United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA 540-R-94-007
OSWER 9202.1-21
PB94-963227
April 1996
Superfund
xvEPA
Superfund Post Remediation
Accomplishments: Uses of
the Land and Environmental
Achievements
Volume 1
-------
9202.1-21
PB94-963227
EPA/540/R94/007
April 1996
Superfund Post Remediation Accomplishments:
Uses of the Land and Environmental Achievements
Volume 1
Final
Outreach and Special Projects Staff
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
The policies and procedures set forth here are intended as
information to the Agency and other government employees. They
do not constitute rulemaking by the Agency, and may not be relied
on to-create a substantive or procedural right enforceable by any
other people. The Government may take action that is at variance
with policies and procedures in this manual.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
LI Background to the Study ; . 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Study 2
1.3 Organization of the Report .. , 4
1.4 The Universes Addressed by This Study 4
1.4.1 NPL Construction Completions Universe . . . 4
1.4.2 Comparison of the CCL Universe to the Superfund Universe as a Whole 5
1.4.3 The Removal Program Universe 14
2.0 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS 15*
2.1 Introduction 15
2.2 Summary of Environmental Benefits at Construction Complete Sites 16
2.3 Benefits 18
2.3.1 Benefits of Cleaning up Surface Contamination 18
2.3.2 Benefits of Avoiding Contamination of Essential Aquifers 18
2.3.3 Benefits of Protecting Waterways 21
2.3.4 Benefits of Protecting Ecologically Sensitive Areas 22
2.3.5 Benefits of Fire and Explosion Prevention 24
2.3.6 Benefits of Reducing Air Contaminants 24
2.3.7 Benefits of Innovative Treatment Technologies 24
2.3.8 Benefits of Restoring a Sense of Security 25
2.3.9 Beneficial Use and Environmental Justice 26
2.4 Environmental Benefits Through Removal Actions 27
2.5 Superfund Successes Addressed in Volume 2 27
3.0 BENEFICIAL USE FOR NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION LIST
(CCL) SITES 29
3.1 Introduction 29
3.2 Summary 29
3.3 Beneficial Uses of Completed Sites 30
3.4 Analysis of Sites in Beneficial Use and Vacant Sites . . . '. 43
3.4.1 Location Categories Used to Analyze Beneficial Use 43
3.4.2 Geographic Regional Distribution 48
3.4.3 Ownership of Construction Completion Sites 48
3.4.4 The Property Value of CCL Sites .49
3.4.5 Understanding Sites Not in Economic Beneficial Use 55
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure ES-1. Completion Sites in Beneficial Use xi
Figure ES-2. Ratio of 191 CCL Sites in Economic and Noneconomic Uses, and Vacant by
Location Category (191) xii
Figure 1. Federal vs. Non-Federal Sites 8
Figure 2. Breakdown of Sites by Region 8
Figure 3. Regional Location of 191 Sites on CCL in Relation to NPL Universe 9
Figure 4. Land Use During Time of Contamination • • • • . 9
Figure 5. RCRA Status ; 10
Figure 6. Size of Sites 10
Figure 7. Sites with Ground-water Contamination 10
Figure 8. Number of Operable Units per Site 11
Figure 9. Breakdown of Sites by Lead Agency IK
Figure 10. Number of Removal Actions per Site at Sites That Have Had Removals 11
Figure 11. Breakdown of Sites by Proposed Listing on National Priorities List 12
Figure 12. Remediation Cost (Calculated by Operable Unit) 12
Figure 13. Distribution of Minority (Non-White Population) Within a 1-mile Radius 12
Figure 14. Risk Reduction at Completed Sites 16
Figure 15. Protected Aquifers Discharge to Other Environments 21
Figure 16. Completion Sites in Beneficial Use 31
Figure 17. Types of Beneficial Use by Use Category (124 Sites) 31
Figure 18. Number of Sites by Location Category (191 Sites) 44
Figure 19. Ratio of 191 CCL Sites in Economic and Noneconomic Uses, and Vacant by
Location Category (191) 47
Figure 20. Percent of CCL Sites in each EPA Region in Economic Use 49
Figure 21. Acreage at CCL Sites (9,793 Total) 50
Figure 22. Location Category Property Values 51
Figure 23. Land Use Property Values 52
Figure 24. Property Values as a Function of Land Use and Site Location 53
Figure 25. Property Values as a Function of Land Use and Site Location (minus
California) 54
Figure 26. Sites Not Currently in Beneficial Use (67) 57
Figure 27. Completed Sites With Management Ongoing 59
Figure 28. Role of Ongoing Waste Management in Economic Use or Reuse 59
Figure 29. Timing Analysis of CCL Sites - Vacant vs. Economic Uses 61
Figure 30. Protection of Other Media by Removal Actions at 34 Sites 82
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Comparison of CCL Universe to the NPL Universe ". 6
Table 2. Beneficial Uses at NPL Construction Completion Sites:
Current Use Industrial (39 Sites) 33
Table 3. Beneficial Uses at NPL Construction Completion Sites:
Current Use Light Industrial, Commercial, Service and
Government Institutions (25 Sites) . 35
Table 4. Beneficial Uses at NPL Construction Completion Sites:
Current Use Residential (4 Sites) . 37
Table 5. Beneficial Uses at NPL Construction Completion Sites:
Current Use Recreational (8 Sites) 38
Table 6. Beneficial Uses at NPL Construction Completion Sites:
Current Other Economic Use (4 Sites) 39
Table 7. Beneficial Uses at NPL Construction Completion Sites:
Current Use Environmental (15 Sites) . . . 40
Table 8. Beneficial Uses at NPL Construction Completion Sites:
Current Use Waste Management (29 Sites) 41
Table 9. NPL Construction Completion Sites in Beneficial Use by Category/Site Type 45
Table 10. Distribution of Uses Among Six Location Areas . . .' 47
Table 11. Regional Comparison of Key Factors in Property Value 56
Table 12. List of 191 NPL Construction Completions Included in Study 67
Table 13. List of 37 NPL Construction Completion Sites Not Included
in Beneficial Use Study 76
' Table 14. Description of Categories and Data Sources Used to Compare
the NPL Universe to the Completions Universe 90
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDICES
Page
Appendix A. NPL Construction Completion Sites 63
A.I Introduction 65
A.2 Definition of Location/Area Categories 65
Appendix B. Removal Program Accomplishments
79
B.I Introduction . . . 81
B.2 Environmental Benefits Through Removal Actions 81
Appendix C. CCL/NPL Comparison Methodology 87
C.I Introduction 89
C.2 Methodology . . 89'
VI
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMAtARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Superfund is a mtinprf jimgtam rtiat was erected to reduce risks to human health and the environment by
cleaning up sites that have been contaminated by past disposal practices. Since 1980, thousands of Superfund
actions have been taken to protect people and die environment from the dangers posed by hazardous substances at
atf^i gjtes. Snparfiinri actions benefit many people through activities or responses ***af reduce or eliminate
potential exposure to ^atarAma mpt^paia that result in improved amenities, and rt*** alleviate uncertainty about the
contamination and die associated offitite exposure risks.
The National Priorities List (NPL) identifies the most serious sites in the Nation targeted for cleanup by
Superfund authorities. A facility is included on the Construction Completion List (CCL) after the construction of •
all cleanup activities implementing the remedy are completed. Sites that will require years to achieve cleanup goals
(e.g., the cleanup of contaminated ground water to protective standards) are placed on a part of the CCL called the
Long Term Response Action list (LTRA). Those CCL sites where cleanup goals have been completely achieved
are deleted from the NPL. The CCL is a dynamic and growing list. EPA has set a goal of achieving 650
construction completions by the year 2000. As of September 1995, the list totaled 346.'
In any given year, the completed cleanup of NPL sites represents a relatively small proportion of the
cleanup and risk reduction activities undertaken by the Superfund program. Interim cleanup activities are undertaken
at NPL sites long before the final construction is complete. In addition, as of the third quarter of 1995, cleanup
activities have been undertakm at over 2,500 non-NPL sites through the Superfund emergency response program
(called the Removal Program). Because removal actions-both at NPL sites and at non-NPL sites— often produce
substantial cleanup achievements, case examples of the environmental benefits associated with the removal program
are provided in Appendix B to mis report
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The primary purpose of this study was to examine some of the benefits achieved by completing construction
to clean up the sites on the NPL and examine the uses of sites after cleanup and the factors that affect these uses.
In addition, this study lays a foundation for future studies that may evaluate other economic benefits not addressed
1AU data in this report were collected before the fall of 1995. Budget debates, furloughs, and budget
reductions can be expected to result in a slowing of program acceleration and will likely influence EPA's ability
to achieve Year 2000 goals.
vu
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
here, such as changes in property values. The study looks at a relatively narrow set of accomplishments, and is
not a comprehensive analysis of all the benefits of the Superfund program. Clearly, many other measures of the
program success could potentially be analyzed (such as a more quantitative assessment of the levels of risk reduction
achieved or economic ripple effects on surrounding communities). For this study, the analysis was directed at the
228 sites on the CCL as of March 1994; however, 37 sites were not included in the analyses because they had
negligible land areas (i.e., were wellhead treatment sites with no affected land surface), were sites for which
information on beneficial use was not obtainable (e.g., outside the continental United States), or after investigation,
were found to require no action by the Superfund program. Benefits **»mme*t included benefits to human health
and the environment °"*h as protecting drinking water aquifers and the economic and noneconomic h*g*ffMai use
of propel ties. .
FINDINGS
The sites for which construction of cleanup activities have been completed represent significant actions to
protect human health and the environment At the 191 sites that are the subject of mis study, actions have been
taken to ensure that the land media are safe at 172 of these sites.1 Cleanup goals have been achieved in all cases.
At 18 sites, ground-water cleanup goals have been achieved, while at 23 sites, surface water quality goals have been
achieved. Ground-water or land (surface) cleanup activity continues at 75 sites. Most of these continuing activities
are ground-water remediation.1
The majority of the CCL sites that are the subject of this study (124 out of 191 sites) are in beneficial use.
This "beneficial use" can be either a traditional "economic use" (e.g., industrial use of the property) or a
noneconomic use (e.g., as a closed, but permanent waste repository or floodplain management area). Most sites
that are in an economic use have been in continuous use throughout the site cleanup process. Many of these uses
have changed or improved as a result of cleanup. Currently, 31 of the 124 sites are in beneficial uses that are
different than their original uses. At eight of these sites, old dumps or landfill areas are used for recreation. Other
new uses include: a plant nursery, a nut food restaurant, a commercial nonhazardous waste landfill, or a new
commercial area. Thirty-five percent of the cleaned sites mat are the subject of this study are vacant lands. Most
of the vacant sites are in rural or remote areas where there is little pressure for active land use. In addition, the
economic use of property appears to be affected by leaving waste onsite for long-term management. The study
shows a more active economic use (e.g., industrial or commercial) when the land surface is cleaned and no waste
2The term "land media" refers to contamination on the surface of the land that offers potential exposure to
humans and animals through direct contact with soil, sludge, debris, or waste.
3Numbers are all subsets of the 191 sites that are the focus of this report Numbers add to more than 191
because individual sites address more than one media.
vui
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
remains to be managed, than when treated waste or landfills are managed permanently on site. Although there is
no clear evidence with regard to the impact of NFL status on use, initial evidence suggests that any impact from
previous contamination on the economic use of property stems from the presence of managed waste on site. There
is little current evidence of a Superfund NPL stigma that by itself carries forward after cleanup.
/•
The total value of the property in the CCL universe is just over $203 million. This valuation reflects
property inw9ip«'ifa' « of site
The CCL universe is not reflective of the NPL universe in the size of the site or the percent of sites
with ground-water contamination involved. In bom of these cases, the CCL sites are smaller than the
u
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NPL sites (on avenge), and are somewhat less likely to have ground-water contamination. However,
the CCL universe is also less reflective of the more highly valued suburban properties than die NPL
universe as a whole - thus suggesting that the property values reflected by the CCL universe may
under represent the NPL universe.
I Anitfd data available on the cost of cleanup suggest that CCL sites may reflect a similar distribution of cost ranges
to the NPL universe as a whole, but may under represent the higher end of the range. However, PRP cost data
are not available, and the above comparison is based on fund fmmr»A cleanups alone.
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS AT SUPERFUND CCL SITES
The risk reduction activities reflected by CCL sites have been substantial.
• The land surface has been cleaned up or made safe at 172 of the 191 sites in the study. At 86 sites,
the land has been cleaned for a designated use (e.g., for residential or industrial use) with no waste
remaining onsite to be managed. At (he 86 sites where waste continues to be managed on the site,
management of this waste assures that the site is protective of human health and the environment The
cleanup of the land surface has often removed a continuing source of ground-water or surface water
contamination.
• Construction of ground-water remedies have been completed at 73 sites, and ground-water cleanup
is ongoing through the operation of pumping and treating systems. Use restrictions will ensure that
contaminated ground water is not used until drinking water or other appropriate standards are met
• The cleanup of sites often protected drinking water supplies. At 25 percent of the sites in the study,
- protection of drinking water wells where people currently rely on an underground aquifer as a source
of drinking water is a major goal.
BENEFICIAL USES OF CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION (CCL) SITES
Of the 191 CCL sites included in this study, 65 percent (124 sites) have a beneficial use. For the purposes
of this study, "beneficial use" is defined as an active or passive use of die property that provides a direct benefit
to society. These benefits may relate to a tangible economic value such as the values derived from an industrial
use of property, or they may relate to a societal good for which establishing a clear economic (or dollar) value is
more difficult (e.g., environmental protection).
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Of these sites, 80 (64 percent) have economically beneficial uses or plans for their economic use ate well
underway. The vast majority of these sites (80 percent) a-* in industrial, service, or commercial use. Only four
sites (3 percent) are residential. The r""»minj 44 sites (36 percent) have noneconomical beneficial uses: 29 are
permanent waste management anas, and 15 are used for environmental protection (e.g., fioodplain and/or wetlands
protection.)4 Figure ES-1 shows the number of sites in different types of beneficial use- for the 124 sites in
beneficial use as well as vacant sites and sites that wen not included in mis study.
'NcgNgibi* or unusable land area: no acton site*
Jus*
management)
Figure ES-1. Completion Sites in Beneficial Use
Permanent waste management areas an old l«ndfiH« that have been closed and capped for long-term
management as a waste repository—their original rtfarignatrri use.
XI
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Many factors influence the use of a CCL site. The two most important factors identified in this study are
the location (i.e., proximity of die site to a major population center) and die continuing presence of waste onsite
that will require management into the future. Of the 100 rites in urban, suburban, or medium-sized town locations,
almost 76 percent currently have beneficial use. Suburban locations have the highest percentage of rites that are
beneficially used. Conversely, rural, remote, and small town locations have the highest percentage of vacant sites.
Two minis of the vacant sites are in these locations, which make op less man half of the completion universe.
Figure ES-2 shows the total number of sites in each location category and the number of sites m these locations that
are in beneficial use. The data from mis study also suggest mat when waste is managed onsite, there is direct
|Mnjicrty . A higher proportion of landfill sites and other types of sites
where waste is managed on the surface of the land an considerably less likely to be used or reused for a tangible
economic use (e.g., industrial or «*""i«*«>"' use).
45
40.
35.
30.
| 25.
W
•526.]
i.
J§15.|
|lO.
5.
0
Noneconomlc
D
E-2
.1!
I e"
CO
Figure ES-2 Ratio of 191 CCL Sites in Economic and Noneconomic Uses,
and Vacant by Location Category (191)
xu
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE SUPERFUND REMOVAL PROGRAM
Although not 'the major focus of this study, accomplishments of the Superfund Emergency Response
Program (Removal Program) are highlighted because removal actions at both NPL and non-NPL sites often produce
substantial cleanup achievements. Selected case examples of the environmental benefits associated with the removal
program are provided in Volume 2 to mis report to help illustrate the contributions of the piogiam.
All removal case studies for which environmental benefits were assessed (76 in all) were selected because
of substantial risk reductions achieved and availability of information. At all of these sites, actions were directed
at TTff*r*ng the IT*^ surface safer. At 18 of these rites, cleanup is completed, *i"^ the achievement «imilar to *h»t
of NPL rites on the CCL. Although all removal actions focused on making the land surface safe, the cleanup of
the land media often protected other media-ground water, surface water, air, and ecological values. In addition,
at 26 percent of the rites in the removal universe addressed by case studies, «*«*»&•** risks through exposure to
fire and explosion were ftlhninated. It should also be noted that the removal program actions were significant in
the cleanup of much of the CCL universe. Over 90 percent of the CCL rites that are part of this study had between
1 and 3 removal actions. This percentage is consistent with the pace of removal actions in the NPL universe as a
whole.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
Volume 1 of this report gummarira; some of the environmental benefits achieved by cleaning CCL rites
and describes the beneficial uses of the rites. Information is provided in three chapters. Chapter 1 provides the
background of the study and describes the manner in which the completion rites subject to this study compare to
the NPL universe. Chapter 2 addresses environmental benefits of Superfund cleanup. Chapter 3 describes the
current beneficial use status of rites and factors that affect this use. Brief case examples illustrate each type of
benefit. Appendix B to Volume 1 provides a separate description, along with case study examples for the
achievements of the removal program. An intentional effort has been made to keep the analysis of the CCL and
Removal Program rites separate. Volume 2 of this report contains 300 Fact Sheets that describe the current status
and associated environmental risk reduction accomplishments of each CCL rite and some selected removal. rites.
(This volume contains fact sheets on 224 CCL rites and 76 non-CCL rites where removal actions were significant.)
xui
-------
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
Superfund is a national program, created to reduce risks to human health and the environment by cleaning
Up ajtfs tftat Yiavf. Inmtn tyffff ^njpaf^i fry pint djspflffffl JW^i'V? Sinea ita ereatiivn in jQflO, tfinmyaTfdiB of aerify have
been taken to protect people and the environment from the dangers posed by mete substances. Many of these
responses have addressed acute threats and have achieved long-term cleanup goals. Some sites have required
emergency responses, such as cleanup of hazardous substance spills and the actions to prevent fire and explosion;
other sites have required long-term actions to iwr*"^ to contamination that may have been ffrwnmtaring for
decades
To take a simplistic look at Superfund sites, they are often characterized by whether they are or are not
on the National Priorities List (NFL). The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify those sites that are of highest
priority. Using a scoring system called the Hazard Ranking System, EPA assesses the relative threat associated with
actual or potential releases of hazardous substances at sites and ranks those &tes that are referred to it by citizens,
communities, or States. Those sites mat score above a certain level (28.5) are eligible to be placed on the NPL.
