. The HEIP subsite is in the former Navy Ammunition Depot. In
1988, the Corps released the results of the first part of the study, which identified sources of
ground water contamination. The report confirmed that explosives are the major
contaminants at the site, along with PAHs, heavy metals, and VOCs. In 1990, the Corps
issued a final report on this study addressing contaminated ground water and soils. Also in
1990, a remedy was selected for the cleanup of the surface soils. The remedy recommended
that soils above a predetermined cancer risk level be incinerated off site. Soils slightly below
this risk level, as well as soils of a non-carcinogenic nature, are to be stabilized and placed in
an on-site landfill.. The remedy also called for a treatability study which was completed in
1993. Results of the treatability study.and additional information gathered during design
investigations support minor amendments to the 1990 remedy. These amendments included
transportation of soils requiring incineration to an off-site facility for treatment, disposal of
stabilized metals-contaminated soils and soils contaminated with low level organics in an on-
site landfill. In addition, the proposed remedy is an interim action for addressing PAH
contamination. The Army Corps of Engineers continues to fully characterize PAH
contamination at the site. A final remedy specifically addressing PAHs will be selected once
this further investigation is completed. The technical design for the cleanup of soil
contaminated by VOCs and heavy metals is expected to be completed in 1995.
HEIP Ground water and Vadose Zone: A portion of this study was
completed concurrently with the study of this area's surface soils described above.
As part of this ongoing study, the Army Corps of Engineers issued a Ground
water Modeling Study in 1990. The Corps continues'to modify this ground water model to
address different cleanup alternatives. Additional investigations are ongoing for both ground
water and vadose'contamination. These investigations are planned to be completed in early
HASTINGS GROUND WATER' ~Q<\ August 1995
CONTAMINATION
-------
1996. .;
Site Facts: Funding provided by EPA, the State, the Department of Defense, the City of
Hastings and the potentially responsible parties is being used to cleanup the Hastings site. In
compliance with a 1988 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), several parties potentially
responsible for site contamination demonstrated successful recovery of VOCs at the Colorado
Avenue subsite. Thereafter, the EPA issued two Unilateral Administrative Orders that
require the potentially responsible parties at the Colorado Avenue to perform the cleanup.
The EPA and the City of Hastings signed an AOC in 1989 for conducting an investigation at
the North Landfill subsite. The EPA, the City, and the Dutton Lainson'Company signed an
AOC in 1992 to perform the technical design to implement the ground water extraction and
treatment system and the landfill cap at the North Landfill. Hastings Irrigation Pipe
Company and the EPA signed an AOC in 1989 requiring the firm to perform an investigation
and remove polluted soil from the TCA Contamination Area. Farmland Industries and the
EPA signed an AOC to conduct treatability studies and complete the technical design for
controlling the source of contamination at the FAR-MAR-CO soil subsite. Morrison
Enterprises is performing an investigation of the ground water at the FAR-MAR-CO subsite
under the terms of the AOC. The EPA and Dutton Lainson entered into an AOC requiring
Dutton Lainson to perform a soil gas investigation at their property at'the Well #3 Plume 2
subsite.
Environmental Progress
Due to the numerous cleanup actions and the number of contaminated areas and subsites at
the Hastings Ground Water site, the status of cleanup activities varies. The ground water
actions will be long-term. In general, however, the potential for exposure to hazardous
substances .in. the ground water has been greatly reduced by closing down contaminated wells
.while further studies and cleanup activities are being planned and conducted. Further
contamination of the ground water is being prevented by. the EPA and other parties' efforts
to clean up the sources .of contamination. The EPA continues to monitor the quality of the
ground water adjacent to the Hastings site, informing property owners! and businesses when
contaminant levels exceed acceptable limits. Discussions between the EPA, the State,, the City
and the potentially responsible party group continue in an effort to apply the Superfund
process to determine a final remedy for the Hastings Ground Water site.
Site Repository
Hastings Public Library, Fourth and Denver Streets, Hastings, Nebraska
the Central Community College Library, E. U.S. Highway 6, Hastings,
some documents. . -
68901. In addition,
NE 68901 contains
August 1995
HASTINGS GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION
-------
LINDSAY
MANUFACTURI
CO.
NEBRASKA
EPA ID# NED068645696
EPA REGION 7
Platte County
Lindsay
Site Description
The Lindsay Manufacturing Company generates sulfuric acid.waste from a galvanizing process
at its plant. The wastes were discharged into an -urilined pond for at least 15 years. The pit
was closed in 1983, when three monitoring wells showed contamination. The site is
surrounded by agricultural land. Approximately 3,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the
site, with the nearest residence being 300 feet away.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater contains heavy metals including zinc, iron, cadmium,
chromium, and lead from former process wastes. Off-site groundwater contains
heavy metals including cadmium, zinc, and volatile .organic compounds (VOCs).
VOCs also have been identified in the perched sand channel in the northern halif
of the site, in clay soils in the area around the northern quarter of the main plant,
and between the main plant and th6 southern end of the galvanizing building.
