EPA
REGION?
PROGRESS AT REGION 7
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
(NPL) SUPERFUND SITES
IOWA
AUGUST, 1995
726 MINNESOTA AVE., KANSAS CITY, KANSAS
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview ....; 1
SUPERPUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean up Sites? ...... 4
THE NPL PACT SHEETS:
Des Moines TCE 11
E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. Inc. (Co. RDx23).*. '.'.'.'. 14
Electro-Coatings inc 16
Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant ;.. !!!!!! is
Farmers' Mutual Cooperative ...!!!!! 20
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant .... !!!!!! 22
John Deere (Ottumwa Works Landfill) ..!!!!!!!! 25
Lawrence Todtz Farm 27
Mason City Coal Gasification Plant '.'.'.'.'. 29
Mid-America Tanning Company . .'' \'m ^i
Midwest Manufacturing/North Farm '.'.'.'.'. 3.3
Northwestern States Portland Cement Company '.'. 35
Peoples Natural Gas Company [ ] 38
Red Oak City Landfill '.*.'.'. 41
Shaw Avenue Dump v. '.*.'.'. 43
Sheller-Globe Corp. Disposal. .....!!!!!!!!! 45
Vogel Paint and Wax Company .....!!!!!!!!! 47
Waterloo Coal Gasification Plant. \ 50
White Farm Equipment Company , *.'.'. 53
GLOSSARY:
.Terms Used' in the Fact Sheets 55
-------
-------
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 Superiund program began, hazard-
OvervieM
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 wen? spreading into the ground-
water (a source of drinking water for many)
and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
sites, while improperly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
community and the environment at others.
The EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites
The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
sites as the most serious in the Nation. These
sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
mates that, while some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list, commonly called
the NPL, will continue to grow by approxi-
mately 50 to 100 sites per year, potentially
reaching 2,100 sites by the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL CLEANUP
EFFORT IS MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the program. Congress
recognized that the Federal government could
-------
INTRODUCTION
not and should not address all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target.
Sites on the NPL (1,245) thus are a relatively ,
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and compelling cases. The
EPA has logged more than 35,000 sites on its
national inventory of potentially hazardous
waste sites and assesses each site within one
year of being logged.
THE EPA IS MAKING PROGRESS
ON SITE CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund program is to tackle
immediate dangers first and then move through
the progressive steps necessary to eliminate-
any long-term risks to public health and the
environment.
Superfund responds immediately to sites
posing imminent threats to human health and
the environment at both NPL sites and sites not
on the NPL. The purpose is to stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a release of
hazardous substances, or the threat of.one, into
the environment. These might include tire
fires or transportation accidents involving the
spill of hazardous chemicals. Because they
reduce the threat a site poses to human health :
and the environment, immediate cleanup
actions are an integral part of the Superfund
program.
Immediate response to imminent threats is one
of Superfund's most noted achievements.
Where imminent threats to the public or '
environment were evident, the EPA has initi-
ated or completed emergency actions that
attacked the most serious threats of toxic
= exposure in more than 2,700 cases.
= The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent solution to an environ-
mental problem that presents a serious threat
to the public or the environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. The EPA has -
aggressively accelerated its efforts to perform
these long-term cleanups of NPL sites. More
cleanups were started in 1987, when .the _^_
Superfund law was amended, than in any
previous year. By 1991, construction had *
started at more than four times as many sites as
in 1986! Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half have had ^
construction cleanup activity. In addition,
more than 400 more sites presently are in the
investigation stage to determine the extent of
site contamination and to identify appropriate
cleanup remedies. Many other sites with
cleanup remedies selected are poised for the
start of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through the
-cleanup pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining
momentum.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup construction to understand that envi-
ronmental protection does not end'when the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies like those designed to clean up ground-
. water must operate for many years in order
to accomplish their objectives.
The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed. No matter
who has been delegated responsibility for
monitoring the cleanup work, the EPA will
assure that the remedy is carefully followed
and thatjt 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
fmdine the best solutions.
The National overview, Superfund: Focusing
on the Nation at Large (1991), contains impor-
tant information to help you understand the
magnitude and challenges facing the
Superfund program, as well as an overview of
. the National cleanup effort. The sections
describe the nature of the hazardous waste
problem nationwide, threats and contaminants
at NPL sites and their potential effects on
human health and the environment, vital roles
of the various participants in the cleanup
process, the Superfund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's serious hazardous
waste sites, and. the current status of the NPL.
If you did not receive this overview volume,
ordering information is provided in the front of
this book.
This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
up under the Superfund program. These sites
represent the most serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation and require the most
complicated and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each book gives a "snapshot" of
the conditions and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site. Information
presented for each'site is current as of April
1991. Conditions change as our cleanup
efforts continue, so these site summaries will
be updated annually to include information on
new progress being made.
To help you understand the cleanup accom-
plishments made at these sites, this volume
includes a description of the process for site
discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
cleanup of Superfund sites. This description,
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up
Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
which to review the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.
3
-------
-------
The diverse problems posed by hazard-
ous waste sites have provided the EPA
with the challenge to establish a consis-
tent approach for evaluating and cleaning up
the Nation's most serious, sites. To do this, the
EPA has had to step beyond its traditional role
as a regulatory agency to develop processes
and guidelines for each step in these techni-
cally complex site cleanups. The EPA has
established procedures to coordinate the
efforts of its Washington, D.C. Headquarters
program offices and its front-line staff in ten
Regional Offices, with the State and local
governments, contractors, and private parties
who are participating in site cleanup. An
important part of the process is that any time
.SUPERFUND
How Does the
Program Wpjjc
to Clean Up
'
THREE-STEP.SUPERFUND PROCESS
STEP1
Discover site and
determine whether
an emergency
exists*
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or.
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process.
during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA!
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parries who are potentially responsible
for site contamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
flow diagram above provides a summary of the
three-step process.
Although this book provides a current "snap-
shot" of site progress made only by emergency
actions and long-term cleanup actions at
Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads
to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
-------
SUPERFUND.
waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this
summary description of Superfund involve-
ment at hazardous waste sites.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND
EMERGENCY EVALUATION
How does the EPA learn about
potential hazardous waste sites?
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways.
Information comes from concerned citizens.
People may notice an odd taste or foul odor in
their drinking water or see half-buried leaking
barrels; a hunter may come across a field
where waste was dumped illegally. There may
be an explosion or fire, which alerts the State
or local authorities to a problem. Routine
investigations by State and local governments
and required reporting and inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about actual or potential threats of
hazardous substance releases. All reported
sites or spills are recorded in the Superfund
inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether-they will require cleanup.
What happens if there is an imminent
danger?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
reported, the EPA determines whether there is
an emergency requiring an immediate cleanup
action. If there is, they act as quickly as
possible to remove or stabilize the imminent
threat. These short-term emergency actions
range from building a fence around the con-
taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
rarily relocating residents until the danger is
addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
dents while their local drinking water supply is
being cleaned up or physically removing
wastes for safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at
any time an imminent threat or emergency
warrants them. For example, if leaking barrels
are found when cleanup crews start digging in
the ground or if samples of contaminated soils
or air show that there may be a threat of fire or
explosion, an immediate action is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
If there Isn't an imminent danger, how
does the EPA determine what, If any,
cleanup actions should be taken?
Even after any imminent dangers are taken
care of, in most cases, contamination may
'- -remain at the site. For example, residents may
have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contami-
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up. The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so any long-term threats
need to be evaluated. In either case, a more
comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious, but not
imminent, danger and whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is.discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-.
mation not only from their own files, but also
from local records and U.S. Geological Survey
maps. This information is used to identify the
site and to perform a preliminary assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the
questions: '.'
Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
.SUPERFUND
« How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or
natural resource area such as a wedand
or animal sanctuary?
» What may be harmed the land, i
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 healdi 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 basetfoh^"
the likelihood that a hazardous substance will
be released from the site, the toxiciry and>£.
amount of hazardous substances at the site, and
the people and sensitive envirdnmentspoteri-
tially affected by contamination at the site;- ..
Only sites with high enough health and envi-
ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on the
NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can
have a long-term cleanup paid for from
Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
fund. Superfund can, and does, pay for emer-
gency actions performed at any site, whether
or not it's on the NPL.
Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious
problems among uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste; sites in the U.S. In addition, a
site will be proposed to the NPL if the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
issues a health advisory recommending that
people be moved away from the site. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list.
"Listing on the NPL does not set the order in
which sites will be cleaned up. The order is
influenced by the relative priority of the site's
health and environmental threats compared to
other sites, and such factors as State priorities,
engineering capabilities, and available tech-
-------
SUPERFUND.
nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any Emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.
A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entided
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
ACTION'S
After a site is added to the NPL, what
are the steps to cleanup?
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent, long-term cleanup.
Since every site presents a unique set of chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:
1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
detail the extent of the site contamination
2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
possible cleanup remedies
3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
which remedy to use
4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy
5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy
This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity study (RI/FS) that determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and identify
and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These
studies may be conducted by the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private .
parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
. a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, the remedial investigation
is much more detailed and comprehensive than
the initial site inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described
as a carefully designed field study. It includes
extensive sampling and laboratory analyses to
generate more precise data on the types and
quantities of wastes present at the site, the type
of soil and water drainage patterns, and specific
human health and environmental risks.