These NPL and non-NPL sites are located in every State and affect millions of people. Although the distinction
between NPL and non-NPL sites often reflects the time and expense involved in cleanup, in reality NPL and non-
NPL sites may have similar characteristics in terms of land use and contamination. At sites that are not on the
NPL, emergency actions (through the removal program) may be taken to stabilize or cleanup contamination. Many
seriously contaminated sites are cleaned up by the removal program and never make it to the NPL. In addition,
the removal program often takes actions at NPL sites to reduce risk (or, in some cases,, to cleanup the site).
As the Superfund program entered its second decade, lessons have been learned. Over 4,000 removal
actions have been taken at over 3,000 rites. Completed cleanup is accelerating at NPL sites. In March 1994, 228
sites had been completed (i.e., the physical construction was complete, and an operating remedy was in place). By
September 199S, that number had increased to 346 and is expected to reach 6SO by the year 2000.
When construction has been completed at an NPL site, it is placed on a separate NPL list called the
Construction Completion List (CCL). This list consists of sites where all the construction associated with a remedy
has been completed. If all cleanup goals for the site have been achieved, the sites will then be deleted from the
NPL; however, if any residual waste remains onsite as a result of remedies selected for the rites, the remedies at
these rites will be reviewed every 5 yean to ensure that the remedy remains safe. If construction is completed, but
-------
CHAPTER 1 ___ INTRODUCTION
some cleanup goals have not yet been achieved (e.g., ground-water cleanup is not yet complete and may take many
years of pumping and treating before standards are achieved), the site will be placed on the CCL, and will be
designated as undertaking Long Term Response Actions (LIRA). The LTRA categories include: ground water
pump and treat, soil vapor extraction, and in-situ bioremediation.
Following the Superfund response actions, the sites are often restored to their previous use or, in some
cases, are suitable for redevelopment for a new type of beneficial use. In fact, economic redevelopment of several
former NFL sites has occurred or is in the planning stages. Use restrictions (e.g., deed restrictions prohibiting
building on a capped area) are placed on some sites, where wastes are left onsite, to ensure that material that has
been stahilirnd is not disturbed. Use restrictions may be limited to one section of a site, while other parts of the
site may be developed without restrictions. In other cases, the beneficial use of the site may not be an economic
use. Many NPL sites, for example, are large municipal landfills. These sites were designed as permanent waste
repositories, and many will not receive any other use. Other sites are located in floodplains on or near wetland
areas. For these sites, their beneficial use may be the environmental protection use for which they were designed*
by nature.
1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Study
The purpose of this study is twofold:
• To mwmnariiK the direct benefits to human health and the environment associated with the cleanup
of Superfund sites; and
• To discuss the post-cleanup uses of such sites, and the potential for reuse of previously unused or
under-utilized properties.
The purpose of the Superfund program is to protect people and environments from exposure to previously
uncontrolled hazardous chemicals. Protective goals are established on an individual site basis and relate directly
to the nature of the contaminated mpdin, the nature of the cheuicals, and the actual or potential exposure of people
and environmental receptors to contamination. Cleanup levels are typically expressed for each medium in terms
of chemical concentrations to be met, or levels of risk considered appropriate for the site.1 Because the chemicals
and the appropriate cleanup levels may be quite different for each site, this report summarizes environmental
'Superfund considers that cleanup of a site to a risk range (for carcinogenic substances) of excess cancer cases
of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 is protective of human health and the environment. Risk goals for noncarcinogens
are expressed in terms of a Hazard Index of less than 1. Environmentally driven cleanup levels are determined on
a case-by-case basis and are not reported in uniform terms.
-------
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
progress in terms of simple achievements that may be aggregated across many sites. Some of these measures
include: •
• The achievement of cleanup goals for specific contaminated rnrAi?'
• The number of sites cleaned to an unrestricted use (e.g., the site is suitable for any use, including
residential, without any additional controls); and
' f '
• The completion of actions to protect aquifers, and for which protection of drinking water resources
was a major goal. ,-
One question raised about the Superfund program is to what uses may sites be put after they are cleaned
up. The question arises in two contexts. First, concerns have been expressed about whether the Superfund program
is cleaning up sites of little economic or social value, which will remain unused in the future, in part, because of
the stigma of being a Superfund site. Second, a coiollary question, asks what is the economic benefit of the
expenditure of public funds used to cleanup these sites (i.e., will the benefits exceed costs). The study attempts to
address the first question (but stops short of being definitive due to the recent nature of most cleanups), and it does
not attempt to answer the second. However, the information provided in this study will help provide a foundation
for understanding potential economic benefits associated with the cleanup of Superfund sites. Such benefits (not
a focus of this study) may include: increases in the value of previously contaminated property; increases in the value
of properties and activities surrounding Superfund sites; and potential "ripple" effects associated with increased or
new uses of cleaned property, including increased tax revenues .and employment benefits to the community.2
The study that follows examines the beneficial uses to which cleaned up Superfund sites are put, and
examines a variety of factors that appear to impact whether or not sites are used (or are vacant). While no attempt
is made to extrapolate findings to the remainder of the Superfund universe, the analysis of factors that affect
beneficial use has clear implications for the remainder of the Superfund NPL universe for which cleanup has not
yet been completed.
Although the major focus of the quantitative analysis is on NPL sites where construction of the long-term
remedy is complete, the direct accomplishments of some significant cleanup actions at sites (both NPL and non-
NPL) that are not part of the CCL are disnisnfH. (This discussion can be found primarily in Appendix B.)
2This study looks at a relatively narrow set of accomplishments, and is not a comprehensive analysis of all
the benefits of the Superfund program. Clearly, many other measures of the success of the program potentially
could be analyzed.
-------
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.3 Organization of the Report
The remainder of the report is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1 continues with description of the CCL universe and compares the CCL to the NPL universe
as a whole.
• Chapter 2 highlights some of the environmental and community benefits accomplished by the
Superfund program. Selected site actions to avoid contamination of essential aquifers, surface waters,
and ecologically sensitive areas are described. (More detailed case studies, and a larger number of
such studies, can be found in Volume 2 of this report).
• Chapter 3 addresses the beneficial uses—both economic and noneconomic-for NPL sites that are
deleted from the NPL or designated "construction complete. *
• Three appendices provide details to augment the information in Chapters 1, 2, and 3. Appendix A
lists, by EPA Region, the construction completion sites addressed in this report. Sites excluded from
the study are listed in a separate table in Appendix A. Appendix B presents a summary and case study
examples of the accomplishments of the Removal Program. Appendix C provides details of the
methodology applied in carrying out the comparison of the CCL universe to the NPL universe as a
whole.
• Volume 2 is a catalog of Fact Sheets that highlight benefits of the response actions at 300 Superfund
sites—224 CCL sites and 76 sites where removal actions have been taken. Included are all
construction completion sites as of March 1994 (except for those outside the continental United
States). Fact sheets are provided on the sites for which the Superfund program took action, as well
as the sites for which no action was found to be necessary. In addition, fact sheets are also provided
on sites that are not addressed in this study (due to negligible land area) as well as selected NPL and
non-NPL sites where a removal action has been completed but which are not included as a CCL site.
1.4 The Universes Addressed by This Study
1.4.1 NPL Construction Completions Universe. The major focus of this study is 228 sites on the
CCL as of March 16, 1994. Of these sites, 37 were deleted from the analysis for a variety of reasons: they have
negligible land areas, they are outside the continental United States, no data were available at the time of report
preparation, or no action was required to be taken by the Superfund program. The analysis in this report, therefore.
-------
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
examines cleanup benefits at 191 CCL sites where action was taken. Appendix A contains two tables. One table
lists the 37 sites not included in the study, and a second lists the 191 sites that were the focus of this study. Volume
2 of this study contains Fact Sheets describing 224 completed sites in this study including those excluded from the
analysis in the report.3
Because a major focus of this study is to identify the beneficial uses for construction completion sites, a
system was developed to classify sites according to location mat might be expected to be associated with use and
reuse conditions as well as potential property value increases. Six location categories are distinguished: urban,
, suburban, medium town, small town, rural, or remote. (The locational definitions are presented in Section 3.4.1.)
Location category assignments were made for the 191 CCL sites based on the population density in the area
surrounding the site. The location categories were further subdivided to distinguish the surrounding land use (e.g.,
industrial, residential) or a particular type of site (e.g., landfill site).
1.4.2 Comparison of the CCL Universe to the Superfund Universe as a Whole. Based
on information from the 1991 Superfund NPL Characterization Study4 and other sources, the 191 sites that are part
of this study appear to be reflective, but not necessarily representative, of all sites on the NPL. Although no attempt
has been made to extrapolate study results to the Superfund universe as a whole, in order to gain a better
understanding of the degree to which the CCL is reflective of the NPL universe as 2 whole, the two groups of sites
were compared using 12 categories. Various data bases were used to pull together the data for the comparisons.
A description of the methodology used is included in Appendix C. The comparison categories selected were based
on a combination of several factors including data availability and the degree to which the data might provide insight
into answering questions about why completion sites may have been cleaned up first. A specific area of focus is
an examination of factors that reflect the manner in which the cleanup of CCL sites may or may not be as complex
an undertaking as cleanup that will follow. The NPL universe that is used in this comparison is the 1,244 sites
contained in a Remedial Project Manager (RPM) site evaluation data base compiled in August 1993 in support of
congressional requests for information. The results of the comparison, summarized below, provide some interesting
insights into the two groups of sites. It must be recognized, however, that the comparative exercise is not meant
to be a comprehensive statistical study, but instead provides for some gross and qualitative comparisons.
Comparison Summary. The comparison data show that the completion universe is, for the most pan,
moderately to highly reflective of the NPL universe as a whole. Table 1 summarizes the results of each comparison
category, and Figures 1 through 13 present graphically the data referenced in the table. Areas where the CCL is
highly reflective of the NPL universe include: distribution across EPA Regions, land use at the time of
*Four sites located outside the continental United States do not have fact sheets.
4National Results; NPL Characterization Projects, October 1991, EPA 540/8-91/069
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
contamination, and environmental justice. The CCL was found to be moderately reflective in 7 of the 12 categories.
One of these categories was for cost of remediation.
TABLE 1. Comparison of CCL Universe to the NPL Universe
Category «f Comparison
Dcfrceto Wlnca Cooplctioa
IJaTme Reflects the N?L
s/Explfljs
Federal vt. Non-Federal Site*
Modenuely Reflective
The CCL did not include »ny Federal facility titet M of
March 1994; however, only about 10% of the NPL
universe were comprised of Federal facilities u the tine
of creation of the RPM ate evaluation data base. In
•ddiuon. Federal facilities typically contain many more
areas of concern (site*) than private sites and will take
much longer before completion or deletion.
Regional Distribution of Sites
(EPA Regions 1-10)
Highly Reflective
There is a less than 3 % difference between the NPL and
CCL universes for all Regions, except Region 2 - where
there is a modest 6* lower percentage of completions
than for sites in the NPL universe.
Land Use at the Tune of
Contamination
Highly Reflective
The percentage of sites for each land use category for
both universes is within a percentage point or two for all
but one category — commercial. The CCL universe is
about 5* lower for commercial than the NPL universe.
RCRA Status
(active vs. inactive treatment
storage or disposal facilities)
Moderately Reflective
86% of the NPL universe are classified as non-RCRA
sites, while 95% of CCL sites are non-RCRA.
Size of Sites
Not Reflective
The CCL is only reflective of the NPL universe in one
of four size categories (S - 20 acres). There is a
significantly higher percentage of smaller acreage (<5
acres) CCL sites as compared to the NPL universe.
There is a significantly smaller percentage of larger
acreage (20-100 and greater than 100 acres) CCL sites
as compared to the NPL universe.
Sites With vs. Without Ground-
water Contamination
Not Reflective
CCL sites are. to date, less likely to involve ground-
water contamination than the NPL universe (48% CCL
vs. 80% NPL). Thin difference may be somewhat
exaggerated because experience suggests thai potential
contamination identified early (i.e., at the site
screening/scoring or PA/SI stage) for NPL sites, may
not actually exist after investigations are complete.
Number of Operable Units (OUs)
per Site
Moderately Reflective
A majority of the sites in both universes fall within, the
1-3 OUs per site category (86% of NPL and 99% of the
CCL). However, while about 15% of the NPL sites are
in the 4-6 and 7+ OU categories, only 1 CCL site falls
within those groupings.
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
TABLE 1 (cent)
Category of CoBparim
Octree to Which Completion
tMtme Reflects the NPL
IWvene
Sites by Lead Agency
Modeniely Reflective
Fund-lead only file* represent a higher proportion of the
completion universe (40%) than the universe a* a whole.
The percentage of mixed fund and PRP lead sites and
the percentage of PRP lead only sites are lower for the
CCL than for the NPL universe. ,
Number of Removal Actions per
Site' ..' ._,
Modeniely Reflective .
'About equal portions of both the NPL and CCL
universe (50%) have sites where removal actions have
been undertaken. For both group*, a majority of the
sites have had between 1 and 3 removal actions. Three
percent of the CCL had more than 3 removals as
compared to 16% of the NPL universe with more than 3
removals.
Date Proposed for Listing on the
NPL
Moderately Reflective
The distribution of CCL sites by listing date is, for the
most pan, consistent with the NPL universe. The
majority of both NPL and CCL sites are from the
earlier listing years (i.e.. prior to 1984).
Remediation Cons
Moderately Reflective
Adequate data on cost were only svsilable for fund-lead
tites. For the fund-lead sites, the two universes-CCL
and the NPL—are similar across a range of costs. A
large number of sites bad unknown costs. The vsct
majority of these were PRP-lead sites.
Environmental Justice
(% non-white minority
population within a 1-mile radius
of sites)
Highly Reflective
The distribution of sites with varying percentages of
non-white minority population within a 1-mile radius of
the site was similar for both the CCL and the NPL
-------
Not*: Numbers indicato number of •*•• par ntogory.
Source: RPM Site Data Base.
Figure 1. Federal vs. Non-Federal Sites
50%
45
40
2! 35
co 30
I IT
r^i Unmru
(1.244 Sites)
Completions
(191 Sites)
Not*: Numbers indicate the number of sites per region.
Sources: RPM Site Data Baas.
Figure 2. Breakdown of Sites by Region
-------
Comparison of CCL and NPL Universes
Figure 3. Regional Location of 191 sites on CCL in Relation to
NPL Universe (1,244 sites in RPM Site Data Base)
Noa: Numttn Indian Ow numbtr ol stits per bntf us*. ToMt m Ivgtr Bun KM totH numtar ol MM to ucft cngortu MOUM tanw sltis had munpto UMI.
ljndusncofflpiiidhaninitlh«lhMO(contminiiionlncootriittoeuriwtumolillMdMlnomirpi^ RPM S» Otta Ban.
Figure 4. Land Use During Time of Contamination
9
-------
Comparison of CCLandNPLOt8ve«»»
.... . -A •... * .. v . . ...^ ._ . . v..._..,. _ «i%v _ A.!:
90
M
£
-------
100%
Note: Number* imic
100
r of sto per cifcoory. $0000: CERCUS Data Bat.
Figure 8. Number of Operable Units per Site
fi—i Universe
(1.244 Sites)
Completions
(191 Siln)
50%
m Univmsa
(1.244 Sites)
Comptations
(191Sltes)
Note: Numbers indicate number of ate* per eUagmy. Sources: CERCUS Data Base.
Figure 9. Breakdown of Sites by Lead
100%
f—i Unhrmsa (596 Sites/
40% of Universe)
Complations (93 Sites/
49% of Completions)
Note: Numbers indicate number of site* per category. Source: CERCUS Data Base.
Figure 10. Number of Removal Actions per Site at Sites That Have Had Removals
11
-------
Note Numbm Mtafc numbar of MB per atogny. Sourot: CERCU8 ten I
Figure 11. Breakdown; of Sites by Proposed Listing in National Priorities List
Figure 12. Remediation Cost (Calculated by Operable Unit)
•37 out of 1544 NPL sites had 0 poputotton wtthin a 1-mite radius. "3 of 191 CO. stt«h»dOpopu»al)onwiWna1-initor»fius.
Figure 13. Distribution of Minority (Non-White Population) Within a 1-mile Radius
12
-------
CHAPTER 1 • INTRODUCTION
In order to address the questions of whether the cleanup of CCL sites is less costly than that anticipated
for the universe as a whole, this study examined the distribution of cost ranges among operable units (OUs) for the
NPL universe and the GCL universe. While there were a large number of sites in the comparison for which there
was no cost information, these were primarily private party lead sites. The cost information available was primarily
for fund lead sites.5 Looking at this information, and if fund lead sites can be used as an indicator of the costs of
the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) sites, the distribution of costs shows mat about 64 percent of the CCL
operable units have costs of less than $5 million and 82 percent of the CCL operable units have costs of less than
$15 million. This compares similarly with the NPL universe with S3 percent of the universe estimated to have costs
of less than $5 million and 72 percent ««tfinM*«< to have costs of less than $15 million.4
Areas where the CCL universe shows the largest deviation from the NPL universe include the following
categories:
• Size of Site - A larger percentage of the CCL sites are concentrated in the smaller acreage sites as
compared to the NPL universe.
• Ground-water Contamination • A much smaller proportion of the CCL has actual ground-water
contamination compared to sites on the NPL identified in the RPM site evaluation data base as having
, the potential for ground-water contamination. Experience suggests however, that as investigations
are completed at NPL sites, sites originally thought to have contamination may, in fact, not.
Therefore, the differences between the two universes may be narrowed as the site investigations are
completed. However, the differences are significant enough that they are likely to remain.
• Lead Agency - A higher proportion of CCL sites are fund lead (meaning, Federal employees and
contractors using Superfund Trust Fund money are conducting the cleanup activity) as compared to
the NPL universe, which has a higher proportion of private party and Federal Facility Lead sites.
• In addition to the comparison data in the above table, an examination of the 1991 NPL universe
characterization study leads one to conclude that the typically higher value suburban properties may
be under represented in the CCL universe. The 1991 study states that over one-third of the NPL
universe (at the time of that study) were located in suburban areas. Only 15 percent of the CCL
universe in this study are in suburban locations. Even allowing for imperfect matches in the definition
of "suburban" location, the discrepancy seems significant and could cause any extrapolation to the
universe to undervalue economic impacts.7
5Private party lead sites are those where private individuals or companies pay for the cost of cleanup. Fund
lead sites are primarily supported by resources from the Superfund Trust Fund and managed by EPA.