People could be exposed to contaminants by drinking water from contaminated
private wells, by-direct contact with contaminated water, by inhaling contaminants
released 'during water use, or by eating food in which contaminants have.
bioaccumulated.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
August 1995
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1984, Lindsay began operating an interim pump and treat
system, whereby the groundwater is treated by neutralizing and removing
contaminants. A second extraction well was installed in 1989 to control off-site
migration of contaminants and increase the radius of influence. Off-site monitoring wells
show that the project is controlling the migration of contaminants from the site.
Entire Site: Lindsay began a study of the nature and extent of contamination
remaining at the site, as well as the alternative technologies for cleanup. The study
was completed in 1990. Based .on the results of the study, the EPA selected a
remedy that included a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of vacuum extraction of on-site
soils, installation of such a system if it is deemed practical, enhancement and utilization of the
existing groundwater extraction and treatment systems, installation of additional groundwater
monitoring wells, installation of an additional extraction well, and continued monitoring of the
groundwater collection/treatment system during cleanup activities. Lindsay began the
technical design for these activities in 1992. In early 1993, a third extraction well became
operational to assist in pumping and treating the groundwater. The soil vapor extraction
(SVE) pilot study was concluded in January 1993. Pilot results show that a full scale system
is practicable. Design of the full scale system was completed in mid-1994; construction began
shortly thereafter and the SVE system became operational in March 1995.
Site Facts: In April 1992, a Consent Decree was signed that requires, the potentially
responsible parties to design the remedy and clean up the site under EPA monitoring.
Environmental Progress
The groundwater restoration project described above has reduced the potential for exposure
to hazardous materials at the Lindsay Manufacturing site while construction of the final
cleanup actions is underway.
Site Repository
Columbus'Public Library, 2504 14th Street, Columbus, NEr 68801
August 1995
LINDSAY MANUFACTURING CO.
-------
NEBRASKA AR
ORDNANCE P
NEBRASKA
EPA ID#NE6211890011
EPA REGION 7
Saunders County
12. mile east of Mead
Other Names:
Mead Ordnance Plant; University of
Nebraska, Mead Field Laboratory
Site Description
The 17,000-acre Nebraska Army Ordnance Plant site operated from 1942 to 1956 as a
munitions production plant for four bomb loading lines during World War II and the Korean
War. In addition, the plant was used by the Army for munitions storage and ammonium
nitrate production. The Air Force also built and maintained three Atlas missile silos at the
facility from 1959 to 1964. Some of the processes associated with these activities used organic
solvents. Beginning in 1962, portions of the plant were sold to various entities. Today, the
major production area of the former plant, approximately 9,000 acres, belongs to the
University of Nebraska, which uses it as an agricultural research station. The remaining
acreage is owned by the Nebraska National Guard and numerous individuals and
corporations. Approximately 400 people obtain drinking water from wells within 3 miles of the
site. Groundwater also is used for crop irrigation and livestock watering.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
The grouridwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
munitions wastes. The soil also is contaminated with munitions wastes, as well as
polychlorinated biphenyls (P.CBs). People who. have direct contact with or ingest
contaminated groundwater or soil may be at risk.
Cleanup Approach
Several emergency cleanup actions have been taken at the site, and will continue to be taken
on an as-needed basis. Long-term cleanup of the site is being addressed in three phases: the
first addresses soil contaminated by munitions waste; the second focuses on groundwater
contamination; and the third focuses on the remaining site contamination.
August 1995
-------
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1989, the U.S. Army determined that a private well was
contaminated. The EPA immediately responded by providing the owners with
bottled water, which later was provided by the Army. The Army has since
installed a carbon filtration system at that residence and two other nearby residences. The
Army is also planning to undertake a removal action to stop migration of a portion of the
contaminated groundwater plume in 1996. The Army has undertaken actions to remove most
of the PCB contaminated soils from the site which is scheduled for completion in 1995. Two
areas containing high concentrations of explosives in the soil have been fenced to prevent
public access to the contamination. ' ' ' ' . '
Soils: The Army began conducting an investigation in 1991 to determine the
extent of soil contamination at the site. The investigation was completed in 1993.
The results are currently being evaluated to select the appropriate technology for
cleaning up the soil. A proposed plan identifying incineration as the preferred remedy for
explosives contaminated soil was released for public comment in 1994. Selection of a cleanup
approach is expected to take place in 1995. . .
Groundwater: The Army completed an investigation into the nature and extent
of groundwater contamination at the site in 1994. The results are currently being
evaluated to select the appropriate technology for cleaning up the groundwater.
Selection of a cleanup approach is expected to take place in 1996.
Site Facts: The Nebraska Army Ordnance Plant site is participating in the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program, a specially funded program established by the
Department of Defense (DOD) in 1978 to identify, investigate, and control the migration of
hazardous contaminants at military and other DOD facilities. An Interagency Agreement
between the EPA, State, and Army was signed in 1991 to coordinate cleanup responsibilities.