The result of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
7
-------
.SUPERFUND
a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the. purpose
of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called a feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment arid comply with Federal
and S tate 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 50 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 lhatthe....
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan.- Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made. .......,
i~S~ '
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 iriforma-
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
f comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
'summary" is pan 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
8
-------
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 ofthe 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 die ROD. Sii- .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 Jaw 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 s ure 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.
/£> '
-------
DES MO1NE
TCE
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980687933
EPA REGION 7
Polk County
Southwest of downtown Des Moines
Other Names:
Turtle Street Landfill
Des Moines Vocational School
Dichem
Dico Company
Site Description
The Des Moines TCE site is an area of contaminated groundwater located-southwest of
downtown Des Moines, in the flood plain of the Raccoon River. The surrounding area is
industrial and commercial, with some recreational parklands. The city's public water supply,
which serves approximately 260,000 people, was discovered to be contaminated with
trichloroethylene (TCE) in 1976. The contamination was determined to be entering the water
supply through the city's groundwater source. The Dico Company, who used and disposed of
solvent wastes containing TCE on their property through early. 1979, was determined to be a
potential source of the contamination. In 1984, the Des Moines Water Works stopped using
the contaminated portion of the groundwater supply. In 1986, the EPA ordered Dico to
undertake the Agency's selected remedy to protect the city's public water supply. During
cleanup activities, another plume (the North plume) of contaminated groundwater was
discovered being drawn into the groundwater extraction system. An investigation was
subsequently initiated to address the contamination apparently originating to the north and
west of the Dico property. In addition, investigation on Dice's property reveajed that past
herbicide and pesticide formulation activities had left contamination in several Dico buildings
and adjacent soils. Cleanup of these areas of contamination is underway or currently being
planned.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially,responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), including tetrachloroethylene, TCE, and vinyl chloride, and pesticides and
herbicides from former industrial operations and waste disposal practices.
Accidentally ingesting or coming into contact with the contaminants poses a health
risk.
August 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial removal actions and three remedial actions
focusing on site-wide groundwater cleanup including the North Plume and controlling the
sources of contamination.
Response Action Status
Initial Removal Actions: Dico has cleaned several buildings on their property
that were previously used to formulate and store pesticide and herbicide products.
In addition, Dico has covered a large portion of their .property with an asphalt cap
to address the threat presented by the surface soil contamination.
Groundwater: The remedy for the protection of the Des Moines water supply
features: isolating the northernmost section of the public groundwater supply
system; collecting contaminated groundwater with extraction wells; treating the
groundwater by an air stripper to remove contaminants; discharging the treated water to the
Raccoon River; and operating the extraction wells until water collected from all monitoring
wells meets EPA drinking water standards for four consecutive months, Dico, under EPA
oversight, designed and built the groundwater extraction and treatment system, which
included seven extraction wells and an air stripping system. Cleanup activities began in
December 1987. Dico has and will continue to operate and maintain the groundwater
. treatment system until the specified clean up criteria are achieved.
Source Control: In 1989, Dico began an intensive study of the sources of the
pollution on its property. This investigation showed that contamination by VOCs
and pesticides are of significant concern at the site. The studies have identified
various source areas as well as potential remedies. The initial removal actions discussed above
have addressed many of the health concerns associated with the source areas. Remaining
risks posed by the source areas will be addressed by additional actions planned for selection in
1995.
North Plume: In 1988, the EPA began investigating the potential sources of
contaminated groundwater being drawn into the Dico groundwater extraction arid .
treatment system. The EPA installed additional monitoring wells to the north and
west of the Raccoon River near the Fleur Drive Bridge and north to about 25th and High
Street. The wells have been monitored to determine the extent of contamination and its
source(s) and to warn of any approaching danger to the public water supply. This
investigation was completed in the spring of 1992, and concluded that no further action is
warranted as the existing groundwater extraction and treatment system will capture and
cleanup the contaminated groundwater plume.
Site Facts: In 1986, the EPA issued an Administrative Order requiring Dico to design, build,
and operate a groundwater extraction system. Dico signed an Administrative Order on
Consent with the EPA in August 1989 to conduct a study of how to control the potential
'sources of contamination at its property. A Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) was
August 1995
DES MOINES TCE
-------
issued to Dico in March 1994 calling for a removal action to address threats inside several
on-site buildings. A second UAO was issued to Dico in June 1994 calling for a removal
action to reduce threats posed by on-site soils. A group of additional PRPs has been
identified in association with the pesticide and herbicide contamination at the site. This
group of PRPs has conducted sampling activities in on-site drainage areas and is expected to
conduct a removal action to reduce the associated threats.
Environmental Progress
Groundwater cleanup at the Des Moines TCE site is currently underway which, along with .
the other initial actions, has reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials
through drinking water while remaining cleanup actions are being planned. Pesticide and
herbicide-contaminated dust has been removed from several on-site buildings and the interior
surfaces have been sealed with urethane paint to prevent exposure to any remaining pesticide
and herbicide residues. In addition, exposure to pesticide-contaminated soils have been
eliminated through capping a large portion of the Dico property.
Site Repository
Des Moines City Library, 100 Locust, Des Moines, IA 50308
DES MOINES TCE
August 1995
-------
-------
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In late 1991, DuPont removed contaminated surface material
which could not be stabilized to an off-site, Federally approved disposal facility.
Entire Site: In 1985, the EPA installed three groundwater monitoring at the
Baier subsite. Sampling in 1986 showed elevated concentrations of metals..
Downstream water samples showed similar findings. When the McCarl subsite was
studied in 1986, groundwater and soil samples again revealed metals. In 1989, the EPA
ordered DuPont to perform a study of contamination at the site. DuPont completed the
study in early 1991. Based on the results of this study, the EPA recommended stabilization
and solidification of contaminated soil and monitoring of the groundwater as cleanup
remedies. DuPont completed the design of these cleanup remedies in late 1992 and cleanup
activities began shortly thereafter. Site cleanup activities were completed in 1993. The site
should be delisted from the NPL in the summer of 1995. N
Site Facts: On July 5, 1989, the EPA issued a Unilateral Order to DuPont requiring
DuPont to undertake a study of site contamination and cleanup options at the Baier subsite.
In late 1991, the EPA issued a Consent Decree requiring DuPont to design and conduct the
site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated surface material, treatment of the contaminated soil, and
monitoring-of the groundwater has eliminated-risks to public health or the environment from
the site.. All cleanup activities are complete. The 3EPA proposed the site for deletion from
the NPL in the summer of 1994. .
Site Repository
Idol Raschid Memorial Library, 3421 Avenue L., .Fort Madison, IA 52627
July 1995
15 EL DUPONT .DE NEEM.OURS & COMPANY, INC.
(COUNTY ROAD X23)
-------
ELECTRO-C
INC.
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD005279039
EPA REGION 7
Linn County
Cedar Rapids
Site Description .-
The 1-acre Electro-Coatings, Inc. site is a plating shop located in Cedar Rapids that has been
in operation since 1947. The plant currently performs chromium, cadmium, nickel, and zinc
plating. The site lies on the norther shore of Cedar Lake, a 150.-acre impoundment owned by
a utility company. The Cedar River is located just west of Cedar Lake. In 1976 high levels
of chromium were discovered in water from a neighboring industrial well. The contamination
was traced to a leaking tank containing chromic acid at the Electro-Coatings plant. Shortly
after the discovery, Electro-Coatings began a series of actions to monitor the contamination
and prevent further releases. The City of Cedar Rapids (pop. 108,772) obtains 'water from 46
shallow wells along the Cedar River. The closest city well is located about 2,000 feet west of
the site. .
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The primary groundwater contaminant is hexavalent chromium. Other heavy
metals (i.e., cadmium and nickel) have been found at elevated levels in site
groundwater. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have also been detected in site
groundwater. However, most of the VOCs. have been .attributed to a neighboring
industry. The contaminated-groundwater has been found to be largely contained
by the neighboring industrial well. Water from this industrial well is not used for
drinking water purposes and the contaminants do not adversely impact its use. No
' groundwater contamination has been detected in the municipal drinking water
wells. Potential for contamination of Cedar Lake has also been a concern.
However, no significant impact to Cedar Lake has been observed.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and long-term remedial actions.
/IP
July 1995
-------
Response Action Status : : :
Initial Actions: In 1976, Electro-Coatings, Inc. removed the leaking deep-pit
tank and initiated a leak prevention program throughout the*plant. Electro-
Coatings installed five monitoring wells which they sampled periodically in
addition to the neighboring industrial well. In 1992 contaminated soils.were discovered as a
chromium dipping tank was being taken out of service. Chromium-contaminated soil and
concrete were removed and disposed of as hazardous waste.
Long-Term Actions: A study to determine the nature and extent of
contamination was initiated in 1990 and completed in 1994.. The planned long-
term action resulting from this study includes continued pumping of the
contaminated groundwater with discharge to the'sanitary sewer. Continued pumping of the
neighboring industrial may provide adequate containment of groundwater contaminants. If
not, a new recovery well (or wells) will be installed and operated to provide containment of
contaminants. On-going groundwater monitoring will be conducted.
Site Facts: In June 1977, the State issued an Executive Order requiring Electro-Coatings to
install monitoring wells to define the extent of the contaminated plume. In January 1990,
Electro-Coatings entered into a Consent Order with the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR) to conduct a site investigation. A Consent Order for implementing the
long-term actions is currently being negotiated between Electro-Coatings and IDNR.