6Average costs frequently cited for cleanup of NPL sites and which are used for forecasting purposes typically
aggregate high and low cost sites. Average estimates used are in the $25-million range.
7No graph is provided in this report, because graph data were not available to make a consistent comparison.
13
-------
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.4.3 The Removal Program Universe. As described at the beginning of this chapter, the removal
program undertakes cleanup actions at NPL and non-NPL sites to reduce risks, stabilize sites, or cleanup
contamination^ The accomplishments of this program are substantial; however, they are not the main focus of this
report. An effort has been made to keep the discussion of the removal program separate from the main report and
the accomplishments as represented by the CCL, by putting it in an appendix.
The universe for removal sites is large, containing over 4,000 actions at over 3,000 NPL and non-NPL
sites. The sheer size of the universe made selection of a representative sample difficult. For this study, 76 sites,
involving 178 removal actions, were chosen subjectively from the universe for inclusion. Volume 2 of this report
contains fact sheets for each of the 76 sites. The environmental benefits attributable to removal actions at the 76
sites are described in Appendix B. In general, the sample of the removal universe in this study represents both a
larger average dollar value than the removal universe as a whole and is more likely to be at NPL sites than the
removal universe as a whole. .
14
-------
CHAPTER 2 SVPERFVND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
2.0 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
2.1 Introduction
The purpose of the Superfund program is to reduce risks to human health and the environment by cleaning
up sites that have been contaminated by past disposal practices. This chapter describes the environmental
accomplishments of Superfund actions and focuses specifically on those benefits that are difficult to quantify, in
monetary terms. Underlying all of these environmental benefits are the immeasurable values of protecting human
life, health, and well being and providing protection to future generations. Benefits addressed in this chapter
include: cleanup of surface contamination, protection of aquifers and waterways, protection of ecologically sensitive
areas, prevention of fire and explosion, and reduction of air contaminants, while restoring a sense of security to
surrounding communities, providing environmental justice, demonstrating the use of innovative technologies, and
reusing previously contaminated sites.*
Cleanup actions to reduce risk occur long before site work has been completed and at many sites that are
not on the Superfund NPL. Long-term actions, called "remedial actions," are taken at NPL sites as portions of the
site have been investigated and are ready for cleanup. Removal actions are taken at both NPL and non-NPL sites
to reduce risk and address imminent hazards. The Superfund program has completed more than 4,000 removal
actions at more than 3,000 sites. Many of these actions were undertaken to alleviate a serious immediate threat to
persons living near sites with uncontrolled hazardous substances and represent substantial levels of cleanup. In a
number of cases, removal actions alone were used to cleanup NPL sites. In other cases, removal actions not only
make non-NPL sites safe, but result in a "complete* cleanup of a site that, had it been on the NPL, would have been
put on the CCL or would have been deleted from the NPL. In these latter cases, the site can be restored to valuable
use in the community. In order to maintain the focus of the report on the accomplishments of the Superfund
program as measured by the CCL, examples of case studies illustrating the benefits of the removal program are not
included in this chapter; instead, they are presented separately in Appendix B.
*While this report focuses on a specific list of benefits, these are clearly not the only benefits of the Superfund
program. Many others—both environmental and economic—could potentially be addressed.
15
-------
CHAPTER 2
SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
2.2 Summary of Environmental Benefits at Construction Complete Sites
The most common environmental benefits at die CCL sites relate to the cleanup of surface contamination
to make sites safe and protect ground water and surface water.* Cleanup levels with regard to the land media have
been achieved at 89 percent of the CCL sites, while cleanup of the land media employing innovative technology
(i.e., bioremediation and soil flushing) is ongoing at two sites. Figure 14 depicts media cleanup achieved and
underway at 191 CCL sites.
Figure 14. Risk Redaction at Completed Sites
The environmental benefits at bom CCL sites and removal sites are remarkably similar. The 76 removal action
fact sheets (contained in Volume 2) also describe the most common actions as being surface cleanups, often to
eliminate an imminent hazard such as risk from fire, explosion, or other direct contact as well as against further
release to other media (e.g., ground water).
16
-------
CHAPTER 2 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Achieving cleanup goals is accomplished in a number of different ways at Superfund sites. For surface
cleanup; waste may be removed entirely, and the surface cleaned for unrestricted surface use, or some waste may
be contained onsite with use restrictions that ensure the containment remains protective. Containment can involve
the surface capping of high volumes of soil with low levels of contamination, the management of residuals that are
the end product of treatment, and capping of large landfills. In some cases, containment involves building a secure
vault to encapsulate waste, in addition to capping. Of 172 sites for which contaminated land surfaces were made
safe, 86 sites were cleaned to unrestricted use, and 86 sites had long-term waste management on the surface.
Surface cleanup not only protects people and animals from direct exposure to contaminated lands, but often
removes a source of continuing ground-water and surface water contamination. Surface cleanups have resulted in
the protection of ground water in 77 of the completed sites that were the subject of mis study. Achieving this
protection normally involves removal or containment of contaminated materials in and on the surface.
The actual cleanup and restoration of the ground-water medium are completed at 18 sites and underway
at another 73 sites. (Some sites have also had a surface or source control measure that protected ground water and
are counted among the 77 sites with surface cleanup to protect ground water.) Achievement of ground-water goals
can be accomplished by pumping and treatment of ground water to return the ground water to selected standards,
allowing natural attenuation to achieve selected standards (along with active monitoring of the contamination), and
stabilizing a plume of contamination to ensure that it no longer migrates. At over 90 percent of the sites with
ground-water management underway, the cleanup activity involves active pumping and treating of ground water to
meet selected cleanup standards.
Superfund cleanups have helped improve water quality at some of our Nation's most important waterways
by alleviating contamination sources at sites near tributaries and rivers. By alleviating the contaminated sources,
cleanups at such sites benefit the immediate site vicinity and also end water pollution downstream. Left unabated,
the contamination to the waterways could have enormous environmental, human health, and economic consequences.
Ecologically sensitive areas have been protected by Superfund cleanups in highly populated areas as well as in
remote areas. These include the protection of floodplains, wetland habitats, and endangered species.
In some cases, Superfund cleanups have enabled the development of community amenities, such as
recreation areas. Examples are the Chisman Creek site near Newport News. Virginia, where a community sports
park has been developed, and the Petersen Sand & Gravel site in Libertyyille, Illinois, where a recreational lake
is planned. Successful businesses now occupy some former NPL sites. Two examples are the Luminous Processes,
Inc., site in Athens, Georgia, now occupied by a McDonald's restaurant, and the Tri-City Oil Conservation site near
Tampa, Florida, now occupied by an automobile garage and service center.
17
-------
CHAPTER 2 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Innovative soil treatment technologies, including thermal desorption processes and bioremediation
technologies, have contributed to the success of cleanups at several Superfund sites. By demonstrating-the
effectiveness of innovative approaches, these sites have served to advance the state-of-the-art in hazardous waste
cleanups. Other sites will benefit by the experience gained through application of the innovative technology.
m
2.3 Benefits
2.3.1 Benefits of Cleaning up Surface Contamination. AS described above, the cleanup and/or
stabilization of surface contamination not only removes the threat of direct exposure to potentially dangerous
chemicals,'but also removes the source of contamination to other media such as ground water, surface water, and
air. The most common cleanup actions that have been completed are surface contamination cleanups. These actions
can include complete removal of a surface contamination source to health-based levels, the capping of a
contaminated area or landfill to ensure that rainwater does not infiltrate.and carry contaminants to the ground water
or surface water, or treatment of waste with replacement and capping of the residuals. Institutional controls such
as deed restrictions are used in combination with surface cleanup measures when waste is left onsite and capped to
ensure that the capped portion of the site is not used for inappropriate purposes and that the cap is maintained
properly. Cleanup actions at 172 CCL sites have included making the surface safe. At 86 of these sites, surface
cleanup has made the site safe for totally unrestricted use. Examples are cited in Box 1:
The A.L. Taylor site in Kentucky was one of the worst illegal dumps in the Nation and the site of
the largest drum removals in the history of the Superfund program. The site was contaminated with
over 140 different chemical compounds being discharged from over 17,000 deteriorating and leaking
drums. Cleanup actions ensured that the recreational uses and biota in downstream surface waters
would be protected.
At the Luminous Processes, Lie. site in Georgia, over 18,000 cubic feet of soil and contaminated
materials were removed for offsite disposal. The site was contaminated with radioactive isotopes
that had been used to paint clock dials. As a result of cleanup, the site no longer poses a threat to
the neighboring community.
Box 1. Examples of Sites Where Surface Contamination Was Cleaned Up
2.3.2 Benefits of Avoiding Contamination of Essential Aquifers. Estimates at NPL sites
suggest that as many as 70 to 80 percent of the sites have ground-water contamination. Cleanup of this
contamination can be a difficult and lengthy process and often involves pumping and treating of ground water for
many years. For this reason, a section of the CCL is designated for Long Term Response Actions (LTRA) where
18
-------
CHAPTER 2 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
cleanup activities cm the surface are largely complete, but pumping and treating of ground water may be ongoing.10
Many actions at sites, however, protect ground water long before the cleanup of the ground water is complete.
Surface actions taken to make sites safe (removal of waste or capping of material) not only protect people and
imimalc from exposure to hazardous materials, but also remove a continuing source of ground-water contamination
(as well as controlling sources of runoff into surface water bodies and potential air contamination). Initiation of
gftmml-water pumping and treating i« An^gnf^ to treat thft mntaminatinp Jf> addition, it fft°plT thr ffmtmaing *prt>mA
and draws in the boundaries of the plume long before yl^mfp-*"-**"^"^? has been achieved.
Among some of ^w »»»"•* important Superfund rl**fliinift are "TtMtif *•!«•» to mmifjit gftifn* contamination
to major aquifers mat are the drinking water source for large population centers. At 25 percent of the construction
complete sites, protection of drinking water wells where people currenUyidy on an underground aquifer as a source
of drinking water is a major goal. While femmiben of people d^pendert on the ground water at these sites vary
widely, at 30 percent (15) of these sites, the range of people served exceeds 5,000, with several over 100,000. In
addition, protected aquifers discharge to other aquifers, to surface water bodies, or to other sensitive ecological,
environments (e.g., wetlands). Twenty-seven percent of die CCL sites protected other environmental values through
aquifer protection. (See Figure 15.) Examples of completed sites where nssrnrial aquifers have been protected are
described in the Box 2.
An area-wide .approach has been taken ia the South Bay ana of Saa Francisco, California, to
alleviate threats to ground water from several sites. Contamination threatened public and private
drinking water wells n* the densely populated are* and posed * potential threat to the common
ground-water basin serving toe entire San Francisco Bay area.. If left imabatedV the cumulative effect
of ground-water ortainmatioa in lite are* co^ Extensive
treatment of the water could become necessary prior to distribution. The added costs, as well as real
or perceived risks associated wMt the water supply, would have a substantial negative impact on the
desirability of noosing andnft value of real estate.
Box 2. Examples of Sites Where Contamination of Essential Aquifers Was Avoided
10Two sites on the CCL LIRA list have ongoing soil cleanup actions that are similar to ground-water pump
and treat in that they may take a number of years to complete.
19
-------
CHAPTER 2 SVPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Seven NFL sites in the South Bay area of San Fnncisco, aO with ground-water contamination, are
groined closely* enough to cause extensive cumulative impacts to the regional water supply.
Facilities at these sites have used * variety of toxic chemicals in the processing of semiconductors
and c4bex &gh~technology parts. Odorioated oxgamc Events xnlodier cyanic coimwaads are the
primary cause of contamination in the soil and ground water* The San Francisco Bay Regional
Water QoaiiQr Control Boatd is overseeing die ground-water cleanup. Both the EPA and the
GaliJbnaa Department of Healm Services are pnmding ompoit toihe Regional Board during the
investigation and cleanuppjocesae*.; - - -•<-"' ,- -"
f -.
Wiibm a 3-nuTe radius of tbew gratings of aites, seady 700,000 mndeote tdjy. on local drinking
wtter aourees. Mom tttnt '^qO pwner-occapied honong units «e potentially arTected, The
vaiaeoflioia^ Afthonghthe
anatjfsia used a 3-mMe radmsv Aendias of ae area pofeotaQy aflncfed hy ne grotmd water extends
fee beyond 3 nulea, because gxoaad water to-^eoui^iiextrKtfad&mnafegtonalaqaiRr and
supplied to dwellings Via nmmdpal Water lines. A« A Tem1tr Aistmrf: to Aft «rigm of contammatinn
may have tittle bearing on fee likelihood of the occupants of a given residence discovering that its
drinking water supply u txaUunmated.
W A* tf*e Alpha fSiMTifr^l O>ipn|-arinn ftang Alplia Rftrirtu fnyptffttpm) ffltPttffif I
State discovered volatile organic compounds (VOCs), especially ethylbenzene, in the near-surface
aquifer ftymming from an unlined wastewater impoundment on the sur&ce. Alpha
produced polyester resin at the 32-acre site since 1967 and used the impoundment to contain
wastewaters long enough for the organic components to evaporate or break down through natural
processes. If left nnchecked, continued use of the impoundment would have threatened the much
Atqier Flftridian Aqmfigr, irfmA mppTtaa Amlnngnater to gguetat cnmimimtiW The Contamination
source was capped to prevent iuflhet spreading of the chemicals. Quarterly monitoring has shown
decreasing levels of the cheancab of concern. Alpha Resins has modified its processes and
upgraded its wastewater treatment to control pollutant*.
When the Gold Coast Off left itr solvent reclaiming site in Miami, Florida, it abandoned some 2,500
and
with lead, zinc, •*"* variotts organic polhuants, JncJixfiiig methylene chloride. This f*mt*
was of niajor concern becaoa» ^ deeper Biscayne Aquiier is ^prindpal source of drinking water
in southern PtArMa orut 4« a «art«i^Hy A^gpft^rf ^«> Sn»rr* ^^frf, Thy gjte cleanup included
removing contaminated liquids, shidges^ drums, and soil from the surface of the site. Extraction and
treatment of ground water continues.
Box 2. Examples of Sites Where Contamination of Essential Aquifers Was Avoided (cont.)
20
-------
CHAPTER 2
SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
rface Water Bodies <25)
Figure 15. Protected Aquifers Discharge to Other Environments
2.3.3 Benefits Of Protecting Waterways. In the not-coo-distant past, landfills and other types of
disposal facilities were often deliberately located in floodplains close to large rivers. A popular view held by
industry and by many municipalities was that dilution by the river was a good way to get rid of unwanted chemicals.
Some of our Nation's worst water pollution problems stem from sites where this philosophy was practiced. Because
current hazardous waste and water pollution regulations limit such actions, many sites near major waterways have
been abandoned and are now included on the Superfund NPL. By alleviating the contaminating sources, cleanups
at such sites benefit the immediate site vicinity and also stop water pollution downstream. As shown in Figure IS,
cleanup of ground-water aquifers is often related to the protection of surface water bodies. Contaminated ground
water often discharges to surface water and can be a continuing source of contamination. At 25 sites, protection
of surface water quality was a goal of aquifer protection. Examples of sites where waterways were protected are
presented in Box 3.
21
-------
CHAPTER 2 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The 6-acre Bruin Lagoon NPL site in Pennsylvania is located on Bear Creek, a tributary of the
Allegheny River. This site was used for 40 years for disposal of refinery and other wastes, and
periodic flooding spread contamination from the site to the river. The Allegheny River is an
important water supply source for many industries and communities, including Pittsburgh. On at
least one occasion, a fishkUl resulting from the Bruin Lagoon contamination was'seen 100 miles
downstream. Construction and cleanup have finally ended the environmental problems emanating
from this site. The cleanup work involved stabilising, containing, or removing contaminated liquids
and sludges. AD wastes remaining on the site have been stabilized and capped.
The FMC Corporation NPL site is located .adjacent to the Mississippi River in Fridley, Minnesota.
For about 20 years, until the early 1970s, the company disposed of hazardous waste in an 11-acre
nfrTfrM** landfill at the site. Contaminated leacbate from the disposal pits has seeped into the near-
surface and confined alluvial aquifers that discharge to the Mississippi River. The water supply
intake for the city of Minneapolis is located 1,500 feet downstream from the FMC property. The
remedial actions at the site, which include soil aeration and ground-water extraction, are protecting
the Minneapolis drinking water intake. Construction of the remedy has been completed at this site.
FMC's naval ordnance manufacturing complex continues operations adjacent to the area where
ground water is being extracted to confine and alleviate the contamination.
Box 3. Examples of Sites Protecting Waterways
2.3.4 Benefits of Protecting Ecologically Sensitive Areas. Polluted waters from a contaminated
site can sometimes pose a major threat to wetlands and other ecologically sensitive areas. These areas often include
important habitats, the disruption of which could damage entire ecosystems. Superfund cleanups at construction
completion sites have resulted in environmental benefits in ecologically sensitive areas.
Of the 191 CCL sites in this study, 15 have a current use that is identified as an environmental use. Most
of these sites are in flobdplains; several also contain or are adjacent to wetland areas, and two serve as wildlife
preserves. At six sites, the discharge to sensitive ecological environments was the concern in protection of a
ground-water aquifer. Examples of these types of sites are summarized below in Box 4.
Cleanup and construction completion at the remote Bayou Sorrel site in Louisiana removed imminent
threats to the wetland environment and eliminated a dangerous, illegal disposal operation.
Petrochemical wastes were received in large, unlicensed ponds at the site beginning in 1977. The
facility was closed after State and EPA regulators found some 36,000 cubic yards of waste.
Flooding and poor drainage at the site threatened a large wetlands area that included the habitat of
three endangered species. All exposed disposal areas were dewatered, filled, and covered. Final
cleanup actions were taken to control runoff, limit erosion, and eliminate surface water ponding; the
Box 4. Examples of Sites Protecting Ecologically Sensitive Areas
22
-------
CHAPTER 2 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
former disposal .areas were drained, capped, and covered. All contaminants nave now been
contained, and exposure potential has been eliminated. The capped area is fenced and maintained by
the party responsible for the contamination. Hunting and fishing are again safe and continue in the
area surrounding: the site.