Environmental Progress
Providing bottled water, installing a carbon filtration system, and removing "hot spots" of
PCB-contaminated soil have reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous substances in the
drinking water while further investigations are underway at the Nebraska Army Ordnance
Plant site. Containment of the groundwater plume will stop the migration of groundwater
contaminated by organic solvents.
Site Repository
Contact the Region 7 Superfund Community Relations Office.
August 1995
NEBRASKA ARMY ORDNANCE PLANT
-------
OGALLALA
GROUNDW
CONTAMINA
NEBRASKA
EPA ID# NED986369247
EPA REGION 7
Keith
estern part of Ogallala
Site Description
The Ogallala Groundwater Contamination Site consists of two properties approximately 15
acres and 1 acre in size, respectively. These properties, a block apart from each other, are
located in the western part of Ogallala along the South Platte River. The area is primarily
industrial, commercial, and residential. The first of the two properties has been used to
manufacture electrical components since the early 1960s. The facility on this property was
owned and operated by TRW, Inc. until 1986. American Shizuki Corp. took over the
operations in 1987. Ogallala Electronics, which occupies the second property, also
manufactures electronics components. The Nebraska Department of Health (NDH) first
detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in five of the nine municipal wells serving
Ogallala in 1987. The two companies were identified as the source of contamination during
subsequent investigations. Public and private wells within 4 miles of the site supply drinking
water to an estimated 5,100 people; the water from these wells also is used for irrigation.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/14/92
Final Date: 12/12/94
Threats and .Contaminants
Various VOCs, including trichloroethane (TCE). and trichloroethane (TCA), were
detected during a soil-gas survey conducted by the Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control (NDEC) in mid-1990. These contaminants were used by
both operations. Similar contaminants have been detected in monitoring wells in
and around both properties and in numerous municipal wells.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
August 1995
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA began an investigation into the nature and extent of
contamination and other possible sources of contamination in, the fall of 1994.
After this investigation, the EPA will select a remedy to clean up site contamination.
Environmental Progress
Initial assessments of the Ogallala Groundwater Contamination Site arid Manufacturing, Inc.,
site indicate that the site poses no immediate threats to the health of the nearby population '
or the integrity of the environment while a full-scale study into site conditions is underway.
In addition, a PRP search is near completion. . .
Site Repository
Ogallala Public Library, Ogallala, NE
August 1995
3/
OGALLALA GROUND WATER
CON:CAMINATION"'SITE '
-------
SHERWOOD
MEDICAL CO.
NEBRASKA
EPAID#NED084626100
EPA REGION 7
Madison County
Norfolk
Site Description
The 60-acre Sherwood Medical Co. site consists of the plant property and nearby wells
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Since 1962, Sherwood Medical Co.
has manufactured disposable medical supplies. From 1961 until early 1967, the floor drains in
the tool room, thought to be a source of contamination, discharged into Sherwood Lake. In
early 1967, the drains were rerouted to a concrete catch basin and then to septic system leach
fields on the west side of the plant. In early 1969, the discharge from the drain was diverted
into a 2000-gallon underground storage tank and then to the leach fields. This arrangement
continued until 1974, when use of the leach fields was discontinued and a sewage treatment
system was installed for the plant.. Local wells were sampled by the EPA and the Nebraska
Department of Health from 1987 to 1989. VOCs were detected in Sherwood Well #5, used
for industrial purposes, and the main well serving the residences of the Park Mobile Home
Court (PMHC). Soil-gas surveys led site investigators to believe that contaminants are
migrating in a north/northeast direction with groundwater flow into PMHC's main well and
backup wells. In 1989, the EPA detected VOCs in the tank and the settling basin. Public and
private wells within 4 miles of the site provide drinking, water to an estimated 5,900 people.
The surrounding area is used for agricultural, residential, and commercial purposes.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/29/91
Final Date: 10/14/92
Threats and Contaminants
At the plant facility, VOCs were present in the septic system, including the tank
and settling basin. Discharges of wastewater to the disposal pond also were found
to contain VOCs: Contamination has migrated through the groundwater and is
seeping into the water supply of a well used for industrial purposes and the main
and backup wells of PMHC.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on soil and groundwater.
33,
August 1995
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1988, the EPA supplied the residents of PMHC with
bottled water. Later, a carbon treatment system was installed to treat the PMHC
drinking water and the EPA discontinued supplying water to the residences. In
1989, PMHC was connected to an uncontaminated well. Other immediate actions taken
included cleaning the septic tank and settling basin, taking them out of service, and rerouting
floor drains to the plant's sewage treatment system.
Entire Site: Under the supervision of the EPA, Sherwood conducted an "
investigation at the site to determine the extent and nature of contamination and
to identify alternative technologies for cleanup.. Sherwoodjcompleted the study in
1993 and the EPA selected a remedy that includes excavation and low temperature thermal
treatment of contaminated soils in two source locations, groundwater monitoring, provision of
drinking water to PMHC and to affected and nearby industrial properties, and removal of the
septic and underground storage tank systems. The design of the cleanup remedies are
scheduled to begin soon.
Site Facts: An Administrative Order on Consent between the EPA and Sherwood Medical
Co. was signed in August 1989, requiring the company to perform immediate cleanup actions.