Environmental Progress
As a result of initial, actions, the Electro-Coatings site does not pose an immediate threat to
public health or the environment. Significant declines in contaminant levels have occurred.
Use of contaminated groundwater as drinking water will be prevented.
Site Repository
Cedar Rapids Public Library
500 First Street, S.E.
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
Iowa Dept of Natural Resources
Records Center, 5th Floor
Wallace State Office Building
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IA 50319
July 1995
ELECTRO-COATINGS, INC.
-------
FAIRFIELD CO^pD
GASIFICATION
PLANT f^
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD981124167
EPA REGION 7
Jefferson County
Fairfield
Site Description
The Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant site occupies one city block between West Burlington
and West Washington Avenues in Fairfield. The plant produced a natural gas substitute from
coal from 1878 until 1950. The plant has been owned and operated by Iowa Electric Light
and Power since 1917. Since 1950, the utility has used the site as an operations facility. The
main wastes are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), which are found in the coal tar left over from the gasification process, and cyanide
salts left in the iron oxide waste produced when the gas is purified. Operators sold some of
the coal tar and buried some in an earthen pit on the site or dumped it in a nearby ditch.
Disposal methods for the iron-cyanide waste are unknown, but it also may have been dumped
on site. In 1985, the utility found that groundwater near the site was contaminated. The
utility began a monitoring program to assure that private wells were unaffected. The EPA
became involved in 1987 by conducting an expanded site investigation, installing and sampling
on- and off-site monitoring wells, and conducting surface and subsurface soil sampling. In
1989, Iowa Electric found that the foundation for a gas holder was the main source of the
groundwater contamination. The gas holder was removed and destroyed in the 1950s, and
wastes were dumped or left in its place. An estimated 1,000 people live within 1 mile of the
site; 9,000 live within 3 miles. The local drinking water supply depends on both surface water
and groundwater and serves 11,000 people. There are 23 drinking water wells within a 3-mile
radius of the site; the closest is 1,900 feet away. Shallow and deep groundwater wells are
within 2 miles of the site. The closest well uses the shallow aquifer. Cedar Creek is less than
3 miles downslope of the site and is used for recreation.
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: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
In 1985, the utility detected PAHs, including anthracene and pyrene from the coal
gasification processes, in the groundwater near the site. On-site groundwater and
soil contain VOCs such as benzene, toluene, and xylene, and the metals lead and
mercury. Direct contact with contaminated soil and groundwater could pose a risk
to public health. , .
July 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the groundwater arid soil.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: Under EPA monitoring, the utility undertook an
emergency cleanup action, installing a groundwater extraction system. Currently
operational, it is designed to contain and treat the contaminated groundwater.
Groundwater and Soil: Also under the EPA's guidance, the utility completed an
intensive study of groundwater and soil contamination at the site in 1990. The
remedy selected includes excavating and incinerating contaminated soil and source
areas, continuing the groundwater extraction and treatment system, and conducting a pilot
study for possible in-place bioremediation of the contaminated groundwater. The potentially
responsible party completed the technical design for the remedy in June 1992 and began
excavation in June 1993. The bioremediation pilot study proved ineffective and was
terminated in May 1993. The groundwater extraction system achieved health-based standards
set by the EPA and the State in early 1993 and was shut down. The PRP completed
excavation of contaminated soil and coal tar in May 1995 in accordance with the Record of
Decision.
Site Facts: In 1989, Iowa Electric signed an Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA
to conduct additional site investigations. The Utility signed a Consent Decree with the EPA
in March 1991 to perform the technical design and undertake site cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
Groundwater contamination has been addressed at the Fairfield Coal.Gasification Plant site.
Contaminated source material and soil have been, excavated and transferred to Marshalltown,
Iowa for eventual incineration.
Site Repository
Fairfield Public Library, Court & Washington, Fairfield, LA 52556
July 13, 1995
FAIRFIELD COAL GASIFICATION PLANT
-------
FARMERS' MUTUALx
COOPERATIV
IOWA
EPA ID#IAD022193577
EPA REGION 7
Sioux County
Hospers
Site Description
The Fanners' Mutual Cooperative is an agricultural supply and service business (now under
another name) that has operated at this 6-acre site since 1908. The site lies several hundred
feet east of the Floyd River in the northwestern corner of the City of Hospers. Bulk
fertilizer and pesticides were handled at the site until 1992. The site continues to be used for
grain storage. In 1984 the State found herbicides and carbon tetrachloride in water from
three shallow municipal wells located adjacent to the site. The State restricted, then
prohibited, use of these three wells. This left the City with three deeper wells which yield
highly mineralized water and the City installed a fourth such well. Investigations conducted
by the Cooperative found groundwater contamination in the relatively small area between the
site and the Floyd River. The herbicide contamination appears to be the result of incidental
releases during normal operations throughout the site. The carbon tetrachloride
contamination of groundwater appears to be the result of previous on-site and off-site use of
carbon tetrachloride for grain fumigation.
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: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
m
Groundwater contamination is the primary threat posed by the site. It has resulted
in the closure of three city wells. A variety of common herbicides has been
detected in'the site groundwater including alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine,
metolachlor, metribuzin, and trifluralin. Atrazine has been the most problematic
as it has consistently been found above the drinking water standard. Carbon
tetrachloride was initially found in groundwater well above drinking water
standards. Recent studies have shown carbon tetrachloride contamination to have
virtually disappeared. Herbicides have been detected in site soils, although not at
levels of health concern. The site groundwater discharges to the Floyd River with
no significant impact.
July 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach
The selected cleanup approach is natural attenuation and monitoring. The carbon
tetrachloride contamination has already diminished significantly as the result of natural
attenuation. Herbicide levels have also been decreasing. Handling of the chemicals at the
site which caused the groundwater contamination has ceased. Contingency provisions are
provided in the event the City wishes to regain use of their three shallow wells. This
contingency would involve blending water from the City's shallow wells with water from their
deep wells. Measures would be taken to reduce the level of contaminants in water, from the
shallow wells, if necessary, to meet drinking water standards. ' . ' :
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The Cooperative conducted investigations at the site in cooperation
with the State beginning in 1984. In 1992 the fourth in the series of investigations
was completed and the remedy was chosen. The. Cooperative began additional
testing in 1993 to assess the potential for use of the three shallow wells for blending by the
City. This testing was completed in 1994. The City is currently planning to abandon their
shallow wells and obtain water from a rural water system.
Site Facts: In 1986 the State ordered the Cooperative to determine the nature and threat
of contamination and to identify cleanup alternatives. In 1987 the Cooperative entered into
a Consent Order with the State in which 'they agreed to conduct this work. The Cooperative
and the State are finalizing negotiations on a Consent Order for -implementing the selected
cleanup approach.
Environmental Progress
Natural attenuation has already resulted in significantly decreased levels of contaminants in
groundwater.- The State and EPA have determined that restricting use of contaminated
groundwater has prevented,, and will'continue, to prevent; any threat to public health from the
.site. . ' . . ...... _
Site Repository
Hospers City Hall
Hospers, IA 51238
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Records Center, 5th Floor
Wallace State Office Building
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IA 50319
July 1995.
FARMERS' MUTUAL COOPERATIVE
-------
IOWA ARMY
AMMUNITION
PLANT
IOWA
EPA ID# IA7213820445
EPA REGION 7
Des Moines County
miles west of Burlington
Site Description
The 19,127-acre Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP) site's primary activity since 1941 has
been to load, assemble, and pack a variety of conventional ammunitions and fusing systems.
Wastes currently produced at IAAP consist of various explosive-laden sludges, wastewater,
and solids; lead-contaminated sludges; ashes from incineration and open burning of
explosives; and waste solvents from industrial and laboratory operations. Past operations also
generated waste pesticides; radioactive wastes, and incendiaries. The Army has identified a
number of potentially contaminated areas, including an abandoned 4-acre settling lagoon, the
Line 900 Pinkwater Lagoon, which received wastewater containing explosives from 1943 to
1955. The lagoon now holds an estimated 75,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils. A second
area under investigation involves an earthen and concrete dam across Brush Creek, the
former Line 1 impoundment, which was useo crom 1948 to 1957. Wastewater flowed through
a 3Jj-acre sedimentation area where explosives settled out. The liquids subsequently
overflowed the dam into Brush Creek. Approximately 100 people live within 3 miles of the
site and obtain drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the base. In the spring of
1993, the Army analyzed water samples from the wells of residences located just south of the
IAAP. Two of the wells were found to contain explosives at levels exceeding health advisory
limits. The Army has offered alternate water supplies to all potentially impacted residents
south of the IAAP and provided connections for all residents who. so desired. Surface water
within 3 miles downstream of the site is used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed by the
Army with oversight by the. EPA..
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
The Army conducted tests from 1981 to 1984 and detected explosives from former
waste disposal practices in surface water and wells downgradient of the lagoon and
dam. In 1984, the U.S. Army detected explosives and lead in creek sediments."
People using Brush Creek for recreational purposes may be at risk due to
contaminated waters and sediments. Two individuals living south of the IAAP
along Brush Creek were placed on bottled water by the Army in the spring of 1993
due to the presence of explosives at levels exceeding health advisory limits in their
water supply wells. . .....
August 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status : '. : ' ' .