The Triana/Tennessee River site in Alabama covers 11 miles along two tributaries of the Tennessee
River. From 1954 to 1970, operations at Olin Corporation and the nearby Redstone Arsenal
released DDT into an adjacent tributary system. It is estimated that more than 400 tons of DDT
residues acrnmiilatffd downstream in the sediment Although the Olin plant was demolished in 1971.
the DDT residues persisted and eventually contaminated fish and the nearby Wheeler Wildlife
Refuge. Construction and cleanup actions at the site involved bypassing and burying onsite the
:1he nyxy* f*m*nnunat'>'* «*ha«"*i Studies to monitor die movement of 'contaminants
1
through the water and wildlife are continuing. Four years after beginning the cleanup, overall DDT
levels in fish have decreased by as much as 86 percent and DDT levels in water by 93 percent. The
cleanup effort by the Olin Corporation was nominated for the National Wildlife Corporate
Conservation Council Award in 1990 and 1991.
The Cecil Undsey site in Arkansas was used as a salvage operation during the 1970s and 1980s.
Machinery, cars, scrap metals, drums of pesticides and oils containing heavy metals, and industrial
and municipal wastes were disposed of onsite. Heavy metals and VOCs were found in the ground
water and the soil. The site is adjacent to the Village Creek wetlands and forested bottomland.
Cleanup activities at this site reduced the threat to these environmentally sensitive areas.
Superfund actions at the Woodbury Chemical Company site in Florida eliminated potential risks to
manatees, a designated endangered species that frequented a canal located approximately 2,350 feet
northeast of the site. Woodbury Chemical Company formulated pesticides and fertilizers on site
beginning in 1975. Surface contamination from agricultural chemicals was discovered in 1985.
Removal of contaminated soils reduced the threat of offsite migration and contamination of the
Biscayne Aquifer.
As a result of remedial activities at the Mowbray Engineering Company site in Alabama, sensitive
wetlands were spared further contamination. For more than 20 years, during its electric transformer
repair operations, the company disposed of approximately 9,000 gallons of PCBs in transformer
waste oils at the site. EPA's remedy included treating or disposing of waste oils in the swamp area,
diverting surface runoff around the swamp area, and regrading and replanting the swamp. Cleanup
activities also eliminated soil, surface water, and ground-water contamination, making the site safe
for nearby residents.
Box 4. Examples of Sites Protecting Ecologically Sensitive Areas (cont.)
23
-------
CHAPTER 2 SUPEKFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
2.3.5 Benefits Of Fire and Explosion Prevention. Superfund actions have also reduced threats to
human health and the environment from fires and explosions. Examples are shown in Box 5, which follows.
Explosive, flammable, toxic, and reactive wastes were removed from the Keefe Environmental
Services site in New Hampshire. These actions protected 1,300 nearby residents and the water
resources adjacent to the site.
The Walcotie Chemical Co, site in Mississippi was contaminated with explosive chemical wastes that
originated from the storage of chemicals used in producing fertilizers, including formic acid, various
pesticides, and VOCs. Due to the explosive nature of the wastes, local residents were temporarily
evacuated while cleanup occurred. Cleanup involved removing the deteriorated drums from the site.
and fine.
<>f y^lmmw«"";:Hiwin>'**'d «* -l^efc Tana Landfill in Kentucky. Residents around the
•site reported flash fires around their water heaters. These fires resulted from the presence of
methane and other toxic gases venting from the landfill. The State installed a gas venting system at
flm landfill y^i^^w) ftfqrta^patad Hfiimc {mm :the, «ite, and implemented institutional controls to
protect human health and the environment
Box 5. Examples of Sites Preventing Fire and Explosion
2.3.6 Benefits Of Reducing Air Contaminants. Several construction completion sites have had
remedial actions that reduced threats associated with air contaminants. Examples are presented in Box 6.
At the Johns Maoville Corporation site in Illinois, the cleanup eliminated the threat of airborne
asbestos fibers. Manufacturing wastes laden with asbestos and toxic substances had been dumped in
pits at the site. Airborne asbestos from the pits endangered approximately 5,000 workers and
residents and threatened ecological areas in the adjacent State park. Capping the. waste materials
with a multilayer cap and implementing institutional controls reduced the threats associated with the
site.
Remediation of the Peases Chemical Company site in Texas alleviated the potential health threat
posed by airborne contaminants in a nearby freight yard to area residents and patients at a
neighboring rehabilitation center. The site conducted metals reclamation operations, resulting in
emissions of cadmium. Operations at the site were discontinued, and contaminated materials were
covered with a concrete cap.
Box 6. Examples of Sites Reducing Air Contaminants
2.3.7 Benefits Of Innovative Treatment Technologies. Innovative treatment technologies include
cleanup approaches that are not considered to be established technologies. Viable innovative technologies may .have
24
-------
CHAPTER 2 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
performance or cost advantages compared to established traditional treatment technologies. Innovative treatment
technologies have been used* in the cleanup of soil at a number of NPL sites. Innovative approaches have also been
developed to facilitate cleanups during removal actions. The site experience with the innovative treatments serves
to demonstrate the applicability and effectiveness of the technologies, thus promoting their use elsewhere. For these
innovative treatment sites, benefits accrue to the site, and to the community, in the cleanup of the site itself. An
additional benefit, however, is the advancement of the particular technology employed for the use of other sites.
Examples of sites using innovative treatment technologies are presented in Box 7.
> .f x, . _%i -A***. > a-9- • •y-f* f^/~-syXfj.yff- •- - & w.x -••-•. s j- si* •>• ^., •
• An innovative tnenad o«Hptio* ^ Co. site in
Gt»yt Maine, ^ and disposal fccility. An
JBBaa^gjii:^^ soil. The excavated
soil wat earned tethfeoosite ttntteinot flevelopnientsit&^ soli contaminated with
PCBs was treated using an anaerobic thermal process (ATP) thai was originally developed to recover
crude oil from tar sands and oil shaleff. The ATP treatment technology wag successful in lowering
the PC3 levek from as Mgfc «* 3M*#f»art8periiiillion
-------
CHAPTER 2 • SVPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
chemicals and restoring a sense of security. Ongoing monitoring of sites also ensures that the threat has been
removed and contributes to a community's peace of mind.
The Wide Beach Development site in Brant, New York, is once again a quiet lakeside community.
Construction of the remedy has been completed at this site. The 55-acre site encompasses more than
60 homes. As a; result 6f remedial action, threats posed by widespread PCB contamination in the
small community have been mitigated. When contamination stemming from PCBs in oil sprayed on
dirt roads was discovered, EPA moved quickly to protect me community. The initial actions were
aimed «t minimizing exposure by: decontaminating homes; providing temporary pavements to the
contaminated roadways, driveways, and drainage ditches; and installing filters on individual drinking
water wells. The long-term cleanup that followed involved excavating and chemically treating PCB-
contaminated soils, backfilKng all excavated areas, and repaying roads and driveways. Some
families: were relocated temporarily to nearby hotels during the cleanup. An onsite wetlands area
damaged during the cleanup was restored in 1992.
Residents living in the vicinity of the Matthews Electric Plating site near Roanoke, Virginia, no-
longer need to rely on :bottled water or be concerned about health effects of chromium-contaminated
ground water. By extending the Salem water supply lines, the Superfund action has eliminated the
community's water problems. Twenty-eight homes were connected to the public water supply in
1986. As a result, these properties have experienced an increase in value.
Box 8. Examples of Sites Demonstrating Restoring a Sense of Security
2.3.9 Beneficial Use and Environmental Justice. Some Superfund sites are located in inner cities.
This may result in increased risks of exposure to onsite contaminants among specific subsets of the population (i.e.,
minorities). Cleanup of these sites provides benefits to these populations by alleviating the threats from these sites.
Analysis of population and demographic data collected by the Superfund office at EPA indicates that
approximately 12 percent of the CCL sites have a majority (i.e., more than 50 percent) non-white population within
a 1-mile radius of the sites. Of these, approximately SO percent are in urban locations. Box 9 presents two
examples of such sites.
Remediation of the Peases Chemical Company in Fort Worth, Texas, successfully controlled
contaminant migration to surrounding properties. Consolidation of contaminated onsite and offsite
materials and their subsequent stabilization alleviated a potential source of health risk. The potential
health threat posed by airborne heavy metal contamination to nearby workers, residents, and patients
at a neighboring rehabilitation center was averted. Five schools and 20,000 people live and/or work
within a 1-mile radius of this inner-city site.
Box 9. Examples of Sites With Environmental Justice Benefits
26
-------
CHAPTER 2 ____ SVPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
W Chemical Metals Industries occupied two parcels of property from the 1950s until 1981 in the mainly
tesHJentad inner-city section of Westport in Baltimore, Maryland, The deanop of die -rite WHS the
NationVfrrstSorMdkmd activity dot included remedial action. The site was an abandoned precious
metals recovery feciKty that housed drum* of caustics and corrosive liquids. The two parcels are
sow used as field headqnarters by the Maryland Department of die Environment and a neighborhood
.park. ' • ' •'•:""•' -•••-- ' ' :
Box 9. Examples of Sites With Environmental Justice Benefits (cant.)
2.4 Environmental Benefits Through Removal Actions
Most of this report describes 191 sites on the NFL for which construction of long-term cleanup activities
has been completed. The removal program with its imm*Ai»tv nsik reduction activities also accomplishes substantial
environmental and economic benefits at NFL and non-NPL sites. Insight into the benefits of the removal program
is provided by 178 removal actions conducted at 76 rites mat are included as case studies in this report. A more
detailed description of some of the benefits of the removal program is provided in Appendix B.
2.5 Superfund Successes Addressed in Volume 2
Volume 2 of this Beneficial Use Study is a catalog of Fact Sheets for 300 Superfund sites (224 construction
completions and 76 removals). The 224 CCL sites include the 191 sites contained in this study, as well as most
of the 37 sites that were outside of the scope of mis study. The response actions at these sites have resulted in
immediate and long-term benefits to surrounding communities and others who might have been affected had cleanup
not occurred.
27
-------
CHAPTERS BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
3.0 BENEFICIAL USE FOR NPL CONSTRUCTION
COMPLETION LIST (CCL) SITES
3.1 Introduction
In order to understand the potential beneficial uses of Superfund sites, it is important to understand the
nature of these sites, their locations, their natural environment, and the uses that may be reasonably anticipated.
For the purpose of this study, beneficial use includes both economic and noneconomic uses' of the land. It may
include any functional use that serves the community by providing jobs, housing, recreation, or environmental and
economic protection. The particular use can be almost anything—an industrial facility, a commercial establishment,
a private residence, a public park or recreational use area (either formal or informal), a government office, a pasture
for grazing cattle, or a permitted landfill. Beneficial uses also include uses that may not fit into traditional economic
uses such as planned permanent waste management areas (e.g., capped and closed municipal or industrial landfills)',
floodplains, or wetlands. These uses protect both environmental and economic goods and are considered beneficial
uses. In some cases, sites in environmental use are also the focus of more direct economic uses. In others,
however, the use of a site as a floodplain or permanent waste management area precludes any other beneficial use.
Although economic and noneconomic uses of land are both considered beneficial uses for the purposes of this study,
a component of this study is a special focus on the factors associated with the economic use and reuse of properties.
Information on the 191 sites that are the focus of this study was compiled from completion closeout reports
for the sites and other site documents." Telephone calls to local authorities, tax offices, and owners provided
additional information on the current status and future plans for many of the sites.
3.2 Summary
A review of current land use at sites deleted from the NPL or where construction of the remedy is
substantially complete shows that 124 sites (almost 65 percent of the 191 sites) are currently in beneficial use or
"Thirty-seven of the 228 Construction Completions as of March 1994 were not included in this study for a
variety of reasons described in Chapter 1.
29
-------
CHAPTERS BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
have active near-term plans for such use.13 The types of land use at these sites include industrial, commercial.
service, recreational, residential, agricultural, waste management, and environmental uses.
Of the 191 sites included in this study, at least 80 sites are in economic use or are planned for economic
reuse. Most of these uses are industrial or commercial. Forty-four sites are in use as either a permanent waste
management area (e.g., closed municipal landfill) or in an environmental use such as floodplains, wetlands, or
wildlife protection.
Not surprisingly, aa analysis of factors associated with economic and noneconomic use, and vacancy
suggests mat location is one of the most significant factors associated with the use status of the site. A second major
factor appears to be the presence of waste being managed onsite. Other factors analyzed appear to play a less
significant role.
3.3 Beneficial Uses of Completed Sites
Of the 191 completions that are a focus of this study. 124 sites, or 65 percent, are in some kind of
beneficial use. The other 35 percent are vacant. Almost two-thirds (80 sites) of the sites in beneficial use are in
economic beneficial use. Of the sites in economic beneficial use, 80 percent are in some kind of industrial, light
industrial, service, or commercial use. Figure 16 shows the beneficial use status of the sites in this study. Figure
17 shows the specific use categories into which the 124 sites can be divided.
The largest number of sites (39 sites) in current economic use are industrial sites. Many of these sites have
been in continuous use prior to listing on the NPL and have remained in such use throughout the cleanup process.
The second largest number of sites (25 sites) in economic use is a diverse category that includes light industrial,
service, commercial, and governmental institutions. Warehousing and storage, government offices, restaurants,
laundries, a plant nursery, automotive operations, airport use, and an active nonhazardous waste landfill are just
some of the diverse activities conducted on these properties. Four sites in this category have an active, near-term
planned use. Only four sites are in residential use, eight in recreational use, and four in a mix of unclassified uses
(including cattle grazing, mining, and private use garage).
12Data on the uses at sites were collected in several stages that spanned over 2 years.. The use status of specific
sites may has changed in the interim with some sites previously vacant, now in economic use, and some sites
previously in economic use now vacant.
30
-------
•Nagfigibto orumnabto land «IM: no action art»t
——————
Figure 16. Completion Sites in Beneficial Use
Management
(29 sites)
tadflstrfarr;
Service,
Governmental
institutions and
Coromeitial
Figure 17. Types of Beneficial Use by Use Category (124 sites)
31
-------
CHAPTERS . BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
Tables 2 to 8 organize the 124 sites in beneficial use according to use category and describe the current
use of these sites. In addition to describing the current use of the sites, these tables also describe the past use of the
sites. Most of the sites in economic use are in the same (and, in many cases, continuous) use as they were in prior
to cleanup. Thirty-one of these sites are in a different use than their original use. This includes 23 sites in
industrial, commercial, or some other traditional economic use and 8 sites for which the curjrent use is recreational
and the previous use was as a waste disposal area. Most of the closed landfills are permanent waste repositories
and are expected to stay in that use into the future. For other use categories, the past site use is quite different than
the current use.
For cases where the current beneficial use is similar to the type of use that preceded the NPL designation
and contributed to the contamination problems at the site, appropriate changes have been made to ensure that there
will be no further uncontrolled releases. For example, the Mid-South Wood Products site in Arkansas continues
to be used for wood treatment; however, the operation has been changed so that the site will not be further
contaminated. Another example is the Independent Nail Co. site in South Carolina, which was contaminated by
wastewaters from an earlier plating operation (different owner). The current nail coating process does not pose
further risk of contamination.
Some sites that were in use prior to the NPL designation have remained in continuous use during the site
investigations and cleanup. This is the case for several large sites where the contaminated area affected only a
fraction of the total site, allowing a major facility on the same property to continue operation. Examples include
the Varsol Spill site in Florida (located at the Miami International Airport), the John Deere (Ottumwa Works) site
in Iowa, and the Alpha Chemical Corp. site in Florida. At several semiconductor manufacturing sites in California,
the properties have been in continuous use while ground-water investigation and later pump and treat operations are
ongoing.
For some sites, the current beneficial use is entirely different from the land use prior to the NPL .
designation. For example, the Belvidere Municipal Landfill site in Belvidere, Illinois, now has walking trails and
is slated to be incorporated into a park system. Another example is the Boise Cascade site in Fridley, Minnesota,
a former wood treating site that is now used by two separate companies (Onan Corporation and Medtronics, Inc.)
for manufacturing.
A few sites that are now in beneficial use were previously unused, except for the illegal 'midnight*
dumping that resulted in the NPL designations. The Krysowary Farm site in New Jersey, now the location of a
plant nursery, is one such site. Several sites in current minimal use may be further redeveloped in the future. Part
of the old Woodbury Chemical Company in Colorado is currently used by a railroad for steel storage; unused
portions of the land may be given to the town for a park.