An Administrative Order on Consent for the potentially responsible party to investigate site
contamination went into effect in March 1991.
Environmental Progress
Immediate actions such as supplying bottled water and installing a carbon treatment system
have reduced health and safety risks to the nearby population while Sherwood Medical Co.
plans activities for final cleanup of the site.
Site Repository
.Norfolk Public Library.
August 1995
SHERWOOD MEDICAL CO.
-------
WAVERLY
GROUND
CONTAMINATION
NEBRASKA
EPAID#NED980862718
EPA REGION 7
Lancaster County
Waverly
Other Names:
CCC Commodity Credit Corporation
Hedrick Site
Site Description
The Waverly Ground Water Contamination site extends over an 11-acre area underlying the
City of Waverly. The U.S. Department of Agriculture operated a Federal grain facility in
Waverly from 1952 to 1974. A grain fumigant consisting of carbon tetrachloride and carbon
disulfide was used at the facility from 1955 to 1965. Since 1975, the property has been owned
by Lancaster County, which operates a district office and maintenance facility on the
premises. The EPA and the State of Nebraska sampled the municipal wells in 1982 and found
them to be contaminated. One well was taken out of service, two wells were placed on
standby status, and the city drilled new wells to replace them. The area surrounding the site is
predominantly agricultural. The population of Waverly is approximately 1,700 people. There is
'a residential area adjacent to the former grain facility. Several private wells near the site are
used for livestock and crop irrigation. Runoff from the site drains into Salt Creek.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Samples taken from the municipal wells contained concentrations of heavy metals,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrates, and sulfates. The soil is
contaminated with VOCs including carbon tetrachloride and chloroform.
Contaminants from the soil have seeped into the aquifer, the source of water for
the municipal water supply. The polluted wells were taken out of service, and new
wells were drilled; therefore, the municipal water supply is safe to use. The new
wells are upgradient of the site and are not likely to be threatened. If
contaminated water is used for irrigation or for watering livestock, pollutants may
accumulate in the crops or animals which, if eaten, may pose a health threat to
people. Because ground water discharges into Salt Creek, fish in the creek may be
contaminated and cause adverse health effects in .people who eat them.
August 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1988, as an immediate response to the ground water
contamination, the EPA installed ground water monitoring wells, a system of
pipes and wells in the. ground connected to. a pump to remove vapors
contaminating soil (soil gas extraction system), and a ground water treatment system using air
stripping. The ground water treatment involves forcing a stream of air through the
contaminated water to evaporate the chemicals, which then are released into the atmosphere.
Air monitoring is conducted to ensure that emissions are within acceptable limits. Treated
ground water is discharged to a ditch near the site. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is performing the operation and maintenance on the ground water extraction and
soil gas treatment system. An additional extraction well was added to the system in 1993 to
address contamination discovered outside the influence of the current ground water
extraction well. .
Entire Site: The USDA completed an Investigation into the nature and extent of
contamination at the site. Based on the results of this investigation, the EPA
recommended that the immediate actions described above be continued until
cleanup of soil and ground water is achieved. Operation and maintenance of the ground
water treatment system is expected to continue for 6 years.
Environmental Progress
With the ground water cleanup actions described above underway and new wells providing
drinking water to residences, the potential for accidental .contact with contaminated ground
water or soil has been reduced while cleanup continues.
The EPA conducted a prefmal inspection in March 1994.. The preliminary closeout report
.was completed in March 1994. In accordance with the compliance agreement between EPA
and USDA/CCC, USDA/CCC will be responsible for completion of the Final Response
Action (RA) Report. .Operation and Functional period on modification was completed in
June 1995. .
Site Repository
Contact the Region 7 Superfund Community Relations Office.
August 1995
WAVERLY GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
i_i3i£iv>i.. .
in the
Pact Sheets
36,
-------
-------
GLOSSARY
This glossary defines terms used
throughout the NPL Volumes. The -
terms and abbreviations contained in
this glossary apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfitnd program in
the context of hazardous waste management.
These terms may have other meanings when
used in a different context.
Terms Used
intheNPL
Acids: Substances* characterized by low pH
(less than 7.0), that are used in chemical
manufacturing. Acids in high concentration
can be very corrosive and react with many
inorganic and organic substances: These
reactions possibly may create toxic com-
pounds or release heavy metal contaminants
that remain in the environment long after the
acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal
and enforceable agreement between the EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination. Under the terms of the Order,
the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules.,
responsibilities, and enforcement options that
the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible.
parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a
judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A
legally binding document issued by the EPA,
directing the parties potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
the EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for
site studies).
Aeration: A process that promotes break-
down of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR): The Federal agency
within the U.S. Public Health Service charged
with carrying out the health-related responsi-
bilities of CER
-------
GLOSSARY.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring pro-
cess by which a compound is reduced in
concentration over time through adsorption,
degradation, dilution, and/or transformation.
Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.
Baghouse Dust: Dust accumulated in remov-
ing particulates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive
in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed
with acids, they neutralize each other, form-
ing salts.