Entire Site: In 1990, the Army began a study to determine the nature and extent
of contamination at the site and identified 43 individual areas requiring
investigation. With the assistance of the EPA, samples were collected from these
potential areas of contamination. After analyzing these samples, the EPA and the Army
determined that approximately three-quarters of the sites needed further investigation. A
site-wide Remedial Investigation was completed in 1994. The Army is scheduled to complete
a supplemental field effort in the summer of 1995 to better define contaminant volumes for
Feasibility Study purposes. The Army is planning to execute a non-time critical removal
action to address significant contaminant volumes from the former Line 1 Impoundment Area
and the Line 800 Pinkwater Lagoon. Response actions may begin in late. 1995.
Site Facts: A Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement between the Army and the EPA was
signed in 1988. The installation subsequently was proposed for the National Priorities List
(NPL), and an Interagency Agreement was negotiated in late 1990. The IAAP site is
participating in the Installation 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 D.OD facilities.
August 1995 4^5 .... IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
-------
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the Army performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were needed at the IAAP site while further studies
leading to long-term cleanup activities are taking place. In the summer of 1995, the Army
completed two interim response actions to address soil contamination at a f. -rmer pesticide
disposal pit and at numerous explosive-wastewater sump locations. An additional interim
action is planned for late 1995, in which over 100,000 cubic yards of explosives-contaminated
soils from the former Line 1 Impoundment Area and the Line 800 Pinkwater Lagoon will be
excavated and disposed on-site. Soils will be segregated and- disposed according to risk. The
most highly contaminated materials will be temporarily stockpiled for eventual treatment,
while potential biological treatment processes are evaluated. Mid-level waste materials will be
landfilled on-site in a hazardous waste landfill which will be constructed adjacent to the .
installation's former inert disposal landfill. Low-level contaminated soils, those which do not
pose a significant threat to human health due to direct exposure, but do pose a risk based on
potential leaching to groundwater, will be used as fill material to bring the existing inert
disposal landfill to grade prior to the installation of a synthetic cover. The excavated areas at
Lines 1 and 800 will be transformed into wetland areas where in-situ phytoremediation of
explosives-contaminated groundwater will be evaluated on a pilot scale. If the
phytoremediation evaluation is successful, the Army may look to expand this concept to a
site-wide groundwater remedy.
Site Repository
Main Administration Building, Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, Middletown, IA 52638
Danville Iowa City Hall, Danville, IA
Burlington Public Library, Burlington, IA ,
IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
-HI
August 1995
-------
-------
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Under EPA oversight, the John Deere Company began an
investigation in 1990 to determine the type and extent of contamination. Field
work was completed in late 1990, and the investigation was completed in late 1991.
Based on the results of this investigation, the EPA selected a remedy requiring the John
Deere Company to maintain the existing fence around the site, and to continue monitoring
the groundwater to ensure that it remains safe. In addition, on the property and a State
Highway right-of-way, deed restrictions now limit site use to non-residential activities. '
Site Facts: In 1989, John Deere Company entered into an Administrative Order on Consent
with the EPA to conduct an investigation to determine the type and extent of contamination
at the site and to identify alternative technologies for the cleanup. On September 25, 1992,
John Deere Company and the Iowa Department of Transportation signed a Consent Decree
with EPA to implement the selected remedy.
Environmental Progress
Intensive investigations of site conditions have shown that the site does not pose a significant
threat to people and the environment. To ensure that there are no future threats,
groundwater monitoring and land-use restrictions have been put in place. The EPA will
continue to monitor the groundwater at the John Deere. (Ottumwa Works Landfills) site to
.ensure that site conditions remain safe. The EPA is moving the site towards deletion.
Site Repository
Ottumwa Public Library, 129 N. Court Street,-Ottumwa, IA 52501
July 1995
. JOHN DEERE (OTTUMWA WORKS LANDFILLS)
-------
LAWRENCE
FARM
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD000606038
EPA REGION 7
Clinton County
1 mile west of Camanche
Other Nanies:
DuPont Company Landfill
Site Description
The Lawrence Todtz Farm site is located in a predominantly agricultural area of Clinton and
covers slightly over 6 acres. Municipal solid waste and industrial solid and liquid wastes were
disposed of at the site from 1958 to 1975. The E.I. DuPont de Nemours Company, Inc.'s
cellophane plant buried 4,300 tons of liquid waste at the site from 1972 to 1975. The wastes
were reported to include strong acids and bases, plasticizers, resins, alcohols, inorganic salts,
paints, and pigments. The site was closed in 1975 and capped with approximately 2 feet of
"red sugar" clay and topsoil overlay. One hundred people live within 1 mile of the site. Within
% mile of the site are 10 farmhouses with private wells for drinking water and approximately
12 mobile homes. Murphy's Lake (formerly Willow Lake) and Bandixen Lake, located near
the site, are used for recreational activities such as fishing and swimming. Two chemical
industrial plants are located within a mile of the landfill. Evidence of deer, raccoon, and
cattle has been seen on the site. Wild geese were observed on the site and the surrounding
lakes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/05/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater samples from on-site monitoring wells detected heavy metals
including arsenic, barium, and lead; sodium; and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including tetrahydrofuran, benzene and toluene from the former waste
disposal activities on the site. Sodium was detected at levels above health ..
guidelines in groundwater samples collected from area residential wells.
Contamination of surface water (on-site ponds and nearby lakes) could have
occurred if there had been a release from the impoundment, because the lakes are
hydraulically connected to the shallow sand and gravel aquifer.
July 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination installed
an alternate water supply that included drilling a new well to supply .water to three
area residents. This was completed in the summer of 1989, Under the EPA's
oversight, the potentially responsible parties have graded the site area, constructed a 2-foot
soil cover over the impoundment, and installed a .groundwater monitoring system. These
activities were completed in 1991. Monitoring of the impoundment and municipal landfill will
continue to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the cleanup activities. Further actions,
including cleanup of. the impoundment and groundwater pumping and treating, will be
implemented if groundwater monitoring detects contaminants exceeding specific action levels.
Site Facts: In November 1990, a Consent Decree between the EPA and the potentially
responsible parties was entered in court. Under this Decree, the parties agreed to perform
long-term cleanup of the site.
Environmental Progress
The installation of an alternate water source, the construction of a 2-foot soil cover, and the
construction of a groundwater monitoring system with chemical-specific action levels' have
significantly reduced the potential for exposure .to contaminated soil and groundwater at the
Lawrence Todtz Farm site.
Site Repository
Clinton Main Library, 306 Eighth Avenue, South Clinton, IA 52732
Camanche Public Library, 102 12th Avenue, Camanche, IA 52730
July 1995
LAWRENCE TODTZ FARM
-------
MASON CITY
GASIFICATION
IOWA
EPAID#IAD980969190
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
Cerro Gordo County
OTHER NAMES:
Coal Gasification Plant
The Mason City Coal Gasification Plant site is located on approximately 2 1/3 acres in a
commercial and residential area of central Mason City, a north-central Iowa community of
29,000. Mason City Coal Gasification Plant operated from 1900 to 1951 and was demolished
in 1952. An electrical substation and a small storage building are all that remain on the site..
During a 1984 sewer installation, oily sludges were discovered in subsurface soil at the site.
Investigations by the current site owner, Interstate Power Company (IPW), revealed three
underground storage tanks containing oily sludge. The tanks and excavated soil were
exhumed and stored on the southeast corner 'of the site .and covered with a membrane cap.
Contaminated soil is also present in the north-central portion of the site. The site is situated
on fill material consisting of sand, gravel, and construction rubble and debris, and is in direct
contact with bedrock. Although the level of the water table fluctuates seasonally, the water
table in the fill material is typically present at depths ranging from 8 to 10 feet below the
surface. A portion of the groundwater flows through the fill and empties into Willow Creek,
which is used for public recreational fishing. Eight Mason City municipal drinking water wells
are located within 2 miles of the site. Approximately 98 percent of Mason City is supplied by.
the municipal drinking water supply.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
party's actions." . '_. -...''
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/18/94
Final Date: 12/12/94
Threats and Contaminants
The soil, on-site waste pile, bedrock, and groundwater are contaminated with
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Soil samples collected indicate that the
soil is contaminated to a depth of 13 1/2 feet. A series of investigations between
1986 and 1993 by IPW identified high concentrations of PAHs in samples of
groundwater taken from the uppermost aquifer and in samples of Willow Creek
sediment downstream from the site. Ingesting or touching contaminated soil or
groundwater could pose a public health threat.
July 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: a non-time critical removal of source materials and
a long-term remedial phase focusing on ground water.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In late 1988, the potentially responsible party excavated three
underground storage tanks and surrounding contaminated soil, moved them to the
southeast cotner of the site, and covered them, with a membrane cap.
Entire Site: In late 1991, the potentially responsible parties undertook a study
of the nature and extent of site contamination. This study was completed in
1994. A non-time critical removal of source materials is scheduled to begin in
late 1995. Remediation of ground water is pending completion of the removal action.
Site Facts: IPW signed an Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA in October 1991.
Under this order, IPW agreed to determine the extent of contamination at'the site and assist
the EPA in evaluating cleanup options.
Environmental Progress
The removal of several storage tanks and the contaminated soil around them has made the
Mason City Coal Gasification Plant safe while site studies are underwajr.
Site Repository
Mason City Public Library, 225 2nd Street S.E., Mason City, IA 50401
July 1995
MASON CITY COAL GASIFICATION PLANT
-------
MID-AMERIC
TANNING CO.