32
-------
Table 2. Beneficial Uses at NPL Construction Completion Sites:
. Current (Use Industrial (39 Sites)
Site Name, State
Current Beneficial Use
Former Site Activities
Action Anodizing Plating and Polishing. NY
Advanced Micro Devices. Inc. («915), CA
Allied Plating. Inc.. OR
Alpha Chemical Corp., PL
Anderson Development Co., Ml
Applied Materials, CA
Beckman Instruments, CA
Boise Cascade/Onan/Medtronics, MN
Celancsc Corp. Shelby Fibers, NC
City Industries, FL
CTS Prinlex, Inc.. CA
Fail-child Semiconductor Corp., CA
FMC Corp.. MN
Hedblum Industries, Ml
Hollingsworth Soldcrless Terminal, FL
Hydro-Flex, Inc., KS
Independent Nail Co., SC
Intel Corp. (Santa Clara 13), CA
Intel Magnetics, CA
Intersil/Siemens Components, CA
John Deere (Oltumwa Works), IA
Continued use metal finishing
Semiconductor manufacturing
Crane maintenance
Polyester resin manufacture
Specialty-organic chemicals
Silicon wafer manufacturing
Circuit board and electronic equipment manufacturer
Commercial and manufacturing facilities
Operating industrial site, polyester production
Currently sheet mcul work; future industrial site
Circuit board manufacturing
Semiconductor manufacturing
Naval ordnance manufacturing plant; floodplain
Aircraft manufacturing
Solderless electrical terminal manufacturer
Manufacturing tubing hoses, heat exchangers
Paneling nail coating operation
Various chemical processes
Magnetics process testing
Semiconductor manufacturing
Active farm machinery plant and inactive dump site
Metal finishing
Semiconductor manufacturing
Chrome-plating facility
Polyester resin manufacture; unlined impoundments
Specially chemical manufacturer
Silicon wafer manufacturing equipment manufacturer
Circuit board and electronic components manufacturer
Wood treatment facility
Polyester production facility
Hazardous waste handling facility
Circuit board manufacturing
Semiconductor manufacturing
Burning and disposal of wastes from naval ordnance
Airplane and automobile parts manufacturer
Solderless electrical terminal manufacturer
Tubing, hosing, and heat exchanger manufacturer
Metal screw and fastener manufacturer
Various chemical processes
Magnetics products testing
Semiconductor manufacturing
Farm machinery plant; chemical disposal
•at*
-------
Table 2. (continued)
Site Name, Stale
Current Beneficial Use
Former She Activities
Johns Manville Corp., IL
Kimbcrton Site, PA
Libby Groundwater ConUminaiion. MT
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preserves, Inc.. MD
Mid-South Wood Products, AR
Monsanto Corp. (Angus), GA
Mystery Bridge Road, WY
Northern Engraving Co., Wl
Pesses Chemical Co., TX
SOLA Optical USA, Inc.. CA
Spectra Physics, Inc., CA
Synertek, Inc., CA
Teledyne Semiconductor, CA
Tronic Plating Co., NY
TRW Microwave Inc. (Building 825), CA
Wilson Concepts of Florida, Inc., FL
Witco Chemical Corp., NJ
Woodbury Chemical Co.. FL
Manufacture of building materials; asbestos no longer
used
Portion of site used by asphalt coatings manufacturer
Plywood and lumber mill
Industrial and service use
Wood treatment plant
Active industrial site with 2 landfills (75 acres)
Chemical manufacturer/commercial trucking/residential
Continued production of metal parts
Facility for reclaiming metals from electronics
components
Manufacturing ophthalmic lenses
Gas lasers and electronics manufacturing
Electronics manufacturing
Semiconductor manufacturing
Warehouse and eye tens manufacturing
Semiconductor, microwave manufacturing
Metal machining and finishing facility
Technical research
Same owners continue pesticide and fertilizer
formulation
Manufacture of building materials containing asbestos
Biochemical research and resin and lite production
Wood treatment facility
Wood treatment facility
Wood treatment plant
Chemical producer
Two residential subdivisions and an industrial area
Production of small metal parts for automotive industry
Metals recycling facility
Optical lens manufacturing
Gas lasers and electronics manufacturing
Electronics manufacturing
Semiconductor manufacturing
•
Electroplating operations
Assembly of microwave components and
semiconductors
Metal machining and finishing facility
Specialty chemical research facility
Pesticide and fertilizer formulation
-------
Table 3. Beneficial Uses at NPL Construction Completion Sites:
Current Use Light Industrial, Commercial, Service, and Governmental Institutions (25 Sites)
Site Name, State
Current Beneficial Use
Former Site Activities
Arkansas City Dump, KS
BEC Trucking, NY
BioClinical Laboratories, NY
Chemical Metals Industries, MD
Crystal City Airport, TX
Enterprise Avenue, PA
Firestone Tire, CA
^j Flowood Site, MS
I/I
General Mills/Henkel Corp., MN
Grand Traverse Overall Supply Co., Ml
Harris (Farley St.), TX
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard, PA
Henderson Road Site, PA
Jibboom Junkyard, CA
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp., NH
Krysowaty Farm, NJ
Luminous Processes, Inc., GA
Miami Drum Services, FL
Small businesses on areas overlapping site boundaries
Part of land used for storage of construction equipment;
support of sawmill
Commercial/industrial
Maryland Department of the Environmental Field
Office; park
Local airport with limited use
Vacant fenced area; may be included in airport runway
extension
Warehouse facilities
Two industrial sites; over 70 percent owned by utility
Multibustness technical center and research laboratories
Commercial laundry
Class IV (nonhazardous) active landfill
Auto graveyard
Capped 7.64-acre landfill and BFI garage operations
Uses under consideration include: State offices,
museum, or highway cloverleaf
Site will partially used as a parking lot; remainder of
site will be vacant
Plant nursery
McDonald's restaurant
Public transit maintenance yard
Refinery/dump
Truck body manufacturing
Industrial chemical warehouse operation
Facility to recover precious metals from waste
chemicals
Pesticide spill area within airport boundary
illegal chemical and ash disposal area
Tire manufacturing plant
Corrugated box/stoneware cookery production plants
Research laboratory waste disposal
Commercial laundry
Abandoned chemical waste landfill
Auto salvage yard
Waste transfer and recycling
Metal salvage yard, power plant
Stainless steel casting manufacturer
a
Illegal dumping area off a road embankment
Watch factory (produced radium-faced watches)
Drum recycling facility
-------
Table 3. (continued)
Site Name, State
Current Beneficial Ute
Former Site Activities
Nutting Truck & Caster Co., MN
Revere Textile Print Corp., CT
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers, TX
Tri-City Oil Conservation, FL
Varsol Spill Site, FL
Whittaker Corp.. MN
Woodbury Chemical Co., CO
Businesses including woodworking, food service, and
county offices
Light industrial park
t
Various commercial operations
Auto garage
Miami International Airport
Excavation company (offices, parking, and storage of
heavy equipment)
Portion owned by railroad used for steel storage; 1.4
acres portion vacant
Disposal of foundry wastes in gravel pit
Textile processing facility which burned in 1980
Electrical transformer cleaning and recycling
Waste oil collection and distribution center
Miami International Airport (contamination)
Production of resins and industrial coatings
Chemical manufacturing, pesticide formulation
-------
Table 4. Beneficial Uses at NPL Construction Completion Sites:
Current Use Residential (4 Sites)
Site Name, Stats
Current Beneficial Use
Former Site Activities
Lansdowne Radiation Site, PA
North-U Drive Well Contamination, MO
Ringwood Mines/Landfill, NJ
Wide Beach Development, NY
Two-family residence
Petroleum contamination; residential area
Residential; closed municipal landfill
Residential community
Radium processing in basement of private home
Rural residential area
Iron ore mining and waste disposal
Housing and resort area; contamination from PCBi
-------
Table 5. Beneficial Uses at NPL Construction Completion Sites:
Current Use Recreational (8 Sites)
Site Name, State
Current Beneficial Use
Former Site Activities
Belvidere Municipal Landfill, 1L
Chisman Creek, VA
Gratiol County Golf Course, Ml
New Lyme Landfill, OH
Newport Dump, KY
Petcrsen Sand & Gravel, IL
Rose Park Sludge Pit, UT
oo Westtine Site, PA
Closed landfill; owned by County Conservation District
and included in park system
Recreational park facility with sports fields and walking
trails
Municipal golf course
Private landfill (80 acres) converted to wetlands and
recreational area
Informal recreation; reuse under consideration; Port
Authority owns one desirable riverfront location
Sand mining; future recreational lake; on floodplain
Park with playground and recreation fields
Seasonal recreational areas; restaurant/bar
Landfill (received municipal and industrial wastes)
Fly ash disposal site
Burning and disposal of industrial wastes
Landfill
Municipal and industrial waste dump
Sand and gravel mining; disposal area
Petroleum waste disposal
Lumber company converting wood into charcoal
-------
Table 6. Beneficial Uses at NPL Construction Completion Sites:
Current Other Economic Use (4 Sites)
Site Name, Slate
Current Beneficial Use
Former Site Activities
Big River Sand Co., KS
Matthews Electric Plating, VA
Pioneer Sand Company, FL
Silver Mountain Mine, WA
Continued sand mining
. Private use garage
Inactive quarry; 8 acres; returned to active use as a
sand quarry
Cattle grazing
Sand and gravel mining operation
Auto bumper repair and electroplating facility
Industrial waste dump
Precious metal extraction operation
VO
-------
Table 7. Beneficial Uses at NPL Construction Completion Sites:
Current Use Environmental (15 Sites)
Site Name, State
Current Beneficial Use
Former Site Activities
Bower's Landfill, OH
Cannon Engineering Corp., MA
Cecil Lindsey, AR
Chemical & Minerals Reclamation, OH
Conservation Chemical Co., MO
E.I. DuPont deNemours, IA
Fulbright/SAC River Landfills, MO
Highlands Acid Pit, TX
Keefe Environmental Services, NH
La Bounty, IA
Lee's Lane Landfill. KY
Lehigh Electric & Engineering Co., PA
Saco Tannery Waste Pits, ME
Velsicol Chemical Corp., Ml
Whitewood Creek, SD
Private landfill (80 acres) converted to wetlands
Unused; part of site wetlands
Inactive agricultural area; floodplain; adjacent to
wetland.
Vacant; floodplain
Fenced and vacant; floodplain; restricted area
Wildlife use; deed restrictions
Inactive landfill; on floodplain; deed restrictions
Fenced site with surrounding area used for recreation;
in 10-year floodplain
Wetland; cleanup ongoing
Vacant and inactive landfill; floodplain of Cedar River
Inactive landfill; floodplain of Ohio River
Vacant; on floodplain of Lockwanne River
Wildlife preserve
Fenced and posted lot adjacent to. Pine River
Unused; floodplain
Gravel pit operation
Illegal storage and incineration of hazardous waste
Salvage yard and industrial dump
Chemical reclamation facility
Chemical storage and disposal facility
Chemical manufacturer
Municipal and industrial landfill
Illegal dumping of sulfuric acid sludges
Hazardous waste building and treatment facility
Sludge disposal site
Landfill
Coal processing facility
Injection wells, lagoons, radioactive disposal area
Housing and livestock uses
-------
Table 8. Beneficial Uses at NPL Construction Completion Sites:
Current Use Waste Management (29 Sites)
Site Name, SUte
Current Beneficial Use
Former Site Activities
Algoma Municipal Landfill, Wl
Ambler Asbestos Piles, PA
Amnicola Dump, TN
Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc., TX
Burrows Sanitation, MI
Clothier Disposal, NY
Coker's Sanitation Service Landfills, DE
Combe Fill North Landfill, NJ
Compass Industries, OK
EH. Schilling Landfill, OH
General Tire & Rubber Co., KY
Helen Kramer Landfill, NJ
Industrial Waste Control, AR
Lawrence Todtz Farm, IA
Lewisburg Dump, TN
Marshall Landfill, CO
Monroe Township Landfill, NJ
Northside Landfill. WA
IS-acre municipal landfill site with fence
15-acre asbestos landfill; area fenced to restricted areas
IB-acre inactive construction debris landfill site; deed
restrictions
Closed 11-acre landfill with fences and warning signs •
10-acre municipal landfill site with fence
15-acre inactive municipal landfill with deed restrictions
Closed 25-acre landfill
Closed 65-acre municipal landfill
Abandoned 30-acre municipal/industrial landfill
Industrial/commercial landfill (3 acres)
Closed 58.5-acrc industrial landfill; ground water used
in plant operations
Closed 66-acre municipal landfill (with O&M)
Closed and covered 8-acre industrial landfil" previously
operated under permit
Fenced inactive landfill
Closed 20-acre municipal landfill; fence and deed
restriction
Closed/inactive 160-acre tana fill, methane recovery
ongoing
Closed 86-acre municipal landfill
Solid waste management unit; 345-acre municipal
landfill
Municipal landfill
Pharmaceutical and asbestos insulation manufacturer
Construction debris dump
Solid waste management facility
Municipal landfill
Privately owned dump
Solid waste disposal sites
Municipal landfill
Municipal and industrial landfill
Industrial waste landfill
Landfill for a tire manufacturing plant
Sand and gravel excavation
Liquid and to lid waste dump
Solid and liquid industrial waste disposal site
Limestone quarry
Municipal waste landfill
Municipal landfill
Commercial/residential landfill
-------
Table 8. (continued)
Site Name, Stale
Current Beneficial Use
: Former Site Activities
Northwestern States Portland Cement Co.,
IA
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill, MN
Old Bethpage Landfill, NY
Peppers Steel & Alloys. PL
Powersville Landfill, GA
South Brunswick Landfill, NJ
Taylor Borough Dump. PA
Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary
Landfill. NJ
Washington County Landfill, MN
Wildcat Landfill, DE
Windom Dump, MN.
Closed ISO-acre industrial landfill
Portland Cement producer
Closed 104-acre municipal and commercial landfill site; Sanitary landfill
capped unit; vacant
Closed 72-acre municipal landfill
Closed 6-acre industrial landfill (monolithe)
Capped 15-acre landfill with deed restrictions
Closed 68-acre municipal landfill
125-acre capped landfill
Inactive 14-acre landfill; area revegetated
Inactive 40-acre landfill
None; closed 44-acre landfill
It-acre closed landfill
Landfill for industrial process wastes and drums
Sand and gravel quarry
Solid waste landfill
Industrial waste landfill
Gravel pit/municipal landfill
Landfill
Municipal and industrial landfill
Landfill
-------
CHAPTERS BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
For a number of cases, old municipal and industrial landfills have been cleaned up, capped, and otherwise
made protective for human-health and the environment. There are 29 sites where the sole beneficial use is as a
closed landfill. The beneficial use of these huge sites has always been (and will be) as a waste management area.
In some cases, these landfills may eventually have a secondary beneficial use, such as recreation. In part, this
depends on their location and other amenities. Belvidere Municipal Landfill in Illinois is an example of this. The
Newport Dump in Kentucky is an old municipal and industrial waste dump located on a riverfront and is currently
used by the community for recreation. In other cases, landfills may coexist with other uses—such as industrial uses-
when part of the property is a landfill and the other part is useable for economic uses. An additional 10 sites that
are in some other kind of economic beneficial use (i.e., industrial, recreational) also have landfills present on site.
Fifteen sites on the CCL are in environmental use. Most are in floodplains; some are adjacent to wetlands,
as well. Two sites are now wildlife reserves. Two sites are also permanent waste management areas that are
located on floodplains and from which releases have now been controlled.
3.4 Analysis of Sites in Beneficial Use and Vacant Sites
A number of factors were analyzed separately and in relation to each other to assist in understanding the
nature of the CCL sites in use (both economic and noneconomic) and vacant. Among these factors are: physical/
population, location characteristics; geographic location (as reflected in EPA regional distributions); presence of
ongoing onsite waste management; property ownership; and the length of time that has expired since the last act
of physical construction on site (through removal or remedial action).
3.4.1 Location Categories Used to Analyze Beneficial Use. Some NPL sites are located in
densely populated areas (e.g., areas near major metropolitan districts) where land values are high. Such sites may
stay in or return to use within a. short time following cleanup. At the other extreme are NPL sites in remote areas
where economic use of the land after cleanup is unlikely. Most NPL sites fall somewhere between these two
extremes.
To examine patterns of use (and for the purposes of potential future evaluation of property value changes)
for construction completion sites, a system was developed to classify sites according to their location. Six location
categories are distinguished: urban, suburban, medium town, small town, rural, or remote. Location category
assignments were made for 191 CCL sites based on the population density in the area surrounding the site. The
distribution of 191 sites among the six location categories is shown in Figure 18.
The location categories are further subdivided to distinguish the surrounding land use (e.g., industrial use,
residential use) or a particular type of site (e.g.. landfill site). Table 9 lists the number of sites in 12 location/site
type categories, the number of sites in beneficial use, and the types of land use.
43
-------
CHAPTER 3
BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
Figure 18. Number of Sites by Location Category (191 sites)
The location categories are father subdivided to distinguish the surrounding land use (e.g., industrial use,
residential use) or a particular type of site (e.g., landfill site). Table 9 lists die number of sites in 12 location/site
type categories, the number of sites in beneficial use, and die types of land use.
Urban sites are located within large municipalities and have a population greater than 20.CXX) within Iniile.
Separate categories an distinguished fat urban industrial sites and for urban aonindnstrial sites. Suburban
sites have populations between 10,000 and 20,000 within 1 mile and are located near a Urge municipality of higher
population density. Separate categories axe distinguished for suburban indistnal sites, suburban sites with high-
tech electronics mantdJBCturing, and suburban residential sites. Suburban sites with high-tech electronics
manufacturing are distinguished as a separate category because the property values at such rites are closely linked
to their regional location and to their particular manufacturing use. Such sites are typically located very close to
suburban rpgvlfitfiffl sites.
Medium town sites are independent of, but sometimes economically related to larger municipalities and
have populations between 3,000 and 10,000 within 1 mile. People in such communities may shop or work in
44
-------
CHAPTERS
BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
Table 9. NPL Construction Completion Sites in Beneficial Use by Category/Site Type
Location category/site type
Number of sites
in category
Number of sites
in use1
Types of reuse
Urban industrial
Urban nonindustrial
Suburban industrial
Suburban high-tech electronic*
manufacturing
Suburban residential
Medium town industrial
Medium tcwn nonindustrial
Medium town landfill
Small town
Rural industrial
Rural nonindustrial
Remote
21
10
12
11
6
12
14
14
19
16
41
15
12 Manufacturing, commercial, storage, vehicle
maintenance, floodplain, wetlands, research lab,
closed waste management area
8 State office, active landfill, airport, recreation,
recycling, closed waste management area2,
floodplain
10 Commercial, manufacturing, metal working,
chemical research, warehouse, auto garage
11 Electronics manufacturing, other manufacturing
4 Residential, plant nursery, park
10 Manufacturing, commercial, warehouse,
storage, closed waste management area,
floodplain
8 Commercial, manufacturing, sports facility, golf
course, closed waste management area,
floodplain
13 Commercial, snnd quarry, park, recreation,
closed waste management area, floodplain
10 Metal coating, manufacturing, wood treatment,
airport, garage, closed waste management area,
wetlands
7 Manufacturing polyester resin, closed waste
management area
21 Manufacturing, mail coating, seasonal
recreation area, future recreational lake, sand
mining, private garage, commercial, floodplain,
wildlife reserve, closed waste management area
10 Cattle grazing, auto graveyard, floodplain,
closed waste management area, wildlife reserve
Total
191
124
'Includes five currently vacant sites with active plans for reuse.
3A waste management area is a closed municipal landfill.
-------
CHAPTERS BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
larger regional centers that are nearby. Separate categories are distinguished for medium town industrial sites,
medium town itonindustnal sites, and medium town landfill sites.
Small town sites also have populations between 3,000 and 10,000 within 1 mile. Small towns are
considered to be self-supporting, separate, and distinct from nearby larger towns. They are often located in rural
or remote areas.
Rural sites have populations between 250 and 3,000 within 1 mile. Area residents rely on larger
population centers and must travel for most goods and services. Separate categories are distinguished for rural
industrial sites and rural nonindustrial sites. Remote sites are characterized by sparse population density (i.e.,
fewer than 250 people residing within 1 mile). In general, accessibility to remote sites is limited; however, one
or more private residences may be nearby. Mining operations or agricultural uses (e.g., cattle grazing) may be the
predominant use of surrounding properties.
The highest number and percentage of sites in use are suburban sites. Of the 29 sites classified as
suburban in this study, only 4 are vacant. All of the remainder (86 percent) are in economic use. Medium town
sites have the next highest percent use, with 77 percent of the sites in use and 47 percent in economic use or reuse.