Berrn: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth
used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some
contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living
tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people, as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contami-
nated water, or eat contaminated food.
Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria or
other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
and water.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated .
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-
nents.
Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on .moisture from the air for their water -
source, are usually acidic, and are rich in plant
residue [see Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.
Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-
water.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
Cap: A layer of material* such as clay or a
synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated
materials. The surface of the cap generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing
water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that
attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Carbon Disulfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and or-
ganic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also
cause chemical reactions that increase the
hazard to human health and the environment.
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-
tion].
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series
of holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of dirt,
CERCLA: [see Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act]..
Characterization: The sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis of a site to determine the
-------
GLOSSARY
extent and nature of toxic releases. Character-
ization provides the basis 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 t! 't ensure the
protection of the public and the environment.
Comment Period: A specific interval during
which the public can review and comment on
various documents and EPA actions related to
site cleanup. For example, a comment period
is provided when the EPA proposes to add
sites to the NPL. There is minimum 3-week
comment period for community members to
review and comment on the remedy proposed
to clean up a site.
Community Relations: The EPA effort to
establish and maintain two-way communica-
tion with the public. Goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related ac-
tions, assuring public input into decision-
making processes related to affected.commu-
nities, and making certain that the Agency is
aware of, and responsive to, public concerns.
Specific community relations activities are
required in relation to Superfund cleanup
actions [see Comment Period].
Comprehensive Environmental Response^-
Compensation, and Liability Act ~
(CERCL A): Congress enacted the. ",,''. V.
CERCLA, known as Superfund, in. 1980 to,
respond directly to hazardous waste problems
that may pose a, threat to the public health and
the environment. The EPA administers the
Superfund program.
Confluence: The place where two bodies of
water, such as streams or rivers, come to-
gether.
Consent Decree: A legal document, ap-
proved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between the EPA and the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the
potentially responsible parties are required to
perform and/or the costs incurred by the
government that the parties will reimburse, as
well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforce-
ment options that the government may exer-
cise in the event of non-compliance by poten-
tially responsible parties. If a settlement
between the EPA and a potentially respon-
sible party includes cleanup actions, it must
be in the form of a Consent Decree. A Con-
sent Decree is subject to a public comment
period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order
on Consent].
Containment: The process of enclosing or
containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in a pond or a lagoon, to pre-
vent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
-------
GLOSSARY.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental
effects.
Contingency Plan: A document setting out
an organized, planned, and coordinated course
of action to be followed in case of a fire,
explosion, or other accident that releases toxic
chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioactive
materials into the environment.
Cooperative Agreement: A contract be-
tween the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site
cleanup responsibilities and other activities on
a cost-sharing basis.
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].
Cover: Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserv-
ing operations and produced by distillation of
tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
[seePAHsandPNAs]. Contaminating
sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes
may cause skin ulcerations and cancer
through prolonged exposure.
Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an
embankment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a
chemical is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
Deminimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to setde with
small, or de nunimis contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort.
Dewater: To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
" Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land farming, deep well
injection, or incineration.
. Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groiindwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgra-
dient of a contaminated groundwater source
are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas of commercial or industrial
facilities.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water. ' '
-------
GLOSSARY
Endangerment Assessment: A study con-
ducted to determine the risks posed to public
health or the environment by contamination at
NPL sites. The EPA or the State conducts the
study when a legal action is to be taken to
direct the potentially responsible parties to
clean up a site or pay for the cleanup. An
endangerment assessment supplements an
investigation of the site hazards.
Enforcement: EPA, State, or local legal
actions taken against parties to facilitate
settlements; to compel compliance with laws,
rules, regulations, or agreements; and/or to
obtain penalties or criminal sanctions for
violations. Enforcement procedures may
vary, depending on the specific requirements
of different environmental laws and related
regulatory requirements. Under CERCLA,
for example, the EPA will seek to require
potentially responsible parties to clean up a
Superfund site or pay for the cleanup [see
Cost Recovery].
Erosion: The wearing away of land surface
by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally
from weather or surface runoff, but can be
intensified by such land-related practices as
farming, residential or industrial develop-
ment, road building, or timber-cutting. Ero-
sion may spread surface contamination to off-
site locations.
Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh
water from rivers and salt water from
nearshore ocean waters are mixed. These
areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, sail:
marshes, and lagoons. These water ecosys-
tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and
wildlife.
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out.
Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway; together,
they are commonly referred to as the RI/FS
[see Remedial Investigation]. - ,-:
Filtration: A treatment process for removing
solid (paniculate) matter from water by
passing the waiter through sand, activated^
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove particles that contain
contaminants.
Flood Plain: An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods. Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that
results from the combustion of flue gases. It
can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides,
water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which
is used to drain, and disperse wastewater.
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party,
consisting of a written proposal demonstrating
a potentially responsible party's qualifications
*rf
-------
GLOSSARY.
and willingness to perform a site study or
cleanup.