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD085824688
EPA REGION 7
Woodbury County
les south of Sergeant Bluff
Site Description
The Mid-America Tanning Company site, located south-of Sergeant Bluff, covers
approximately 100 acres and has processed hides under several names since 1969. In 1979,
the Mid-America Tanning Company discharged an estimated 1,000 cubic yards of tannery
sludges containing chromium into two unlined trenches on the property. U.S. Tanning
acquired the operation in 1985. Wastes were treated on site. Solids were settled out in
concrete-lined basins and unlined impoundments, while liquids were chemically treated and
then discharged into an oxbow lake. The site is in the Missouri River flood plain.
Approximately 85 people live within a mile of the site, and 850 people live within 3 miles.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and Potentially Responsible
Party's actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/30/89
Threats and Contaminants
Monitoring wells on'site show, that .the groundwater is contaminated with .heavy
metals including arsenic, barium, chromium,, lead, and cadmium from the former .
process waste disposal practices. The sediments and surface water of the oxbow
lake contain elevated levels of heavy metals. The groundwater, used by local
residents as a drinking water supply, may be polluted with heavy metals; drinking
such tainted water could be hazardous to public health. About 2 miles south of the
site is a wetland used as a nesting site for the piping plover, an endangered species.
Impoundment sludges produce dangerous levels of hydrogen sulfide gas.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
July 1995
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1990, the EPA excavated approximately 1,300 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and sludge from on-site burial pits. This material later will be
immobilized as part of the final cleanup remedy. The EPA also removed any raw
materials found on site and recycled them, where possible. These initial actions were
completed in late 1991.
Entire Site: Due to financial difficulties encountered by the potentially
responsible party in early 1990, the EPA had to initiate studies into the nature
and extent of contamination at the site., The EPA completed these investigations
in late 1991 and chose the following remedy: on-site immobilization of heavily contaminated
soil and sludge and capping of contaminated areas. Design of these cleanup remedies began
in 1992 and were.completed in September 1993. Cleanup activities are expected to begin in
1995. ; .
Site Facts: The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to a potentially responsible
party in late 1989. Due to financial difficulties, the party did not comply with the initial
actions specified in the Order. Another responsible party was ordered to secure site
buildings, remove drummed wastes, and clean two buildings. This work was completed in
April 1995.
Environmental Progress
The EPA has completed initial actions to address elevated levels of cadmium, arsenic, barium,
and lead in the groundwater by excavating and consolidating buried sludges, abandoned
chemicals, and tanning solutions. These actions will contain the source of contamination and
will reduce the potential for direct contact with hazardous wastes on site until final cleanup is
conducted. The additional threat of hydrogen sulfide gas was discovered during site
investigations conducted in November 1992.
Site Repository
Sergeant Bluff City Hall, 401 Fourth Street, Sergeant Bluff, IA 54054
July 1995
-------
MIDWEST
MANUFACTURING/
NORTH FARM
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD069625655
EPA REGION 7
Jasper County
liles north of Kellogg
Other Names:
North Farm
Smith-Jones
Site Description
The Midwest Manufacturing/North Farm site consists of two areas: North Farm, which is an
unlined disposal cell located 2 miles from the plant; and Midwest Manufacturing, which is the
plant facility. The two areas were combined into the same site because they contain the same
types of wastes and affect the same population. From 1973 to 1981, under Smith-Jones
ownership, the plant was engaged in electroplating special-order stamped metal pieces, a
process that involved using various heavy metals, such as nickel, zinc, and cadmium. Prior to
a wastewater treatment plant being brought on: line in 1977, the electroplating waste from the
plant was discharged directly into the North Skunk River. From 1977 to 1978, the sludge
produced by this process was disposed of in an unlined cell at the North Farm area. From
1979 to 1981, trenches at the Midwest Manufacturing area near the plant received the sludge
produced by the treatment process. In 1982, the EPA collected sludge samples from the
disposal trenches at both areas. Cadmium was the only metal which was found to be present
in the soils above naturally-occurring levels. No elevated metals were present in soil samples
taken from the North Skunk River downgradient from the plant. A groundwater sample
collected from Well #1 was found to contain levels of zinc less than the proposed level for
lifetime exposure. During the EPA's 1987 site visit, a man-made drainage ditch was
discovered to the west of the disposal trench at the plant. The sediments in this ditch were
covered with a black, oily substance that had a petroleum odor. Stressed vegetation and an-
oily substance floating on top of the water were observed in a marshy area located on the
western end of the plant property. In a 1989 site visit, it was noted that the drainage ditch.
had been covered and a plastic drain pipe had been placed in bottom of the ditch. The plant
currently manufactures high-speed flywheel ring gears and assemblies for automobiles.
Approximately 700 people depend on wells located within 3 miles of the site for their drinking
water .supply. '- '
Site Responsibility: , This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/05/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
August 1995
-------
Threats and Contaminants
During sampling in 1982, the Midwest Plant city well #1 showed elevated levels of
zinc from the former waste disposal activities. Groundwater samples from plant
site monitoring wells found elevated levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
such as vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene, and dichlorothylene and the heavy metals
cadmium and nickel. Surface soils at both areas contain elevated levels of heavy
metals. Adverse health effects could result from ingesting vegetables, grown on
contaminated soils or watered with contaminated groundwater. In the event that
contaminated groundwater were to be consumed, the site may pose .a health risk ,to
area residents. ' ' .
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed by Smith & Jones, the PRPs, in two long-term remedial actions
focused on the cleanup of the Midwest Manufacturing Area and the North Farm Area. EPA
and Smith & Jones, Inc. signed a consent decree in December 1994 for all future site
response activities.
Response Action Status
Midwest Manufacturing Area: The EPA concluded a study of the nature and
extent of contamination of the area in 1990. The 1991 remedy included
installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system and capping of the
plant site disposal trench. The EPA conducted a pump test in preparation for the cleanup
design and determined that the aquifer was less permeable than previous data indicated,
which lengthens the cleanup time and increases the. site cleanup costs. Subsequently, the
EPA amended the remedy to include deed restrictions, installation of groundwater monitoring
wells, perimeter fencing and regular groundwater sampling of both monitoring wells and
supply wells within a 1 mile radius of the plant site. Design of the cleanup was completed in
early 1992. Cleanup activities are expected to begin in 1995 by the PRPs with the installation
of one monitoring well. Deed restrictions have been placed on the property.
North Farm Area: The EPA concluded a study of the nature and extent of
contamination of the area in 1988. The 1988 remedy included removal of soils
containing cadmium above the concentration of 13 mg/kg. The EPA has re-
evaluated risk data and determined that the site, in its present conditions, poses no current
risk to human health and the environment. Future risks can be prevented by using
institutional controls which would prohibit certain future land use, such as vegetable
gardening and prevent the installation of a water supply well. EPA amended the remedy
selection .to include deed restrictions and groundwater monitoring of the three existing
monitoring wells. Design of the cleanup was completed in mid-1991. Cleanup activities
began in 1995 with deed restrictions placed on the property. Ground water monitoring will
begin in 1995 and will last until 1997. '
August 1995
MIDWEST MANUFACTURING/NORTH FARM
-------
Environmental Progress
The EPA has determined that the site required no immediate actions to reduce the potential
for exposure to contaminants while final cleanup remedies are being planned. The EPA will
monitor the progress of the cleanup actions to determine whether they remain .protective of
human health and the environment.
Site Repository
Kellogg City Library, Kellogg City Hall, Kellogg, IA 50135
MIDWEST'MANUFACTURING/ NORTH FARM .
August 1995
-------
-------
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-terra remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status -. L_
Initial Actions: The State ordered the NWSPCC to stop discharges into Calmus
Creek, and the company complied by installing a system that intercepts the flow
and pumps the water back into the quarry. In 1987, the company began treating
the surface water before discharging it into the creek.
Entire Site: The NWSPCC has pumped most of the water from the quarry. The
NWSPCC also conducted an investigation, under State supervision, to determine
the extent of contamination at the site. The investigation was completed in 1990
Based on the results of the investigation, EPA selected a cleanup remedy. Along with
pumping the water from the quarry, the remedy includes construction of a permanent drain
system in the quarry to collect precipitation runoff and groundwater inflow; installation of a
cap over the quarry area filled with waste kiln dust to minimize infiltration through to kiln
dust; installation of bedrock dewatering wells to collect contaminated groundwater to prevent
migration of contaminated groundwater, and to maintain groundwater levels; installation of
kiln dust dewatering wells, if necessary; treatment of contaminated waters and final discharge
into Calmus Creek; and continued operation of a dewatering system. The design of these
technologies by the NWSPCC began in 1991 and was completed in late 1992. Construction
of site remedies was completed in 1993, and the site was proposed for delisting from the NPL
in the fall of 1994. Final delisting should be completed in the summer of 1995.
Site Facts: In 1985, the State issued an Administrative Order to the NWSPCC to stop
.discharges into Calmus Creek. In addition, the Order instructed the company to conduct a
study, under State supervision, to determine the effect of the quarry on the environment.
This study was completed in 1987. In 1989, the State issued an Administrative Order to the
NWSPCC to conduct an additional site study, which was completed in 1990.
Environmental Progress
Pumping the water from the quarry and treating surface water prior to release to Calmus
Creek has reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated water and sediments at the
Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. site while operation of the dewatering system
continues.