Urban sites have a smaller percentage of sites in use (65 percent) with 42 percent of the sites in urban locations in
economic use or reuse. Finally, remote areas have a relatively high percentage of properties in use (67 percent)
but only 2 sites (13 percent) of the sites in remote areas are in economic use. Forty-nine percent of the rural sites
are in some kind of use; only 23 percent are in economic use. As might be expected, both the largest number and
the highest percentage of vacant sites are found in rural areas. Figure 19 depicts the number of sites in economic
use, noneconomic use, and vacant for each of the 12 locational categories.
*
When this picture is examined from the perspective of the type of use, some fairly strong relationships
emerge. Of the 39 industrial sites, 46 percent are in the suburban locations, and 31 percent are in medium town
or rural locations. For the 25 commercial/light industrial sites, 40 percent are in urban locations, and 28 percent
are in medium town locations. Forty-one percent of the landfills are located in rural locations, and 24 percent in
medium town locations. One category of medium town locations is specifically called "medium town landfills* and
reflects the fact that numerous landfills are in the vicinity. Seven of the 29 sites for which the only use is as a waste
management area are located in 'medium town landfill" locations. Table 10 shows the distribution of beneficial
uses and vacant properties among location types.
46
-------
CHAPTERS
BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
45
40
35
30
Economic
Noneconomic
Figure 19. Ratio of 191 CCL Sites in Economic and Noneconomic Uses,
and Vacant by Location Category (191)
Table 10. Distribution of Uses Among Six Location Areas*
Urban (31)
Suburban (29)
Medium Town (40)
Small Town (19)
Rural (57)
Remote (IS)
Total (191)
Ind.
3
6
6
6
39
Comm./
Lt. Ind.
aao^saaaaaaaafliB«aa«
sssfplalsSwisiIss
4
2
1
1
25
Res.
1
1
4
Rec.
1
f^
•WSft^wS^
v -*•"
8
Other
1
w^-:-'
i
4
Wjt. Mgt.
3
/* ?{,s<—f ''*•
1
O . % •• .A
\ n -
6
29
Env.
<
~,^ ^4- »x "
'" 5 '
1
3
i
15
Vac.
11
4
9
9
* 2*
5
V*«r v5
•Highlighted boxes are largest concentrations of use types.
47
-------
CHAPTERS BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
3.4.2 Geographic Regional Distribution. While geographic location (part of the country) appears to
have some influence on the number of sites in use (both economic and noneconomic), it appears that relationship
is not always strong and that other factors such as locational type (e.g., urban, suburban) may play a stronger role
in most cases. (See above.)
*
As discussed in Chapter 1, EPA divides its Regions into geographic regions that are roughly coincident with
distinct parts of the country—Region 1, for example, is the New England Region; Region 4 the Southeast; Region
5 the Midwest; etc. Figure 20 suggests mat the geographic location in the country may play a limited role in
economic beneficial use. The rapidly growing Southeast Region (Region 4) has the second largest number of CCL
sites in the study, and the mini highest percent of sites in economic use. This high level of economic use is present
even though almost half of the Region 4 sites are in rural or remote locations.11 Rural and remote locations
generally have the highest number of vacant sites and sites in noneconomic beneficial use. Region 9 (which includes
California) shows a very high share of sites in economic use as does Region 8. The high use of the Region 9 sites
reflects the presence of Jl "suburban high-technology* sites that have been in continuous use throughout cleanup.
Appendix A lists CCL sites by EPA Region and State.
While 29 percent of the CCL universe are located in the three northeastern regions. 42 percent of the
landfills are located there—specifically in Regions 2 and 3. The heavy concentration of landfills reflects, in part,
the older industrial areas and the waste management practices associated with those areas. In addition, this large
percent of landfills clearly influences the number of sites in active economic use. Most of the other landfills are
in Regions 4 and S, .although they represent a somewhat smaller share of the CCL universe in those Regions.
3.4.3 Ownership Of Construction Completion Sites. Currently, 70 percent of the CCL sites are
in private ownership. Most of the rest—18 percent—are in a mix of local government ownership-city, county, or
town. Nine sites are owned by States. One site is owned by an airport authority.
When the relationship of current ownership to current use is examined, few surprises and few insights are
to be gained. All industrial use sites are privately owned as are most commercial sites. Fifty-eight percent of the
landfill sites are in private ownership, while the remainder are divided among local government (city,, town, or
county). Of the sites in environmental uses, 86 percent are in private ownership, as are 74 percent of the vacant
sites.
13Rural and remote locations generally have the highest number of vacant sites and sites in noneconomic
beneficial use.
48
-------
CHAPTERS
BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
100%
Figure 20. Percent of CCL Sites in each EPA Region in Economic Use
3.4.4 The Property Value Of CCL Sites. The economic value of the CCL list sites as measured by
their property value is, not surprisingly, influenced by the use of the property, the demographic/Iocational type of
the property, and, to a lesser extent, the geographic region of the country. Property values, based on assessed
property valuation (or value of a recent property transfer), were gathered on all sites in the CCL universe. These
values were normalized to 1992 dollars and, for comparison purposes, are further normalized to per acre property
values.14 Figure 21 shows the total number of acres in each location category. No attempt is made in the
discussion below to attribute a portion of property value to the cleanup itself. The per acre values presented
l4The CCL sites that are part of the study contain sites of vastly different acreage.
49
-------
CHAPTERS
BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
incorporate the value of the previously contaminated parcel, as well as those parts of the site that were not
contaminated. This examination of the property values and their relationship to beneficial uses is presented to help
provide a foundation for further possible studies in this area, and to help shape our understanding of the anticipated
distribution of that particular set of economic benefits.
Medium
Town
Figure 21. Acreage at CCL Sites (9,793 Total)
The total "current* value of properties (both the contaminated and uncontaminated portions of the property)
in the CCL universe that is part of this study is just over $203 million.19 The bulk of this number is made up of
properties in suburban, urban, and medium town locations. Almost half of the value is in suburban locations, with
urban and medium town locations comprising over one third of the total property value of CCL sites. Figure 22
presents the distribution of the total property values among each of these demographic/location types. As previously
discussed, industrial sites make up the largest number of sites in use (39). Among all of the categories of sites
15The 'current* value reflects data collected over a 5-year span in 1993 and 1994, but normalized to 1992
values.
50
-------
CHAPTERS
BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
(economic use, noneconomic use, and vacant), industrial sites nave the third highest acreage—1,425 (after
environmental uses at 2,728-acres, and vacant property at 2,231 acres). The total value of industrial sites is almost
$121 million. The total value of the 25 commercial sites is over $47 million. (See Figure 23.)
s
$100
Figure 22. Location Category Property Values
When per acre values of sites are considered, the results are more informative. The highest valued sites
in the CCL universe that is part of this study are 12 sites in California that are classified as Suburban High
Technology (industrial) sites. These sites have been in continuous use, and represent 71 percent of the value of
suburban sites. A closer examination of the data suggests a slightly different picture of the relationship between
demographicAocation type and post cleanup use. The average land value per acre of sites in economic use in
suburban locations versus urban locations suggests that value per acre of suburban sites is, on average, 4 percent
more than the value per acre of urban locations. When California sites are treated as outliers, the per acre value
of urban locations in economic use is significantly higher than the per acre value of the remaining suburban locations
in economic use. However, it is important to recognize that suburban properties have the lowest number of sites
51
-------
CHAPTERS
BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
in nonecononric use or vacant, and that the per acre value of the sites not in economic use in suburban areas is
significantly higher than the per acre value of sites not in economic use, in any other type of location—$22,109 per
acre for suburban properties not in economic use, compared to $5,679 per acre for the next highest valued locations
not in economic use (medium town sites)."
< ^ , % ,, x < %
''',/' * • vv X
-. f •• •. S* * ',** ' v\
Figure 23. Land Use Property Values
With California sites removed from the equi
, commercial properties have a significantly higher national
average per acre property value than industrial properties." The average per acre property value of commercial
sites in this instance is $84,966, and the average per acre property value of industrial sites drops to $41,940 per
acre. However, site types '(«-g-i urban, medium town) cm influence this relationship and reverse it in some
instances. Figures 24 and 25 depict the relationship between per acre property values for locational type and use
with and without the California numbers
beneficial uses, >n/^ vacant iri
17.
This statement refers to the national average value.
52
-------
CHAPTERS
BENEFICIAL USE OFNPL COMPLETIONS
100.000
250.000
200.000
150.000
I
UndUM
Suburban
MtodkMiTown
SmMTown
8JM Category
• Nonecenomic UMS tattoo* wacMt. WMM mt
Figure 24. Property Values as a Function of Land Use and Site Location
(California included)
53
-------
CHAPTERS
BENEFICIAL DSE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
280.000
300.000
1SO.OOO
100.000
UndUM
figure 25. Property Values as a Function of Land Use and Site Location
(minus California)
54
-------
CHAPTER 3 BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
Regional (geographic) location appears to play a relatively less significant role in most cases. Region 9
(Western, including California) has the highest pet acre property, value. EPA Region 5 (Midwest-headquartered
in Chicago) has the next highest per acre property values—$35,347 per acre. Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic) is next with
average per acre property values of $22,312, followed closely by Region 4 (Southeast) with average per acre
property values of $18,234. These averages combine the values for sites in economic use and jthose not in economic
use. With so many variables at work, « clear picture is not entirely possible. However, an examination of the per
rty value of sites not in economic use, along with the percent of sites located in the relatively more highly
valued locations and the percent of sites m the more hi^ily valued industrial and commercial uses, is suggestive of
the weight some of the factors mflnmrang these values. Regions 5, 3, and 4, after Region 9, have the highest per
acre property values, respectively sad appear to nave a mix of factors influencing these values.17 Region 5. for
example, has the highest per acre property value for sites not in economic use. It also has a relatively high
proportion of its sites in the more highly valued locations—urban, suburban, and medium town. Region 3 has a
lower per acre value of sites not in economic use. It also has a relatively smaller proportion of sites not in
economic use, as well as a relatively high concentration of sites (50 percent) in urban, suburban, and medium town
locations. Region 4 has one of the highest percentage of sites in economic use—after Regions 9 and 8. In addition,
the value of property not in economic use is relatively higher than most other Regions.
Table 11 depicts some of the relationships described above. In examining die table, it is important to note
that in several cases, very small numbers (e.g., one or two sites) make any conclusions difficult because the nature
of the few sites that form the basis for other numbers is extremely important, and there can be a wide variation in
value in sites within the same use category (e.g., commercial sites can be a relatively high valued restaurant, or a
relatively low valued storage area.)
3.4.5 Understanding Sites Not in Economic Beneficial Use. Many factors can influence whether
a CCL site will continue in economic use or will be used again. There is no evidence of a Superfund 'stigma" that
carries through cleanup and affects the future, use of the site, even after cleanup is complete. Other factors,
however, show a strong correlation to future economic use of property. One of the most important factors is the
location (i.e., proximity of the site to a major population center). A second important factor is the degree to
which the remedy constructed onsite leads to the permanent management of waste on site (e.g.. capping of large
landfills or g"""'!!/"*^ of the residuals of treatment) or whether ongoing ground-water cleanup may take a number
of years to i
the per acre values of all properties within a region are averaged. Region 9 has the highest per acre
values at $117.000, Region 5 is next at $35.000; followed by Regions 3 and 4 (at $22.000 and $18,000,
respectively.)
55
-------
CHAPTERS
BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
Table 11. Regional Comparison of Key Factors in Property Value
Region
. 1 (11 tics)
2 (20 site!)
3(24tite»)
4 (31 sites)
5 (39 sites)
6 (18 sites)
7 (14 sites)
8 (6 sites)
9 (17 sites)
10 (11 sites)
Per Acre
Property Value:
S*»ia
Kcooomlf Tftf
$28,654
$26,265
$49,139
$38.706
$63,201
$9,805
53*916
$7,329
$324,027
$139.790
Percent and
Number of Sites
Not in
Economic Use
82* (9)
60% (12)
58% (14)
52% (16)
64% (25)
72% (13)
64% (9)
33%(2)
12% (2)
82% (9)
Per Acre
Property Vane:
StoNotto
Economic Use.
$4.174
$7,176
$4.153
$6.216
$8.748
$3.944
$1.124
$ 279
$2.073
$3.466
Percent of SEes
in Commercial/
Industrial Use
18%
30%
25%
42%
31%
28%
21%
50%
88%
9%
Percent of Sites
in Urban,
Suburban, and
Medium Town
Locations
45%
50%
50%
45%
59%
50%
57%
75%
76%
55%
Role of Location For Sties in Noiueonomie Use and Vacant, The role of location for sites in use or reuse
was described in Section 3.4.1. When examining the relationship of location to noneconomic uses or to vacancy,
correlations are quite strong.
Of the 100. sites in urban, suburban, or medium town locations, 57 percent are currently in economic
beneficial use. Of the 91 sites in small town, rural, and remote locations, 25 percent are in current economic use.
The remainder are in noneconomic use or vacant As shown previously in Table 10, landfills are heavily
concentrated in medium town, rural, and remote locations. Eighty-six percent of those sites solely in use as
permanent waste management areas are in medium town, rural, and remote locations.
Sixty-four pmrnf of vacant properties (43 sites) are concentrated in small town, rural, and remote
locations. (See Table 10.) Fourteen percent are in medium town locations, and 22 percent are in urban and
suburban locations. Figure 26 shows the distribution of vacant property among broad location categories.
56
-------
CHAPTERS
BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
80%
70
Figure 26. Sites Not Currently in Beneficial Use (67)
Role of Waste Management on Sites in Noneconomic use or Vacant. The cleanup of Superfund sites often
requires the management of waste products long into the future. This happens for a number of reasons:
• In most cases, it is not practical to remove or treat the waste from large landfill sites. Many sites on
the NPL were designed as municipal, solid waste, or industrial waste management facilities. Created
before current waste management practices were in place, these sites can cause significant
environmental degradation. Their size can range from 3 to 6 acres to hundreds of acres. The
approach to such sites is usually to treat highly contaminated areas (also called "hot spots') and design
an effective container or 'cap* over the site, plant grass, vent methane gases that might release, and
as appropriate, treat ground-water releases that have already occurred.
• Large volumes of low waste concentrations of contaminated soil may be consolidated into a protected
area on site and managed similarly to landfills.
• When waste is treated, residuals of the waste treatment process often remain. When these residuals
continue to contain hazardous constituents, they will often be managed in a secure area on site (or
transported to an offsite hazardous waste landfill).
• Finally, the cleaning of ground water often takes many years. As has been previously described,
when construction of ground-water remedies is complete, but the treatment is ongoing, these sites are
placed in a special category of the CCL called the Long Term Remedial Action (LTRA) list.
57
-------
CHAPTERS BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
When waste is left onsite, deed restrictions and other institutional controls can ensure that exposure to the managed
waste is prevented, and that the integrity of the remedy is not breached. In addition, EPA reviews the site at least
every 5 years to ensure that the remedy remains protective.
The data from this study suggest that when waste continues to be managed onsite, it has an impact on the
immediate economic use of the property. Other variables may also play a role—such as location in rural areas, part
of the country, etc. This study does not attempt to distinguish the impact of the variables. Nonetheless, clear
patterns emerge that suggest that onsite waste management is at least an issue in economic use or reuse of sites.
Of the 172 sites where the land surface has been made safe, 86 sites have been cleaned to unrestricted use
(meaning the sites present no threat to human health and the environment in any potential use scenario—residential,
child care, etc.), and 86 sites continue to have waste managed on the land surface of the site. Of these sites, 29
are large landfills whose sole current use is as a permanent waste management area. (As noted in the discussion
that follows, eight other landfills are in other noneconomic or economic use.) In addition, 33 of the 86 sites where
the land has been cleaned for unrestricted uses have an ongoing pumping and treating operation that is cleaning the
ground water. Most of these have deed restrictions in place that restrict the use of ground water until cleanup levels
are achieved. (Forty-one of those sites with surface waste contained on the land also have a ground-water pump
and treat operation underway.) Figure 2? shows the distribution of types of waste management that may be ongoing
among the 119 sites with surface management of waste or ground-water management (but no surface management).
Altogether, 45 percent of the CCL universe in this study have continued waste management on the land
surface, and 17 percent have ongoing ground-water pump and treat, but no surface waste management. These
percentages, however, divide unevenly between the sites in noneconomic use or vacant and the sites in economic
use or reuse. Of the sites in noneconomic use or vacant, S3 percent have surface waste contained onsite, as
compared to 35 percent of the sites in economic use. The impact of ongoing ground-water pump and treat appears
to be relatively insignificant. Forty-eight percent of those sites with ongoing ground-water cleanup and no surface
containment are in noneconomic use or vacant Fifty-two percent of that universe are in economic use. Figure 28
graphically describes these relationships.
•)
Landfills represent approximately 20 percent of the total Superfund universe and the same percent of the
CCL that is part of this study. This includes 29 sites (80 percent) where the sole use is as a landfill and 10
additional landfills with some economic use. The beneficial use of the sites solely in use as a landfill was originally
as a waste management area and will continue to be into the future. One landfill on the CCL continues in economic
use as a nonhazardous Waste landfill. Other economic uses occur when a portion of the site does not contain a
landfill. Monsanto Corporation in Georgia is an active industrial facility with two landfills onsite. The Belvidere
Municipal Landfill in Illinois has been turned into a recreation area and park by the location community. Table 8
58
-------
CHAPTERS
BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
'
Surface Containment
v^--->^:«t
"^
F:gur£ 27. Completed Sites With Waste Management Ongoing
60%
50
Figure 28. Role of Ongoing Waste Management in Economic Use or Reuse
59
-------
CHAPTERS BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
describes those landfills that are on the CCL and whose sole use is a permanent waste repository. These landfills
range in size from 3 acres (one site) to 345 acres, with the most common size range being 15 to 75 acres.
Other factors, such as environmental value, may play a role in why sites are not in economic use. Fifteen
sites on the CCL are exclusively in an environmental use as a floodplain, wetland, or wildlife reserve. While some
of the floodplain areas may be subject to pressure for future development, arguably their current use is due to
environmental laws and regulations for flood control, wetlands protection, habitat enhancement, and other benefits.
It could be argued that the value of these areas for such environmental use has been increased through the removal
of contaminants from soil, sediments, ground water, and/or surface water.
A focused look at 72 sites on the CCL examined impediments to economic use at these sites." This
examination yielded results that amplify some of the factors discussed above and show the interaction of some of
these factors.
• Twenty-two of the 72 sites are large landfills (from the list of 29 permanent waste management
areas). The presence of waste managed onsite and associated deed restrictions supporting use
limitations are perceived as major impediments to economic use or reuse.