Groundwater: Underground water that fills
pores in soils or openings in rocks to the point
of saturation. In aquifers, groundwater occurs
insufficient quantities for use as drinking and
irrigation water and other purposes.
Groundwater Quality Assessment: The
process of analyzing the chemical characteris-
tics of groundwater to determine whether any
hazardous materials exist.
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as,
chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very
good oxidizing agents and, therefore, have
many industrial uses. They are rarely found
by themselves; however, many chemicals
, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
some volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and dioxin are reactive because of the pres-
ence of halogens.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): The
principal screening tool used by the EPA to
evaluate relative risks to public health and the
environment associated with abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS
calculates a score based on the potential of
hazardous substances spreading from the site
through the air, surface water, or groundwater
and on other factors such as nearby popula-
tion. The HRS score is the primary factor in
deciding if the site should be on the NPL.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society
that can pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health and the environment
when improperly managed. It possesses at
least one of four characteristics (ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), or appears
on special EPA lists.
Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site con-
taining exceptionally high levels of contami-
nation.
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater,
with particular emphasis on the chemistry and
movement of water.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge
confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier. . ' .
Incineration: A group of treatment technolo-
gies involving destruction of waste by con-
trolled burning at high temperatures, e.g.,
burning sludge to reduce the remaining
residues to a non-burnable ash that can be
disposed of safely on land, in some waters, or
in underground locations.
Infiltration: The movement of water or other
liquid down through soil from precipitation
(rain or snow) or from application of waste-
water to the land surface.
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid
flowing into a reservoir, basin, or treatment
plant.
Injection Well: A well into which waste
fluids are placed, under pressure, for purposes
of disposal.
Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical substances
of mineral origin, not of basic carbon struc-
ture.
Installation Restoration Program: The
specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has
been identifying and evaluating its hazardous
waste sites and controlling the migration of.
hazardous contaminants from those sites.
Intake: The source from where a water
supply is drawn, such as from a river or water
body.
Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment between the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,
-------
GLOSSARY
setting forth the roles and responsibilities of
the agencies for performing and overseeing
the activities. States often are parties to
interagency agreements.
Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a permanent permit The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.
Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure. Lagoons typically are
used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges,
liquid wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or
incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in layers, compacted to. .
the smallest practical volume, and covered
with soil at the end of each operating day.
Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for
hazardous waste. They are designed to
minimize the chance of release of hazardous
substances into the environment [see Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act].
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles
through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leach-
ing [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and
carried through soil by water or some other
percolating-liquid.
Leachate Collection System: A system that
gathers liquid that has leaked into a landfill or
other waste disposal area and pumps it to the
surface for treatment
Liner: A relatively impermeable barrier,:
designed to prevent leachate (waste residue) -
from leaking from a landfilL Liner materials
include plastic and dense clay. .- <^:::
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often
incremental, sieps that are taken to solve site
pollution problems. Depending on the com-
plexity, site cleanup activities can be sepa-
rated into several of these phases.
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
contain peat moss deposits and is dominated
by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetland].
Migration: The movement of oil, gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and peimeable soils or rock.
Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].
Mine Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left
from mining operations. Tailings often
contain high concentrations of lead, uranium,
and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Mitigation: Actions taken to improve site
conditions by limiting, reducing, or control-
ling toxicity and contamination sources.
Modeling: A technique using a mathematical
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
system components have on the overall
performance of the system.
Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at
specific locations within, or surrounding, a
hazardous waste site .where groundwatercan
be sampled at .selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in
-------
GLOSSARY.
which groundwater flows and the types and
amounts of contaminants present
National Priorities List (NPL): The EPA's
list of the most serious uncontrolled or aban-
doned hazardous waste sites identified for
possible long-term cleanup under Superfund.
The EPA is required to update the NPL at
least once a year.
Neutrals: Organic compounds that have a
relatively neutral pH, complex structure and,
due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed
into the environment. Naphthalene, pyrene,
and trichlorobenzene are examples of
neutrals.
Nitroaromatics: Common components of
explosive materials, which will explode if
activated by very high temperatures or pres-
sures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a
nitroaromatic.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter
notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability.
A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during'which the
EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against poten-
tially responsible parties, although the EPA
may undertake certain investigatory and
planning activities. The 60-day period may
be extended if the EPA receives a good faith
offer within that period.
On-Scene Coordinator (OSO: The
predesignated EPA, Coast Guard, or Depart-
ment of Defense official who coordinates and
directs Superfund removal actions or Clean
Water Act oil- or hazardous-spill corrective
actions.
Operation and Maintenance: Activities
conducted at a site after a cleanup action is
completed to ensure that the cleanup or
containment system is functioning properly.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds: Chemical
substances containing mainly carbon, hydro-
gen, and oxygen.
Outfall: The place .where wastewater is
discharged into receiving waters.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating
large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or
leakage of contaminating materials. Leaking
drums may be contained within oversized
barrels as an interim measure prior to removal
and final disposal.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic,
modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites
and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.
Perched (groundwater): Groundwater
separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often clay
or rock.