Site Repository
Mason City Public Library, 225 Second Street, Mason City, IA 50401
July 1995
,37 . NORTHWESTERN STATES
PORTLAND CEMENT CO.
-------
PEOPLES N
GAS CO.
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980852578
EPA REGION 7
Dubuque County
East Dubuque
Other Names:
Key City Coal Gasification Plant
Site Description
The Peoples Natural Gas Co. site is located in Dubuque arid covers approximately 5 acres.
From 1890 until 1954, the Key City Gas Company owned and operated this gas plant, where
a natural gas substitute was produced from coal. In 1954, the North.Central Public Service
Company took over operations until 1957, when Peoples Natural .Gas Company assumed
ownership of the site. Peoples used the site as a storage and maintenance area and did not
manufacture gas. It later sold a portion of the site to the City of Dubuque, which operates
the Dubuque Municipal Garage on the site. The Iowa Department of Transportation owns
the remainder of the site. Two waste products resulting from coal gasification are of primary
concern: coal tar sludges and spent iron oxide. Coal tar sludges were produced during the
coal or coke combustion and during the oil injection processes, and spent iron oxide wastes
were produced during the gas purification process. Spent iron oxide wastes, removed from the
three gas cleaning boxes (purifiers), were dumped behind two gas holding tanks on the site at
least twice a year. Spent iron oxide and other wastes were deposited in the northeastern
section of the site. Coal tars were removed from the gas in the wash box and condenser.
These wastes either were sold or disposed of in pits or holding tanks. Two coal tar waste
storage tanks were used at the Key City plant, one aboveground and one below. Both tanks
have been removed. Evidence of materials left in the underground tank, as well as migration
of waste out of the tank, is supported by a study done by the Iowa Department of
Transportation in 1983 while conducting a right-of-way survey for the proposed extension of
U.S. 61. An estimated 60,000 people obtain drinking water from municipal wells within 3
miles of the,site. Approximately 2,400 people live within a mile of the site, and 21,000 people
live within 3 miles. The Mississippi River is approximately 5.00 feet east of the site. Surface
water downstream is used for industrial and recreational.activities. A wildlife and fish refuge
is 2 miles downstream, and wetlands are within \ mile of the.site. ,
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
July 1995
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Phenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and inorganic chemicals from
the gasification process wastes were detected by the State in on-site wells. Soil
samples collected at the site in 1983 also contained phenols, PAHs, and inorganic
chemicals. Accidental ingestion of or direct contact with contaminated soil of
groundwatef may pose potential health threats to individuals. No private drinking
water wells have been identified in the area. The wetlands aind the wildlife and fish
refuge may be threatened by runoff from the site. .
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on soil and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Under EPA oversight, potentially responsible parties for
the site contamination removed the contaminated coal tar sludges and soils
containing contaminants above human-health standards from within the
construction corridor for U.S. Highway 61. Off site incineration of these soils has been
completed.
i
Soil and Groundwater: A study of the extent and type of groundwater and soil
contamination also was completed by the potentially responsible parties. A remedy
that requires excavation and incineration, of contaminated soils, and pumping and
treating contaminated groundwater, was selected in 1991. Restrictions on land and
. groundwater use also will be implemented. Design of the remedy was completed in early
1994. Excavation of contaminated soils for the remaining portion of the site was initiated in
the spring of 1995 and is scheduled to be completed in late 1996.
Site Facts: The EPA signed ah Administrative Order on Consent with Midwest Gas (of
Iowa Public Service, a successor corporation of Key City Gas Co.), the Iowa Department of
Transportation, and the City of Dubuque in. 1989. The Order required the parties to remove
or treat any. contaminated soil. It also required completion of an investigation to determine.
the need for treatment of residual soil and for groundwater treatment. The EPA signed a
Consent Decree with Midwest Gas, the Iowa Department of Transportation, the City of
Dubuque, and Enron on December 28, 1992, which requires the parties to conduct the design
of the remedy and cleanup activities.
July 1995
PEOPLES; NATURAL GAS COMPANY
-------
Environmental Progress
By removing contaminated coal tar sludges and soils, the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials at the People's Natural Gas Co. site has been reduced while final cleanup activities
are underway.
Site Repository
Carnegie Stout Public Library, Eleventh and Bluff, Dubuque, IA 52001
PEOPLES NATURAL GAS COMPANY
July 1995
-------
-------
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The investigative work to determine the extent and nature of the
contamination on site originally was begun by the EPA and then taken over by the
potentially responsible parties. This investigation was completed in July 1992, which
resulted in the EPA choosing capping of the landfill as the preferred remedy in 1993. Design
activities are scheduled, to begin in 1994.
Environmental Progress
After placing the Red Oak Landfill site on the NPL, the EPA determined, after a preliminary
assessment of site conditions, that no immediate actions were required while final site cleanup
activities are being planned.
Site Repository
Red Oak Public Library, Second and Washington, Red Oak, IA 51566
August 1995
RED OAK CITY LANDFILL
-------
SHAW AVENU^DUMI*
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980630560
fTT
PA REGION 7
Floyd County
Charles City
Site Description
The Shaw Avenue Dump site, an 8-acre city dump, is located in southeastern Charles City,
approximately 500 feet east of the Cedar River. The City owns the site and" operated it as a
municipal waste dump without a permit. Two areas in the northern half of the site were used
from 1949 to 1953 to dispose of 14,000 to 28,000 cubic feet of arsenic-contaminated solid
waste generated by Salsbury Laboratories in the production of animal Pharmaceuticals.
Sludge from the Charles City wastewater treatment plant, which received liquid wastes
discharged from Salsbury, was placed in the northern waste cells and in an undefined area on
the southern portion of the site. The northern-disposal area no' longer is in use and has been
covered with soil and vegetated. Between the southern and northern areas, trenches were
used for disposing of lime sludges from the drinking water treatment plant. The City and the
public used this area for open burning of wastes. The site is within a large residential area. A
high school is located approximately 1,000 feet north of the site. Students use a stadium
within 500 feet of the northern wasze disposal cells. One residence, 1,500 feet southeast of
the site, uses a private well for domestic purposes. The Charles City municipal water supply
system, within 2 miles uphill of the site, serves 8,800 people. The Cedar River flows through
Charles City and is used for recreational fishing, swimming, and canoeing.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, county, and potentially
responsible parties', actions. .
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/05/85
Final. Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
II
The groundwater and soils are contaminated with arsenic from the disposal site.
The Cedar River also is contaminated with arsenic. Direct contact with
contaminated soil, groun: water, and surface water may pose a health risk. The.site
is surrounded by a fence with no-trespassing signs and a locked gate.
July 1995
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of chemical
fill and contaminated soil, and cleanup of the groundwater.
Response Action Status
Chemical Fill and Contaminated Soil: The EPA began an investigation of
the site and its cleanup alternative in 1987. The parties potentially, responsible for
site contamination took over the investigation in 1988 and completed it in late
1991. In early 1992, the potentially responsible parties began cleanup activities.. The remedy
initially called for stabilization of chemical fill and contaminated soil, however, treatability
tests indicated that stabilization would not be effective. All contaminated materials have now
been removed off site to a federally-approved landfill as described in the contingency remedy.
Cleanup of the contaminated soil and chemical fill was completed in early 1994.
Groundwater: An investigation of the nature and extent of groundwater
contamination is expected to begin in 1997, and will result in the selection of final
cleanup remedies. .
.Site Facts: In March 1987, the EPA sent letters notifying Salsbury Laboratories and Charles
City of their potential responsibility and requested information about their use of the site. A
Consent Order was completed on May 26, 1988. Under this Order, the potentially
responsible parties were required to conduct an investigation to determine the type and
extent of contamination on the site.
Environmental Progress
The'removai of contaminated soils from the Shaw Avenue Dump site has reduced the risk of
exposure to hazardous materials pending the start of investigations that will lead to the
selection of a groundwater remedy.
Site Repository
Charles City Public Library, 106 Milwaukee, Charles City, IA 50616
July 1995
SHAW AVENUE DUMP
-------
SHELLER-GI
CORP. DISP
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980630750
EPA REGION 7
Lee County
4 miles northwest of Keokuk
Other Names:
Grimes Property
Site Description
Sheller-Globe Corp. operated an'industrial landfill and solvent burning area from 1947 to
1970. The 5-acre site was filled in and sold in 1980 to an individual who built a home on it
and drew water from a 300-foot-deep on-site well. The water from the well contains lead arid
zinc, possibly from the distribution lines. The homeowner permanently relocated in the fall of
1991. The site is no longer used for residential purposes. In the past, the Sheller-Globe
Corporation manufactured rubber products, including automobile weather stripping, at a
facility located in Keokuk. Liquids, sludges, and rubber stripping from the operation were
deposited on site with no system for diverting surface runoff. According to the company,
among these wastes were at least 1,000 drums of paint sludge, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), isopropyl alcohol, and resins containing fluorocarbons. Waste material, including
solvents was routinely burned in the open and buried. In 1987, the EPA found heavy metal
and VOC contamination in soil, groundwater, and surface water during testing. Previously, an
estimated 1,125 people obtained their drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the
heavily wooded rural site. Most people now obtain drinking water recently made available
from one of two rural water districts.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions. .