• Twenty-five of the 72 sites have no identified impediments to use. Twenty of these are currently in
use; five sites with no impediments to use are vacant; and four are also in rural locations.
• Of the 25 sites with impediments to economic use that are not landfills, 17 sites are vacant. Twelve
of these vacant sites are in rural, remote, or small town locations with no economic drivers for use.
All but two of the vacant sites have surface waste managed onsite or an ongoing ground-water pump
and treat operation or both.
The Role of Timing in Economic Use and Reuse. A question that frequently arises concerning the
economic use of Superfund sites is the degree of impact that the timing of a recently completed cleanup has on
whether a site has yet gone into economic use. To answer this question, the study compared the last date of
physical construction (through either a removal or remedial action) at vacant sites in comparison to those sites in
As reflected on Figure 29, there is no current evidence that the date of actual construction completion has
had any impact on the economic use of the properties in this study. This, in part, reflects the fact that most of the
l8These 72 sites were simply all of the last 72 sites on which data were gathered and were not designed to be
reflective of the universe. Data were collected through interviews with regional RPMs, State managers, tax
assessors, and real estate personnel.
19Data on the completion of the last cleanup action were obtained from EPA's CERCLIS data base.
60
-------
CHAPTERS
BENEFICIAL USE OF NPL COMPLETIONS
sites in economic use have been in continuous use, even prior to cleanup. However, over time, this picture could
change. Because almost 60 percent of the completions have occurred since 1990, the impact of a time lag on vacant
properties may not yet have occurred.
1982 1983 19841985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 19911992 1993 1994
•• mm Vacant Sites
mmmmm Site* with Economic UMS
Figure 29. Timing Analysis of CCL Sites - Vacant vs. Economic Uses
61
-------
APPENDIX A
NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SITES
63
-------
APPENDIX A NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SITES
APPENDIX A: NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SITES
A.1 Introduction
Appendix A contains the following information on National Priorities List (NPL) construction completion
sites examined in this study:
• Definition of Location/Area Categories.
• List of 191 NPL Construction Completion Sites included in Beneficial Use Study. Sites are listed by
EPA Region. The location category is listed for each site.
• List of 37 NPL Construction Completion Sites not included in the study. Sites are listed by EPA
Region. The reason each site is omitted is listed.
A.2 Definition of Location/Area Categories
For the purposes of the beneficial use study, a site is classified as an urban site if it is located in a large
municipality and has a population greater than 20,000 within 1 mile. A total of 31 sites, 16 percent of the 191 sites,
are located in urban areas. Separate categories are distinguished for urban industrial sites and for urban
nonindustrial sites. Sites located in areas dominated by heavy industry are designated urban industrial. Sites
designated as nonindustrial are typically located near industrial areas, but residential areas are also nearby.
Suburban sites have populations between 10,000 and 20,000 within 1 mile and are located near a large
municipality of higher population density. A total of 29 sites, about 15 percent of the sites in the study, are
suburban sites. Separate categories are distinguished for suburban industrial sites, suburban sites with high-tech
electronics manufacturing, and suburban residential sites. Suburban industrial sites are located in areas where
heavy industry is the predominant land use. Suburban sites with high-tech electronics manufacturing are
distinguished as a separate category because the property values at such sites are closely linked to their regional
location and to their particular manufacturing use. Such sites are typically located very close to suburban residential
sites. Suburban residential sites are in areas where residences surround and characterize the land use.
Medium town sites are independent of large municipalities and have populations between 3,000 and 10,000
within 1 mile. A total of 40 sites, about 21 percent of the total number of sites in the study, are in medium towns.
Separate categories are distinguished for medium town industrial sites, medium town landfill sites, and medium
town nonindustrial sites. Industrial sites are located in areas where heavy industry is the predominant land use.
Landfill -sites may be active or inactive sites that have received both municipal and industrial wastes in the past.
65
-------
APPENDIX A NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SITES
>
Sites that are located in medium towns and not characterized as industrial or landfill sites are grouped together in
the category called medium town nonindustrial.
Small town sites have populations between 3,000 and 10,000 within 1 mile. Small towns are considered
to be self-supporting, separate, and distinct from nearby larger towns. A total of 19 sites, about 10 percent of the
total number of sites in the study, are located in small towns.
Rural sites have populations between 250 and 3,000 within 1 mile. Area residents rely on larger
population centers and must travel for most goods and services. A total of 57 sites, about 30 percent of the sites
in the study, are located in rural sites. Rural industrial sites are located in areas with industrial operations. Most
rural location sites, however are not in industrial areas and ire grouped together in a category called rural
nonindustrial sites.
Remote sites are characterized by sparse population density, (i.e., fewer than 250 people residing within
1 mile). Accessibility to remote sites is limited, in general, although one or more private residences may be nearby.
Mining operations or agricultural uses (e.g., cattle grazing) may be the predominant use of surrounding properties.
Fifteen sites, about 8 percent of the total 191 construction completion sites analyzed, are classified as remote.
66
-------
APPENDIX A
NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SITES
Table 12. List of 191 NPL Construction Completions Included in Study
ERA. Region Site name
1 Cannon Engineering Corp.
Darling Hill Dump
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.
_-__r _ . .
Keeie environmental services
McKin Company
Mottolo Pig Farm
Plymouth Harbor/ Cannon
Engineering Corp.
Revere Textile Print Corp.
Saco Tannery Waste Pits
Sylvester's/Gilson Road
Western Sand & Gravel
2 Action Anodizing Plating and
Polishing
BEC Trucking
BioClinical Laboratories
C & J Disposal Leasing Co.
Dump
Clothier Disposal
Combe Fill North Landfill
Friedman Property
Goose Farm
Helen Kramer Landfill
Krysowaty Farm
Monroe Township Landfill
Old Bethpage Landfill
Ringwood Mines/ Landfill
State
MA
VT
NH
NH
ME
NH
NH
CT
ME
NH
RJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NJ
Location category
Urban industrial
Rural nonindustrial
Medium town industrial
Rural nonindustrial
Rural nonindustrial
Rural nonindustrial
Urban industrial
Medium town industrial
Rural nonindustrial
Medium town landfill
Rural industrial
Suburban industrial
Medium town industrial
Suburban industrial
Small town
Remote
Small town
Rural nonindustrial
Rural nonindustrial
Rural nonindustrial
Suburban residential
Rural nonindustrial
Medium town landfill
Medium town landfill
67
-------
APPENDIX A
NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SITES
Table 12. (continued)
EPA Region
Site name
State
Location category
2 (continued)
South Brunswick Landfill
Tabernacle Drum Dump
Tronic Plating Co.
Upper Decrfidd Township
Vineland State School
Wide Beach Development
Witco Chemical Corp.
NJ Rural nonindustrial
NJ Remote
NY Medium town industrial
NJ Remote
NJ Medium town nonindustrial
NY Suburban residential
NJ Suburban industrial
Ambler Asbestos Piles PA
Bruin Lagoon PA
C & R Battery Co., Inc. VA
Chemical Metals Industries MD
Chisman Creek VA
Coker's Sanitation Service DE
Landfills
Enterprise Avenue PA
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard PA
Henderson Road Site PA
Kimberton Site PA
Lansdowne Radiation Site PA
Leetown Pesticide WV
Leblgh Electric & PA
Engineering Co.
Matthews Electric Plating VA
Mid-Atlantic Wood MD
Preservers, Inc.
Middletown Road Dump Site MD
New Castle Spill Site DE
Medium town nonindustrial
Rural industrial
Rural nonindustrial
Urban nonindustrial
Medium town nonindustrial
Rural nonindustrial
Urban nonindustrial
Remote
Small town
Rural nonindustrial
Suburban residential
Rural nonindustrial
Medium town industrial
Rural nonindustrial
Small town
Suburban residential
Medium town industrial
68
-------
APPENDIX A
NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SITES
Table 12.
EPA Region Site name
3 (continued) Route 940 Drum Dump
SealandLtd.
Taylor Borough Dump
Voortman Fann
Wade (ABM)
Westline Site
Wildcat Landfill
4 A.L. Taylor
(Valley of the Drums)
Alpha Chemical Corp.
Amnicola Dump
Brown Wood Preserving
Celanese Corp. Shelby Fibers
Chemtronics Inc.
City Industries
Distler Farm
Flowood Site
General Tire & Rubber Co.
Gold Coast Oil
Hollingsworth Solderless
Terminal
Independent Nail Co.
Lee's Lane Landfill
Lewisburg Dump
Luminous Processes, Inc.
Miami Drum Services
Monsanto Corp. (Angus)
(continued)
State
PA
DE
PA
PA
PA
PA
DE
KY
FL
TN
FL
NC
NC
FL
KY
MS
KY
FL
FL
SC
KY
TN
GA
FL
GA
Location category
Rural nonindustrial
Rural industrial
Medium town landfill
Rural nonindustrial
Urban industrial
Rural nonindustrial
Remote
Rural nonindustrial
Rural industrial
Urban industrial
Rural industrial
Rural nonindustrial
Rural industrial
Suburban industrial
Rural nonindustrial
Rural industrial
Rural industrial
Suburban industrial
Suburban industrial
Rural nonindustrial
Medium town landfill
Rural nonindustrial
Medium town nonindustrial
Urban industrial
Medium town industrial
69
-------
APPENDIX A
NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SITES
Table 12. (continued)
EPA Region
Site name
State
Location category
4 (continued) Mowbray Engineering Co. AL
Newport Dump KY
Parramore Surplus FL
Peppers Steel & Alloys FL
Perdido Groundwater AL
Contamination
Pioneer Sand Company FL
Powersville Landfill GA
SCRDI Dixiana SC
Tri-City Oil Conservation FL
Varsol Spill Site ' FL
Walcotte Chemical Co. MS
Wilson Concepts of Florida, FL
Inc.
Woodbury Chemical Co. FL
Rural industrial
Medium town landfill
Rural nonindustrial
Rural industrial
Remote
Medium town landfill
Remote
Rural nonindustrial
Suburban industrial
Urban nonindustrial
Medium town nonindustrial
Suburban industrial
Small town
A & F Materials Reclaiming, IL
Inc.
Algoma Municipal Landfill WI
Anderson Development Co. MI
Belvidere Municipal Landfill IL
Boise Cascade/Onan/ MN
Medtronics
Bower's Landfill OH
Burrows Sanitation MI
Cemetery Dump Site MI
Chem-Dyne Corp. OH
Chemical & Minerals OH
Reclamation
Rural industrial
Remote
Medium town industrial
Medium town landfill
Suburban industrial
Small town
Remote
Small town
Medium town nonindustrial
Urban industrial
70
-------
APPENDIX A
NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SITES
Table 12. (continued)
EPA Region
Site name
State
Location category
5 (continued) E.H. Schilling Landfill OH
FMCCorp. MN
General Mills/Henkel Corp. MN
Grand Traverse Overall MI
Supply Co.
Gratiot County Golf Course MI
Hedblum Industries MI
IMC Terre Haute East Plant IN
Johns Manville Corp. IL
LaSalle Electric Utilities IL
Laskin/Poplar Oil Co. OH
New Lyme Landfill OH
Northern Engraving Co. WI
Nutting Truck & Caster Co. MN
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill MN
Old Mill OH
Petersen Sand & Gravel IL
Poer Farm IN
Republic Steel Corp. Quarry OH
Schmalz Dump MI
Seymour Recycling Corp. IN
Tri-State Plating IN
Union Scrap Iron and Metal MN
Co.
U.S. Aviex MI
Velsicol Chemical Corp. MI
Washington County Landfill MN
Rural industrial
Urban industrial
Urban industrial
Medium town nonindustrial
Medium town nonindustrial
Small town
Urban industrial
Suburban industrial
Rural nonindustrial
Rural nonindustrial
Rural nonindustrial
Small town
Medium town nonindustrial
Rural nonindustrial
Small town
Rural nonindustrial
Rural nonindustrial
Suburban residential
Urban industrial
Medium town industrial
Small town
Urban industrial
Suburban industrial
Medium town nonindustrial
Medium town landfill
71
-------
APPENDIX A
NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SITES
Table 12.
EPA Region Site name
5 (continued) Wedzeb Enterprises, Inc.
Wheeler Pit
Wbittaker Corp.
Windom Dump
6 Bayou Sorrel Site
Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc.
Cecil Lindsey
Cimarron Mining Corp.
Compass Industries
Crystal City Airport
Dixie Oil Processors, Inc.
Geneva Industries/ Fuhrmann
Energy
Harris (Farley St.)
Highlands Acid Pit
Industrial Waste Control
Midland Products
Mid-South Wood Products
Pagano Salvage
Pesses Chemical Co.
Sol Lynn/Industrial
Transformers
Stewco, Inc.
Triangle Chemical Co.
7 Aidex Corp.
Arkansas City Dump
Big River Sand Co.
(continued)
State
IN
WI
MN
MN
LA
TX
AR
NM
OK
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
AR
AR
AR
NM
TX
TX
TX
TX
IA
KS
KS
Location category
Medium town nonindustrial
Rural nonindustrial
Urban industrial
Medium town landfill
Remote
Medium town landfill
Rural nonindustrial
Small town
Medium town landfill
Small town
Rural nonindustrial
Urban nonindustrial
Urban nonindustrial
Urban nonindustrial
Rural nonindustrial
Remote
Small town
Medium town nonindustrial
Urban nonindustrial
Urban industrial
Small town
Medium town nonindustrial
Rural industrial
Medium town landfill
Rural nonindustrial
72
-------
APPENDIX A
NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SITES
Table 12. (continued)
EPA Region Site name State
7 (continued) Conservation Chemical Co. MO
E.I. DuPont deNemours IA
Fulbrigbt/SAC River Landfills MO
Hydro-Flex, Inc. KS
John Deere (Ottumwa Works) IA
Johns' Sludge Pond KS
LaBdunty IA
Lawrence Todtz Farm IA
North-U Drive Well MO
Contamination
Northwestern States Portland IA
Cement Co.
Solid State Circuits, Inc. MO
8 Libby Groundwater MT
Contamination
Marshal Landfill CO
Mystery Bridge Road WY
Rose Park Sludge Pit UT
Whitewood Creek SD
Woodbury Chemical Co. CO
9 Applied Materials CA
Location category
Urban industrial
Remote
Medium town landfill
Medium town industrial
Medium town industrial
Urban nonindustrial
Medium town industrial
Rural industrial
Rural nonindustrial
Urban nonindustrial
Small town
Small town
Rural nonindustrial
Rural industrial
Suburban residential
Remote
Urban industrial
Suburban high-tech electronics
Advance Micro Devices, Inc.
Beckman Instruments
CTS Printex, Inc.
Del None Pesticide Storage
manufacturing
CA Suburban high-tech electronics
manufacturing
CA Rural nonindustrial
CA Suburban high-tech electronics
manufacturing
CA Rural nonindustrial
73
-------
APPENDIX A
NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SITES
Table 12.
EPA Region Site name
9 (continued) Fairchild Semiconductor
Corp.
Firestone Tire
Intel Corp. (Santa Clara #3)
Intel Magnetics
Intersil Inc. /Siemens
Components
Jibboom Junkyard
Mountain View Mobile Home
Estates
SOLA Optical USA. Inc.
Spectra Physics, Inc.
Synertek, Inc.
Teledyne Semiconductor
TRW Microwave Inc.
(Building 825)
10 Alaska Battery Enterprise
Allied Plating Inc.
ARRCOM (Drexler Ent.)
FMC Corp.
Joseph Forest Products
Northside Landfill
Silver Mountain Mine
Toftdahl Drums
United Chrome Products, Inc.
(continued)
State
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
AK
OR
ID
WA
OR
WA
WA
WA
OR
Location category
Suburban high-tech electronics
manufacturing
Suburban industrial
Suburban high-tech electronics
manufacturing
Suburban high-tech electronics
manufacturing
Suburban high-tech electronics
manufacturing
Urban nonindustrial
Small town
Medium town nonindustrial
Suburban high-tech electronics
manufacturing
Suburban high-tech electronics
manufacturing
Suburban high-tech electronics
manufacturing
Suburban high-tech electronics
manufacturing
Urban industrial
Urban industrial
Rural nonindustrial
Small town
Rural industrial
Urban industrial
Remote
Remote
Urban industrial
74
-------
APPENDIX A NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SITES
Table 12. (continued)
EPA Region Site name State Location category
10 (continued) Western Processing Co., Inc. WA Urban industrial
Yakima Plating Co. WA Urban industrial
75
-------
APPENDIX A
NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SITES
Table 13. List of 37 NPL Construction Completion Sites Not Included
in Beneficial Use Study
EPA Region
Site name
State
Reason not included
Town Garage/Radio Beacon
NH
Well head site, negligible land area
Beachwood/Berkeley Wells NJ
Cooper Road NJ
Katonah Municipal Well NY
Lodi Municipal Well NJ
M&T DeUsa Landfill NJ
Pomona Oaks Residential NJ
Wells
Suffera Village Well Field NY
Well head site, negligible land area
Negligible land area
Well head site, negligible land area
No action ROD1
Referred to another authority
Well head site,' negligible land area
Well head site, negligible land area
New Castle Steel
Presque Isle
Reeser's Landfill
Suffolk City Landfill
DE No action ROD1
PA Well head site, negligible land area
PA No action ROD1
VA No action ROD'
Beulah Landfill FL
Chemform, Inc. FL
PCB Spills, 243 miles of road NC
Triana/Tennessee River AL
No action ROD1
No action ROD1
Roadside, unspecified land area
Waterway, unspecified land area
Adrian Well Municipal Well
Field
American Anodco, Inc.
Charlevoix Municipal Well
Field
Eau Claire Municipal Well
Field
Lehillier/Mankato Site
Mason County Landfill
Metal Working Shop
MN
MI
MI
Well head site, negligible land area
No action ROD1
Well head site, negligible land area
WI Well head site, negligible land area
MN Well head site, negligible land area
MI No action ROD1
MI No action ROD1
76
-------
APPENDIX A
NPL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SITES
Table 13. (continued)
EPA Region
5 (continued)
•' " .
8
9
10
Site name
Morris Arsenic Dump
Novaco Industries
Twin Cities Air Force
Reserve Base
Whitehall Municipal Wells
Arsenic Trioxide Site
Celtor Chemical Works
Ordot Landfill
PCB Warehouse
PCB Wastes
Taputimu Farm
Lakewood Site
Pesticide Lab/Yakima
State
MN
MI
MN
MI
ND
CA
GU
GU
PT
SA
WA
WA
Reason not included
Unspecified land area
No action ROD1
Federal facility
Well head site, negligible land area
Unspecified land area
Indian Reservation; no information
available
Outside the U.S.