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering
of water or other liquids through subsurface
- rock or soil layers, usually continuing down-
ward to grbundwater.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery opera-
tions and as fuel oil residues. These include
fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are the bases
from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are
made. These chemical substances often are
toxic to humans and the environment.
PhenolS: Organic compounds that are used
in plastics manufacturing and are by-products
of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye,
and resin manufacturing. Phenols are highly
poisonous..
-------
GLOSSARY
Physical Chemical Separation: The treat-
ment process of adding a chemical to a sub-
stance to separate the compounds for further
treatment or disposal.
Pilot Testing: A small-scale test of a pro-
posed treatment system in the field to deter-
mine its ability to clean up specific contami-
nants.
Plugging: The process of stopping the flow
of water, oil, or gas into or out of the ground
through a borehole or well penetrating the
ground.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundvvater
flowing from a specific source. The move-
ment of the groundwater is influenced by such
factors as local groundwater flow patterns, the
character of the aquifer in which groundwater
is contained, and the density of contaminants
[see Migration].
Pollution: Generally, the presence of matter
or energy whose nature, location, or quantity
produces undesired health or environmental
effects.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs):
PAHs, such as pyrene, are a group of. highly.
reactive organic compounds found in motor
oil. They are a common component of creo-
sotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyis (PCBs): A
group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications,
carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope immersion oils-, and caulk-'
ing compounds. PCBs also are produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment
because they are very stable, non-reactive,
and highly heat resistant Chronic exposure
to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
also is known to bioaccumulate in fatty
tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control ACL
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and.
biphenyls, are a' group of WgMyitsactii^^
organic compounds that are a common com-
ponent of creosotes, which can be carcino-
genic. ; ' -
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats,
and floor tiles. Health risks from high con-
centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
the lymphatic and nervous systems.
Potable Water: Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Su-
perfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs
until they admit liability or a court makes a
determination of liability. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in site cleanup activity
without admitting liability.
Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid
portions can be disposed of safely; the re-
moval of particles from airborne emissions;
Electrochemical precipitation is the use of an
anode or cathode to remove the hazardous
chemicals. Chemical precipitation involves
the addition of some substance to cause the
solid portion to separate.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of
collecting and reviewing available informa-
tion about a known or suspected waste site or
release to determine if a threat of potential
threat exists.
-------
GLOSSARY.
Pump and Treat: A groundwater cleanup
technique involving the extracting of contami-
nated groundwater from the subsurface and
the removal of contaminants, using one of
several treatment technologies.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium
and uranium-235 and-238, which break down
and produce radioactive substances due to
their unstable atomic structure. Some are
man-made, and others are naturally occurring
in the environment Radon, the gaseous form
of radium, decays to form alpha particle
radiation, which cannot be absorbed through
skin. However, it can be inhaled, which
allows alpha particles to affect unprotected
tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Radia-
tion also occurs naturally through the break-
down of granite stones.
RCRA: [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].
Recharge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the
earth to reach an aquifer.
Record of Decision (.ROD): A public docu-
ment that explains which cleanup
alternative(s) will be used to clean up sites
listed on the NPL. It is based on information
generated during the remedial investigation
and feasibility study and consideration of
public comments and community concerns.
Recovery Wells: Wells used to withdraw
contaminants or contaminated groundwater.
Recycle: The process of minimizing waste
generation by recovering usable products that
might otherwise become waste.
Remedial Action (RA): The actual construc-
tion or implementation phase of a Superfund
site cleanup following the remedial design
[see Cleanup].
Remedial Design: A phase of site cleanup,
where engineers design the technical specifi-
cations for cleanup remedies and technolo-
gies-
Remedial Investigation: An in-depth study
designed to gather the data necessary to
determine the nature and extent of contami-
nation at a Superfund site, establish the
criteria for cleaning up the site, identify the
preliminary alternatives for cleanup actions,
and support the technical and cost analyses of
the alternatives. The remedial investigation
is usually done with the feasibility study.
Together they are customarily referred to as
the RI/FS [see Feasibility Study].
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
jng cleanup actions at a site.
Remedy Selection: The selection of the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining con-
tamination will be naturally dispersed with-
out further cleanup activities, a "No Action"
remedy is selected [see Record of Decision].
Removal Action: Short-term immediate
actions taken to address releases of hazardous
substances [see Cleanup].
Residual: The amount of a pollutant remain-
ing in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place, e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wastewater
treatment, or particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubbing, or
other, process.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA): A Federal law that established a
regulatory system to track hazardous sub-
stances from the time of generation to dis-.
posal. The law requires safe and secure
-------
GLOSSARY
procedures to be used in treating, transport-
ing, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Retention Pond: -A small body of liquid
used for disposing of wastes and containing
overflow from production facilities. Some-
times retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons to store
waste.
Riparian Habitat: Areas adjacent to rivers
and streams that have a high density, diver-
sity, and productivity of plant and animal
species relative to nearby uplands.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land
into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contamina-
tion from its source.
Scrubber: An air pollution device that uses a
spray of water or reactant or a dry process to
trap pollutants in emissions.