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 05/05/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
On site soils are contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic, chromium, lead,
nickel, and zinc and organics from the former disposal activities. Accidental
ingestion of contaminated soil may cause a potential health threat.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on addressing the entire
site. -
August 1995
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1990, an investigation of the site and the possible cleanup
alternatives was started by the potentially responsible parties. Investigations to
date have included sampling of surface and subsurface soils;, surface water, glacial
till groundwater, and bedrock groundwater. Field work was completed in 1993. A Proposed
Plan for the site was released on August 1, 1995. EPA's preferred alternative for addressing
site-related risks includes, demolition of the on-site residence, placement of clean soil over
exposed ash material, and a deed restriction limiting future use of the:site to non-residential.
Site Facts: An Administrative order on Consent, requiring the potentially responsible parties
to conduct site studies, was signed October 18, 1990. ' '
Environmental Progress
Following listing of the Sheller-Globe Corp. Disposal site on the NPL, the EPA determined,
after an initial evaluation of the site conditions, that the site did not require any immediate'
actions while studies leading to the selection of a final cleanup remedy are taking place.
Site Repository
Contact the Region 7 Superfund Community Relations Office.
August 1995
SHELLER-GLOBE CORP. DISPOSAL
-------
VOGEL PAINT &
WAX COMPANY
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980630487
EPA REGION 7
Sioux County
Orange City
ither Names:
let Disposal Site
Site Description
From 1971 to 1979 the Vogel Paint and Wax Company disposed of paint, sludge, resins,
solvents and other solid wastes at a 2-acre disposal site in rural Sioux County, Iowa. The
disposal site is part of an 80-acre parcel located about 2 miles southwest of the City of
Maurice (pop. 288), 3 miles north of the City of Struble (pop. 59) and 2 miles northwest of a
rural water system well field. The rural water system serves about 3,000 people. Two shallow
private wells lie several hundred feet west of the disposal site. The company has conducted
numerous investigations beginning in 1979 in conjunction with the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources (HDNR) to determine the extent of contamination. A shallow
groundwater contamination plume was found to extend about 1,000 feet south and east.of
the disposal area which is within the 80-acre parcel owned by the company.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The primary groundwater. contaminants are the volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) benzene, ethylbenzene, methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, and xylenes. In
addition to the VOCs, soils in the disposal area contain elevated levels of heavy
metals, particularly chromium and lead. No current or past significant exposure to
site contaminants has been identified. -Potential for-future exposure to
contaminated groundwater is the principal threat associated with the site.
Cleanup Approach
Initial action was taken to mitigate contamination at the site. Long-term cleanup action is
currently being conducted consisting of source control and cleanup of groundwater.
July 1995
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Action: A 2-foot thick clay cap was placed over the disposal area shortly
after the site was identified as a problem. In addition, floating VOCs were
removed from the groundwater table on a regular basis.
Source Control: After evaluating cleanup methods, the IDNR and EPA selected
a remedy for source control. Source control operations were initiated in 1991.
The source control remedy involves excavating the previously disposed wastes and
surrounding contaminated soils. Solid and liquid waste are sorted from the excavated soils for
off-site incineration, recycling, or disposal. Contaminated soils are being treated on-site by
bioremediation and volatilization. An estimated 30,000 to. 5.0,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soils will be treated. After treatment the soils will be placed back into the excavated area
and covered. Soil cleanup standards have been established including a leaching standard for
metals. If excessive levels of metals are encountered, soils will be stabilized prior to final
placement.
Groundwater: To address groundwater contamination, the IDNR and EPA
chose pumping and air stripping contaminated groundwater, with discharge to the
nearby stream. VOCs from the groundwater treatment process are released to
the atmosphere. Modeling of contaminants in air from the soil treatment was
performed prior to implementing long-term cleanup actions. This modeling indicated that air
contamination would not pose a significant problem which has since been verified by air
monitoring. Health-based standards have been established for treated groundwater prior to
discharge. The groundwater pump and treat action was initiated in 1992. Facilities have
been added for the removal floating VOCs (primarily xylenes). The area of groundwater
contamination has decreased since implementation of groundwater clea.nup actions. Recently
treated groundwater has been infiltrated back into the ground to enhance removal of floating
VOCs.
Site Facts: The company is conducting cleanup actions in accordance with a 1990 Consent
.Order with the IDNR. The site is listed on the state Registry of Hazardous Waste or
Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites.. Substantial changes or transfer of property on this
registry is prohibited without written approval.of the Director of the IDNR.
Environmental Progress
Initial response actions at the site prevented any immediate threat. The current source
control actions are expected to be completed in two to four years. The groundwater
response actions will continue as long as necessary to prevent any threat from groundwater
contamination. '
July 1995
VQGEL PAINT & WAX COMPANY
-------
Site Repository
Orange City Public Library
112 Albany Avenue, S.E.
Orange City, IA 51041
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Records Center, 5th Floor
Wallace State Office Building
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IA 50319
VOGEL PAINT & WAX COMPANY
July 1995
-------
-------
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and
cyanide have been detected in on-site surface and subsurface soils. PAHs, VOCs,
and cyanide have also been detected in shallow groundwater samples collected from
on-site monitoring wells. Accidental ingestion of or direct contact with
contaminated soil or groundwater may pose potential health threats to individuals.
The potential also exists for adverse impacts on wetlands and associated wildlife due
to contaminant migration from the site to the Cedar River.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Midwest Gas agreed to develop the necessary work plans and
conduct a removal action to identify, excavate, process, and incinerate or dispose
of all coal tar, visibly contaminated coal tar-impacted soils and sources material
EPA will review the documents prepared by Midwest Gas and provide oversight during
certain stages of on-site activities. A comprehensive public and private well survey also will
be conducted by Midwest Gas. Site preparation, test trenching, excavation and soil
processing activities were initiated in the summer of 1994. Cleaned structural debris will be
disposed of at the Blackhawk County Sanitary Landfill. The processed soil will be
transported to the George Neal Electrical Generating Station in Sioux City, Iowa for
incineration. The majority of the source material is expected to be excavated, processed and
transported off-site during the fall of 1994 and the spring of 1995.
Entire Site: Additional work is anticipated at the site after the source materials
have been removed. The EPA and Midwest Gas signed an Administrative Order
on Consent on May 30, 1995. The AOC requires Midwest Gas to conduct a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study to determine the nature and extent of contamination
in groundwater ;and soil. '/
Ax ThlS SitC is'bein§ addressed under the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM) approach. EPA and Midwest Gas signed an Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC) on December 29, 1993 to perform removal actions at the site
Environmental Progress
Initial actions being under taken at the Waterloo Coal Gasification Plant site are protecting
the health of the nearby population and the integrity of the environment while a full-scale
study into site conditions is being planned.
July .1995
WATERLOO COAL
GASFICATION PLANT
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and
cyanide have been detected in on-site surface and subsurface soils. PAHs, VOCs,
and cyanide have also been detected in shallow groundwater samples collected from
on-site monitoring wells. Accidental ingestion of or direct contact with
contaminated soil or groundwater may pose potential health threats to individuals.
The potential also exists for adverse impacts on wetlands and associated wildlife due
to contaminant migration from the site to the Cedar River.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Midwest Gas agreed to develop the necessary work plans and
conduct a removal action to identify, excavate, process, and incinerate or dispose
of all coal tar, visibly contaminated coal tar-impacted soils and source material.
EPA will review the documents prepared by Midwest Gas and provide oversight during
certain stages of on-site activities. A comprehensive public and private well survey also will
be conducted by Midwest Gas. Site preparation, test trenching, excavation and soil
processing activities were initiated in the summer of 1994. Cleaned structural debris will be .
disposed of at the Blackhawk County Sanitary Landfill. The processed soil will be
transported to the George Neal Electrical Generating Station in Sioux City, Iowa for
incineration. The majority of the source material is expected to be excavated, processed, and
transported off-site during the fall of 1994 and the spring of 1995.
Entire Site: Additional Work is anticipated at the site after the source materials
have been removed. The EPA and Midwest Gas signed an Administrative Order
on Consent on May 30, 1995. The AOC requires Midwest Gas to conduct a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study to determine the nature and extent of contamination
in groundwater 'and soil. . ' . . . . . . ' . .
Site Facts: This site is being addressed under the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM) approach. EPA and Midwest Gas signed an Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC) on December 29, 1993 to perform removal actions at the site.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions being under taken at the Waterloo Coal Gasification Plant site are protecting
the health of the nearby population and the integrity of the environment while a full-scale
study into site conditions is being planned.
July 1995 c\ WATERLOO COAL
1 GASIFICATION PLANT
-------
-------
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: One of the parties potentially responsible for the contamination
investigated the nature and extent of contamination. The investigation included
characterization of waste in the landfill, determination of contamination spread by
rainwater runoff, detection of contamination spread by air, detection -of contamination spread
by dissolved metal, and determination of groundwater movement and evaluation of possible
connections between the shallow aquifer and the drinking water aquifer. The EPA chose a
compacted soil and vegetative layer cap as the cleanup measure in 1990. The potentially
responsible parties began cleanup actions in mid-1994 and completion is scheduled for June
1995.
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA and two parties potentially responsible for the contamination
signed an Administrative Order on Consent. In that Order, one of the parties agreed to take
responsibility for the site investigation to determine the nature and the extent of the
contamination. In 1991, a Consent Decree was signed by the party to design and perform
site cleanup. The Consent Decree required sampling of groundwater. The initial round of
sampling indicated no contamination in the groundwater. A second round of sampling
confirmed the original results.