Outside the U.S.
Outside the U.S.
Outside the U.S.
No information available
Referred to another authority
'Occasionally, a site a lined on the NPL Out ii (hough! to be contaminated and for which subsequent investigation shows there is no risk. This
occurs because the investigation that is performed to list a site on the NPL is a screening investigation with limited information designed to ensure
that false negatives do not lead to a site not being listed that should be. If, after listing on the NPL, a more detailed investigation shows that
the site does not pose a risk to human health and the environment, a 'no action* Record of Decision (ROD) is signed to record that finding and
delete the site from the NPL.
77
-------
APPENDIX B
REMOVAL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
79
-------
APPENDIX B REMOVAL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX B: REMOVAL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
B.1 Introduction
As described in Chapter 1 of the Beneficial Use of NFL Completions report, -the removal program
undertakes cleanup actions at National Priorities List (NPL) and non-NPL sites to reduce risks, stabilize sites, or
cleanup contamination. Although not a major focus of mis study, 76 Fact Sheets in Volume 2 of this report describe
178 removal actions taken to reduce risk and make NPL and non-NPL sites safe. Although these sites reflect typical
removal actions, the sheer size of the removal universe (over 4,000 actions at over 3,000 NPL and non-NPL sites)
made selection of a representative sample of removal sites difficult In general, the 76 Fact Sheets found in Volume
2 of this report represent bom a larger average dollar value than the universe as a whole and are more likely to be
at NPL sites. In addition, the removal sites in this study are somewhat less likely to reflect immediate emergencies
and instead represent time critical or non-time critical actions with a different regional distribution than the universe
taken as a whole.1 Some of the environmental benefits amoristf^ with the removal program are described below.
B.2 Environmental Benefits Through Removal Actions
Removal actions are almost always oriented toward making the land surface safe. All 76 sites for which
Fact Sheets were prepared involved this media. At 24 percent of the total number of removal sites in this study
and 35 percent of the non-NPL sites, information available suggests that the cleanup of the land surface was a
'complete* cleanup that warranted no further action to be taken.2 The cleanup of the land surface can involve
removal of waste from the site (for disposal and/or treatment offsite), containment of waste onsite, treatment onsite,
or all three. Of the 18 sites for which a "complete" cleanup appears to have been achieved, 16 involved removal
of waste, and 2 of these also involved treatment. Of the two other sites, one involved treatment alone, while one
involved containment. For the mmmm^g 55 sites, 45 percent involved removal of waste, 29 percent involved
containment, 24 percent involved both (containment and removal), while 1 site involved treatment.
The value of removal actions at both NPL and non-NPL sites is measured by immediate threats eliminated
and by the risk reduced to human health and the environment through making contact with the land surface safe.
In addition, removal actions lead to the protection of other media by the removal or management of sources of
contamination on the land. At 26 percent of the removal examples in the study, immediate risks through
1 All comparisons are to the 1991 removal universe study summarizing characteristics of removal actions taken
between 1987 and 1991. All data on the 76 sites are taken from CERCLJS.
2Because the goal of the removal program is to reduce risk and eliminate mrnindiate threats, once a non-NPL
site is stabilized, generally the Superfund program is no longer involved.
81
-------
APPENDIX B
REMOVAL PROGRAM ACCC
exposure to fire and explosion were eliminated. At another two sites, clean water suppl
contaminated drinking water were provided. Finally, the protection of other media-particularly,
surface water—was achieved at a significant percent of the removal sites in this study. (See Figv
'•
•At aO sites, the land surface was made ater. At 34 sites, protection af other media was an explicit goal.
/
Figure 30. Protection of Other Media by Removal Actions at 34 Sites*
Cleanup of a Surface Contamination. Surface cleanup actions are the most common removal response
All removal sites in this study involved action to make the surface safe. Examples include:
82
-------
APPENDIX B REMOVAL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
• Removal actions at the Wells Finishing site in Massachusetts have rlirninp**** threats to the
environment and human health from onsite contamination and rna^n use of this commercial site
possible. The site contained open, leaking metal plating vats containing acids and caustics strong
enough to induce respiratory failure in anyone who touched the vats or breathed the fumes. Many
people lived and worked near the site. The contaminants onsite were shipped offsite for proper
disposal, and the threat of direct exposure and contamination of local surface waters was eliminated.
• The Jackson Ceramics Lead site in Falls Creek, Pennsylvania, was also cleaned up as a result of
removal actions. Transformers containing polycblorinated biphenyl (PCB), and flammable and
explosive solids and liquids wen found onsite. These contaminants were removed from the site. The
soil was also contaminated with lead residues from lead glazing operations conducted onsite.
Contaminated soils were removed and disposed of, thus alleviating the threats to local residents and
to wildlife in nearby surface waters.
Protecting Waterways. As discussed in relationship to the CCL sites, in many cases, cleanup of surface
contamination can be expected to also protect aquifers. An example of a removal action site where this occurred1
is:
• Removal activities at the Wycoff/Eagle Harbor site in Washington have protected the waterway and
wildlife habitat by cleaning contaminated sediments. The site was contaminated with polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from wood treating and shipyard operations. The contaminated
sediments in the harbor bottom are being covered with clean sandy sediments from another site.
Protecting Ecologically Sensitive Areas. An example of this is:
• As a result of emergency actions taken by the removal program at the Eastern Surplus Supply Co.
in Middybemps, Maine, an adjacent lake and river industry fisheries and spawning areas, a National
Wildlife Refuge, and a habitat for the Bald Eagle were protected from surface contamination. The
Eastern Surplus Supply Company retailed Army surplus and salvage material from 1946 until the mid
1980s. In addition to large volumes of scrap material, junked cars, old appliances, hazardous .
materials, «nd ammunition stored in dumps, compressed gas cylinders and S-gallon cans were found
and removed from the site, as were PCB-contaminated oils from electrical transformers and a trailer
filled with calcium carbide.
Prevention of Fire and Explosion, Twenty sites in the removal study achieved this objective. Numerous removal
actions have been taken to reduce or eliminate, the risk of fire and explosion from silos. An example of such a site
is:
• At the Arkansas Chemical site in Newark, New Jersey, over 20,000 drums, containers, and bags of
hazardous waste, as well as 100 cubic yards of asbestos, 5 unknown compressed gas cylinders, 15,000
gallons of contaminated liquid, and several radioactive ampules were removed, not only eliminating
. the threats at the site, but allowing the building to be made suitable for occupancy. The current
estimated property value is over $2 million.
83
-------
APPENDIX B REMOVAL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENT*
Reduction of Air Contaminants. Six removal sites in this study reduced threats associated with air contaminants.
• As a result of removal actions taken at the Nagel residence in Wayne County, Michigan, a densely
populated residential area was protected from the release of mercury vapors from a clandestine
smelting operation for recovering silver from dental amalgam being run out of the basement of a
three-bedroom residence. Elevated mercury levels were found inside the house, and all occupants
of the home subsequently died of complications due to mercury poisoning. The removal involved
decontaminating certain personal items, and sealing and placing the house under negative pressure to
prevent the release of mercury vapor. Mercury vapor in the house was converted to a salt, and some
of the walls were further encapsulated with latex paint Material was removed from the interior and
disposed of as a hazardous waste. The structure was demolished, and the basement floor and
foundation excavated and placed in an approved landfill. The current assessed value of the property
is $10,000.
Demonstrating Effectiveness of Innovative Treatment Technologies. Innovative treatment technologies include
cleanup approaches that are not considered to be established technologies. Examples of innovative approaches
developed to facilitate cleanup during removal actions are as follows:
r
• Waste recycling was the primary cleanup strategy at the Eastern Diversified Metals site in Rush
Township, Pennsylvania. More than 350-miUion pounds of plastic insulation waste were disposed of
onsite. Two recycling methods were used to remediate this site. The first was a bulk processing
method that converts "fluff* into a solid plastic mass. The second separates soil and debris from the
plastics, which are then formed into pellets. These can be used as raw materials in the manufacture
of new plastics or in concrete or blacktop.
• At the French Limited site in Harris County, Texas, an estimated 300,000 cubic yards of waste from
area petrochemical industries are being treated using bioremediation technology. Pumps are used to
mix lagoon liquids with thick sludges from the bottom of the lagoon. Contaminated soil beneath the
bottom sludge is dredged and mixed with other material in the lagoon. The activity of micro-
organisms already present in the lagoon is enhanced by nutrients injected into the sludge and
contaminated soil. Oxygen is forced into the mix to increase the rate of biological degradation of the
organic chemicals from the waste.
Restoring A Sense of Security. Restoring a sense of security to surrounding communities includes reducing
immediate threats, long-term actions to restore a site to beneficial use, and on-going monitoring of sites to ensure
that the threat has been removed. Examples of this include:
• The Fike/Artel Chemical site in Nitro, West Virginia, is located just across a busy railyard from
downtown Nitro. The site was used by a local specialty chemicals producer who, upon dissolution
of the company, abandoned the site. Responding to a request from the State, EPA Region 3
Emergency Response personnel secured the site and began to assess the extent of the chemicals and
mitigate the im"^ia** threat to the town. Approximately 2,500 drums and tanks were found in
various states of disrepair, a 30-pound cylinder of hydrogen cyanide, 56,000 pounds of metallic
84
-------
APPENDIX B REMOVAL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
sodium,3 9,600 gallons of methyl meicapun,4 as well as an assortment of bulk liquid and solid
materials of lesser threat. Because hydrogen cyanide is a lethal gas, nearby citizens of Nitro were
evacuated voluntarily for safety when the hydrogen cyanide cylinder was destroyed by the Emergency
Response Team. Nearby chemical companies assisted the cleanup effort by accepting the metallic
- sodium and methyl mercaptan. Nearly 10-million gallons of contaminated water were treated and
discharged, and other laboratory chemicals and equipment were removed for proper disposal. The
community response to this cleanup was so positive that the On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) were
made honorary citizens of Nitro. The site has been stabilized and is now ready for extensive surface
and subsurface cleanup.
• The Radium Chemical Company site is located in a densely populated urban area in Woodside, New
York, immediately adjacent to the Brooklyn-Queens expressway. The Radium Chemical Company
(now insolvent) handled sealed sources of radium-226 for use in cancer therapy. Several thousand
radioactive "needles* had been left onsite. Two rooms contaminated by other radioactive materials
also housed a large number of laboratory chemicals, including potentially shock-sensitive ethers and
other fiammables. A public health advisory was issued because of the concern that widespread,
radiation contamination would result if a fire occurred at the site. EPA immediately initiated 24-hour
site security and took other actions to avert a potential disaster. All radioactive materials were
removed to an approved radioactive waste disposal facility. The ether was destroyed onsite, and other
laboratory chemicals were removed. The immediate threat to nearby residents, businesses, and
motorists from a possible fire or explosion was eliminated. The abandoned building has been
dismantled, and excavation of contaminated soil was completed in March 1992.
Beneficial Use and Environmental Justice. The location of some Superfund sites, for example, in inner cities, may
result in an increase in exposure to onsite contaminants among specific subgroups of the population (i.e.,
minorities). Examples of these types of sites addressed by the removal program include:
• The Signo Trading International, Ltd. site is located in a densely populated inner-city area in Mount
Vemon, New York. Approximately 30,000 people live within a 0.5-mile radius of the site, and
numerous schools are located in the immediate area. The Signo site contained a large amount of
flammable liquids and solids, poisons, oxidizers, acids, alkalies, and air/water reactives as a result
of chemical trading and exporting operations.
Numerous.local residents near the Signo Trading site were treated at a hospital as a result of breathing
of vapors from the site. Removal actions at the site included destruction of hazardous materials and
detonation of explosives. The threats of fire, explosion, and direct exposure to toxic materials, and
contamination of surface water has been eliminated, and the buildings on site currently house other
businesses that provide jobs to the community.
'Metallic sodium reacts vigorously with water to form lye and hydrogen. Heat from the reaction can easily
ignite the hydrogen, resulting in an explosion.
'Methyl mercaptan is a gas similar to hydrogen sulfide, but with a stronger and more disagreeable odor of rotten
cabbage.
85
-------
APPENDIX B REMOVAL PROGRAM ACCOMPi
Cleanup at the American Street Tannery site in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, alleviated pot
to the surrounding densely populated inner-city neighborhood. The site contains
substances in drums, barrels, tanks, and bulk storage containers, posing a threat of fire c
Removal and disposal of these materials, as well as removal of the building on site, hav<
the reduction of threats to the neighboring community. The site is now ready for devel
86
-------
APPENDIX C
CCL/NPL COMPARISON METHODOLOGY
87
-------
APPENDIX C CCL/NPL COMPARISON METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX C: CCUNPL COMPARISON METHODOLOGY
C.1 Introduction
An analysis was conducted comparing the universe of sites on the National Priorities* List (NPL) to those
sites on the Construction Completion List (CCL). The purpose of the comparison was to examine, for the
categories compared, die degree to which die CCL is reflective of die NPL universe as a whole. A wide range of
comparison topics were considered before selecting die 12 categories that were compared in this study. The
categories selected were based cm a combination of the availability of data and the usefulness
comparing'die two groups. A key criterion for selection of categories was die degree to which that category could
be suggestive of die complexity of site cleanup.
C.2 Methodology
Table 14 provides a definition of die categories compared, along with die suggested reason for making the
comparison, die data sources used, and notes on use of specific data for some categories.
Analyses were conducted at a facility level as opposed to an operable unit (OU) level. However, in many
cases, information from die OU level was examined to determine die status of a site at die facility level. In general,
if a single OU at a site exhibited a certain characteristics, die facility as a whole was then considered to have that
characteristic.
For die most part, a field in one of die data base sources cited in Table C-l contained information necessary
for die aforementioned analyses. The field was analyzed, and die number of die various responses was tallied.
In order to m«iii*«i« a consistent approach across all of die comparisons, die number of sites contained in
die Remedial Project Manager (RPM) data base (1,244) was used as die basis for die NPL universe. The 1,244
sites in die RPM were selected because diese same sites were also found in all odier data bases used and because
die RPM data base was used more frequently as a basis for comparison than the other data bases.. The CCL
universe was comprised of die same 191 sites used throughout die Beneficial Uses Study.
89
-------
Table 14.
Description of Categories and Data Sources Used to Compare the
NPL Universe to the Completions Universe
Potential
Category
EPA Region
Federal Facility
Minority Population
Living Near Site
Site Type/Land .Use
(at time of
contamination)
RCRA Stilus
Site Size
Definition
Regions 1-10
Yet or No
% living within 1 • mile
ndiui of *ite
Mining
Commercial
Manufacturing
Recycling
Transportation
- Landfills
Yet (active or inactive)
or No
Site* are grouped in
acreage range*.
Reason for Comparison
Show* regional geographic
distribution of completed sites
compared to the distribution of
the universe.
A* of March 1994. Federal
facilities were only about 10%
of the total universe; however,
as of the dale of this report
focus (March 1994), no Federal
facilities were on the completion
list.
Addresses questions and
concerns of environmental
justice.
Information is available in
several data bases.
RCRA sites have the potential
to be more complicated tile*
and provide an indication of the
type* of wane* managed.
Size of lite may be an indicator
of the scale and complexity of a
site.
CEBCtIS
Data Sources
8NAW
/
RPMSIIiDfc"
/
/
/
/
••«. V.iSSir. ,
0PM"1
Ver-C Dtf*
NotCToulJMof DaUSourtia
. '
Data were available at the
OU level. Information was
tallied to give a presentation
at the facility level.
Multiple answers were given
to sites which hsd multiple
OUs with different land uses.
'
-------
Table 14. (continued)
Potential
Category
Ground-water
Contamination
Number of Operable
Uniti (OUi)/Site
Cleanup Lead
Cleanup Costi,
AIIOUi
Definition
Yet or No
- t-3 OUi
- 4-6 OUi
- 7 + OUi
Fund
- PRP
Federal facility
Estimated or actual
com acrou ranges
byOU.
Reason Tor Comparison
May help to illuminate
hypothesis that easier sites (not
involving ground-water
contamination) are cleaned up
•first.
May provide a further indicator
of site complexity.
May give an indication of
whether speed of cleanup is
influenced by the source of
funding.
Information for hypothesis that
cheaper sites may be cleaned up
first.
Data Sources
CERCtIS
/
J
SNAPS"
ftPMSlUDB"
/
/
(XW
OPMDB'8
Notes on Use of Data Sourcet
Data were available at the
OU level. Information was
tallied to give • presentation
at the facility level.
If ground water was
contaminated at a single OU
for a facility, ground water
was assumed to be
contaminated for the entire
facility.
Data were available at the
OU level. Information was
tallied to give a presentation
at the facility level.
Multiple answers were given
to sites which had multiple
OUs with different cleanup
leads.
Data were available at the
OU level. Information was
tallied to give a presentation
at the facility level.
Costa were given in ranges,
and the analysis was
performed on the number of
OUs per cost range.
Compared mostly fund
financed sites.
-------
Table 14. (continued)
Potential
Category
Removal Actions
Dale Listed on NPL
Definition
Number of sites
with removal
actions snd
Number of removal
actions/site:
0
1-3
4-6
- 7+
3-year ranges
Reason Tor Comparison
Addresses questions of whether
completed sites were able to be
cleaned up because they made
more active use of removals.
Are sites listed earlier being
cleaned up Tint? la there
evidence to suggest thai
completions are the older sites?
Data Sources
CEKCtlS
/
^
SNAW
KPM8IUDB"
bib*
Notes on Use of D«U Sources
Dat* were available at the
OU level. Information was
tallied to give a presentation
at the facility level.
s
(I) SNAPS is the Superrund NPL Characterization Project data base (up-to-date as of May 1995). Information originally from Supeifaul NPL CharacUrtuuion Project - National Kfsuits Report
EPA/540/8-91/069. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Publication 9345.1 -09-0. September 1991.
(2) RPM Site DB is the Remedial Project Manager Site Data Base. Information from .Users Guide to the RPM Site Data, EPA 540/R-94/04I. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Publication 9355.0.54, August 1994. NOTE: Uu Information tit tht KPU SUt DB toiOaiiu ttalus
Information on NPL tltit only up to August 1993.
(3) Versar Completion Data Base (March 1995).
(4) OPM (Office of Program Management) Lotus spreadsheet containing information on population and demographic information (September 5, 1995).
(5) OPM Lotus spreadsheet containing information on lead agencies and costs (August 24, 1995).
------- |