Sediment: The layer, of soil, sand, and
minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such
as streams, lakes, and rivers, that absorbs
contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of
liquid (usually leachate) form .from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower
edges of landfills.
Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in the
ground used for storage of liquids, usually in
the form of leachate, from waste disposal
areas. The liquid gradually leaves the pit by
moving through the surrounding soil.
Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank
after the treatment process.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land
surface in which drainage collects; associated
with underground caves and passages that
facilitate the movement of liquids.
Site Characterization: The technical pro-
cess used to evaluate the nature and extent bf-
environmental contamination, which is ri, _
necessary for choosing and designing cleanup
measures and monitoring. their effectiveness.
Site Inspection!: The coUection of informa-
tion from a hazardous waste site to determine
the extent and severity of hazards posed by
the site. It follows, and is more extensive-
than, a preliminary assessment The purpose
is to gather information necessary to score the
site, using the Hazard Ranking System, and to
determine if the: site presents an immediate
threat that requires a prompt removal action.
Slag: The fused refuse or dross separated
from a metal in the process of smelting.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial
or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the
.flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by
digging a trench around a contaminated area
and filling the trench with an impermeable
material that prevents water from passing
through it. The groundwater or contaminated
liquids trapped within the area surrounded by
the slurry wall can. be extracted and treated.
Smelter: A facility that melts or fuses ore,
often with an accompanying chemical change,
to separate the metal. Emissions from smelt-
ers are known to cause pollution.
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles of soil. Such gases can move through
-------
GLOSSARY.
or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction: A treatment process
that uses vacuum wells to remove hazardous
, gases from soil.
Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to
remove undesirable materials. There are two
approaches: dissolving or suspending them in
the wash solution for later treatment by
conventional methods, and concentrating
them into a smaller volume of soil through
simple particle size separation techniques [see
Solvent Extraction].
Stabilization: The process of changing an.
active substance into inert, harmless material,
or physical activities at a site that act to limit
the further spread of contamination without
actual reduction of toxiciry.
Solidification/Stabilization: A chemical or
physical reduction of the mobility of hazard-
ous constituents. Mobility is reduced through
the binding of hazardous constituents into a
solid mass with low permeability and resis-
tance to leaching. ', ,
Solvent: A substance capable of dissolving
another substance to form a solution. The
primary uses of industrial solvents are as
cleaners for degreasing, in paints, and in
Pharmaceuticals. Many solvents are flam-
mable and toxic to varying degrees.
Solvent Extraction: A means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges,
and sediment, thereby reducing the volume of
the hazardous waste that must be treated. It
generally is used as one in a series of unit
operations. An organic chemical is .used to
dissolve contaminants as opposed to water-
based compounds, which usually are used in
soil washing.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or at-
tracting substances. It is used in many pollu-
tion control systems.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air
Stripping].
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.
Superfund: The program operated under the
legislative authority of the CERCLA and
' Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) to update and improve environ-
mental laws. The program has the authority
to respond directly to releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare, or the envi-
ronment. The "Superfund" is a trust fund that
finances cleanup actions at hazardous waste
sites.
Surge Tanks: A holding structure used to
absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, includ-?
ing liquid waste materials.
.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated
by woody vegetation.and does not accumulate
peat moss deposits. Swamps may be fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wet-
lands],
Thermal Treatment: The use of heat to
remove or destroy contaminants from soil.
Treatability Studies: Testing a treatment
method on contaminated groundwater, soil,
etc., to determine whether and how well the
method will work.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable^ color-
less liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as
-------
GLOSSARY
a solvent and as a metal degreasing agent.
TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled,
ingested, or through skin contact and can
damage vital organs, especially the liver [see
Volatile Organic Compounds],
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].
Upgradient: An upward hydrologic slope;
demarks areas that are higher than contami-
nated areas and, therefore, are not prone to
contamination by the movement of polluted
groundwater.
Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils. Vacuum pumps are connected to a.
series of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tightly at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the
soil draws VOC-contaminated air from the
soil pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn
down from the surface of the soil.
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with
graded soils and seed for vegetative growth,
to prevent erosion [see Cap].
Vitrification: The process of electrically
melting wastes and soils or sludges to bind
the waste in a glassy, solid material more
.durable than granite or marble and resistant to
leaching.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as secondary petro- '
chemicals. They include light alcohols,
acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
toluene, and methylene chloride. These
potentially toxic chemicals are used as sol-
vents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels.
Because of their volatile nature, they readily
evaporate into the air, increasing the potential
exposure to humans. Due to their low water
solubility, environmental persistence, and
widespread industrial use, they are commonly
found in soil and groundwater.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that uses
a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from
water.' . -, -
L,.
Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.
Water Table: The upper surface of the
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other
liquids.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to
sustaining many species of fish and wildlife.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
and bogs. Wetliinds may be either coastal or
inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish
(a mixture of salt and fresh) water, and most
have tides, while inland wetlands are non-
tidal and freshwater. Coastal wetlands ate an
integral component of estuaries.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
-------
------- |