Environmental Progress
After adding the site to the NPL, the EPA determined that no immediate actions were
required. Remedial action was completed in June 1995.
Site Repository
Charles City Public Library, 106 Milwaukee, Charles City, IA 50616
August 1995, ^ WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT CO. DUMP
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
.>rt*-iM.-t.. .
Fact Sheets
-------
-------
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 Superfund program in
the context of hazardous waste management.
These terms may have other meanings when
used in a different context.
Terms Used
in the NPL
SOi
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 arid 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 CERCLA.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of
air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air
stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Ambient Air: Any unconfined part of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity
of contaminated air sources.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock,
sand, or gravel capable of storing water
within cracks and pore spaces, or between
grains. When water contained within an
aquifer is of sufficient quantity and quality, it
can be tapped and used for drinking or other
purposes. The water contained in the aquifer
is called groundwater. A sole source aquifer
supplies 50% or more of the drinking water of
an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling
into the earth until water is reached, which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a foun-
tain.
-------
GLOSSARY.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring pro-
cess by which a compound is reduced in
concentration overtime through adsorption,
degradation, dilution, and/or transformation.
Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.
Baghouse Dust: Dust accumulated in remov-
ing particulates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive
in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed
with acids, they neutralize each other, form-
ing salts.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth
used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some
contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living
tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people, as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contami-
nated water, or eat contaminated food.
Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria or
other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
and water.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-
nents,
Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on moisture from the air for their water
source, are usually acidic, and are rich in plant
residue [see Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.
Borehole: A hole that is drilled into i
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
1 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 Disulficie: 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-
. ityAct.]. ; . - .
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. i
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 i. "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 JRespqnse»_
Compensation, and Liability Act ~*^
(CERCLA): Congress enacted the T.".:'*.-»»
CERCLA, known as Superfund, JTL1980 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 thai 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 parries can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].
Cover: Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserv-
ing operations and produced by distillation of
tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
[see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating
sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes
may cause skin ulcerations and cancer
through prolonged exposure.
Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an
embankment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a
chemical is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents. .
Deminimis: This legal phrase 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 minimis contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort.
Dewater: To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
" Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land fanning, .deep well
injection, or incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgra-
dient of a contaminated groundwater source
are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas of commercial or industrial
facilities.-
Emuisifiers: 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. Thesis
areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt
marshes, and lagoons. These water ecosys-
tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and
wildlife.
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out.
Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway; together,
they are commonly referred to as the RJ/FS .
[see Remedial Investigation]. -r Vs?:.*:
Filtration: A treatment process for removing
solid (paniculate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated^?
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process-is
often used to remove particles that contain
contaminants.
Flood Plain: An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods. Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner ,
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that
results from the combustion of flue gases. It
can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides,
water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which
is used to drain and disperse wastewatcr.
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party,
consisting of a written proposal demonstrating
a potentially responsible party's qualifications
-------
GLOSSARY.
and willingness to perform a site study or
cleanup.
Groundwater: Underground water that fills
pores in soils or openings in rocks to the point
of saturation. In aquifers, groundwater occurs
in sufficient quantities for use as drinking and
irrigation water and other purposes.
Groundwater Quality Assessment: The
process of analyzing the chemical characteris-
tics of groundwater to determine whether any
hazardous materials exist.
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as
chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very
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 regulationis
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 impermeablejjarrier,.:
designed to prevent leachate (wastsresidue)-
from leaking from a landfUL Tjngr materials
include plastic and dense clay. _-- ^^:
..:^"..,i}^T~
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct; often
incremental, steps that are taken to solve site
pollution problems: Depending on die com-
plexity, site cleanup activities can be sepa-
rated into several of these phases.
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
contain peat inoss deposits and is dominated
by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetland].
Migration: The movement of oil, gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable soils or rock.
Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].
Mine Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left
from mining operations. Tailings often
contain high concentrations of lead, uranium,
and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Mitigation: Actions taken to improve site
conditions by limiting, reducing, or control-
ling toxicity and contamination sources.
Modeling: A technique using a mathematical
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
system components have on the overall
performance of the system.
Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at
specific locations within, or surrounding, a
hazardous waste site where 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-
dpned 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 stair 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 froni another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often clay
or rock.
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering
of water or other liquids through subsurface
rock or. soil layers, usually continuing down-
ward to groundwater. .
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery opera-
tions and as fuel oil residues. These include
fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are the bases
from which volatile organic Compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are.
made. These chemical substances often are
toxic to humans and the environment.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used
in plastics manufacturing and are by-products
of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye,
and resin manufacturing. Phenols are highly
poisonous.
-------
GLOSSARY
Physical Chemical Separation: The treat-
ment process of adding a chemical to a sub-
stance to separate the compounds for further
treatment or disposal.
Pilot Testing: A small-scale test of a pro-
posed treatment system in the field to deter-
mine its ability to clean up specific contami-
nants.
Plugging: The process of stopping the flow
of water, oil, or gas into or out of the ground
through a borehole or well penetrating the.
ground.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater
flowing from a specific source. The move-
ment of the groundwater is influenced by such
factors as local groundwater flow patterns, the
character of the aquifer in which groundwater
is contained, and the density of contaminants
[see Migration].
Pollution: Generally, the presence of matter
or energy whose nature, location, or quantity
produces undesired health or environmental
effects.
Polycyciic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs):
PAHs,;such as pyrene, are a group of highly
reactive organic compounds found in motor
oil. They are a common component of creo-
sotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A
group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications,
carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope immersion oils, and caulk-
ing compounds. PCBs also are produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment
because they are very stable, non-reactive,
and highly heat resistant 'Chronic exposure
to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
also is known to bioaccumuiate in fatty
tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and.
biphenyls, arc a group of tightyti&cavv$$&
organic compounds that are a common com-
ponent of creosotes, which can be carcino-
genic. " v'
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used i:o make pipes, records, raincoats,
and floor tilesi. Health risks from high con-
centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
the lymphatic and nervous systems.
Potable Water: Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Su-
perfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs
until they admit liability or a court makes a
determination of liability. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in site cleanup activity
without admitting liability.
Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid
portions can be disposed of safely; the re-
moval of particles from airborne emissions.
Electrochemical precipitation is the use of an
anode or cathode to remove the hazardous
chemicals. Chemical precipitation involves
the addition of some substance to cause the
solid portion to separate.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of
collecting and reviewing available informa-
tion about a known or suspected waste site or
release to determine if a threat or potential
threat exists.
-------
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. .
Radio'nuclides: 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 an:, ?oaks 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-
c ing cleanup actions at a site.
Remedy Selection: The selection of the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contaminatio'n, 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 extehtbf-
environmental contamination, which is ^
necessary for choosing and designing cleanup
measures and monitoring.th'eir effectiveness.
°^ --/-iC»v.'« f-ynit.,.,
.
Site Inspection: The collection or 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
it if
-------
GLOSSARY.
or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction: A treatment process
that uses vacuum wells to remove hazardous
gases from soil.
Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to
remove undesirable materials. There are two
approaches: dissolving or suspending them in
the wash solution for later treatment by
conventional methods, and concentrating
them into a smaller volume of soil through
simple particle size separation techniques [see
Solvent Extraction].
Stabilization: The process of changing an
active substance into inert, harmless material,
or physical activities at a site that act to limit
the further spread of contamination without
actual reduction of toxicity.
Solidification/Stabilization: A chemical or
physical reduction of the mobility of hazard-
ous constituents. Mobility is reduced through
the binding of hazardous constituents into a
solid mass with low .permeability and resis-
tance to leaching. -
Solvent: A substance capable of dissolving .
another substance to form a solution. The
primary uses of industrial solvents are as
cleaners for degreasing, in paints, and in
Pharmaceuticals. Many solvents are flam-
mable and toxic to varying degrees.
Solvent Extraction: A means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges;
and sediment, thereby reducing the volume of
the hazardous waste that must be treated. It
generally is used as one in a series of unit
operations. An organic chemical is used to
dissolve contaminants as opposed to water-
based compounds, which usually are used in
soil washing.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or at-
tracting substances. It is used in many pollu-
tion control systems.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air
Stripping]. '
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.
Superfund: The program operated under the
legislative authority of the CERCLA and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) to update and improve environ-
mental laws. The program has the authority
..to respond directly to releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare, or the envi-
ronment. The "Superfund" is a trust fund that
finances cleanup actions at hazardous waste
sites. .
Surge Tanks: A holding structure used to
absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, includ-
ing liquid-waste materials-
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated
by woody vegetation and does not accumulate
peat moss deposits. Swamps may be fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wet-
lands]. .
Thermal Treatment: The use of heat to
remove or destroy contaminants from soil.
Treatability Studies: Testing a treatment
method on contaminated groundwater, soil,
etc., to determine whether and how well the
method will work.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, color-
less liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as
1*7
-------
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]. i
Upgradienfc 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 faculty that uses
a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from
water. - '
Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.
Water Table: The upper surface of the
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other
liquids.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal.
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to
sustaining many species offish and wildlife.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
and bogs. Wetlands may be either coastal or
inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish
(a mixture of salt and fresh) water, and most -
have tides, while inland wetlands are non-
tidal and freshwater. Coastal wetlands are an
integral component of estuaries.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
-------
------- |