EPA
REGION 7
Progress at Region 7
National Priorities List (NPL)
Superfund Sites
KANSAS
July, 1993
726 Minnesota Ave, Kansas City, Kansas
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview 1
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up sites? 4
THE NPL FACT SHEETS:
29th and Mead Groundwater Contamination 11
57th and North Broadway Streets Site 13
Arkansas City Dump 15
Big River Sand Company 17
Cherokee County, Kansas 19
Doepke Disposal Holliday 22
Fort Riley 24
Hydro-Flex Inc 27
Johns Sludge Pond 29
Obee Road Site 31
Pester Refinery Co 34
Strother field 36
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets 39
-------
_^J---- -
INTRODUCTION
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a close, a series of
headline stories gave Americans a
look at the dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the land. First there
was New York's Love Canal. Hazardous
waste buried there over a 25-year period
contaminated streams and soil, and endangered
the health of nearby residents. The result:
evacuation of several hundred people. Then
the leaking barrels at the Valley of the Drums
in Kentucky attracted public attention, as did
the dioxin-tainted land and water in Times
Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human health and the envi-
ronment were threatened, lives were disrupted,
and property values were reduced. It became
increasingly clear that there were large num-
bers of serious hazardous waste problems that
were falling through the cracks of existing
environmental laws. The magnitude of these
emerging problems moved Congress to enact
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly known as Superfund
was the first Federal law established to deal
with the dangers posed by the Nation's hazard-
ous waste sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the problem until the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began the process of site discovery and site
evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste sites existed, and
they presented the Nation with some of the
most complex pollution problems it had ever
faced.
Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
A
Brief
Overview
ous waste has surfaced as a major environ-
mental concern in every pan of the United
States. It wasn't just the land that was con-
taminated by past disposal practices. Chemi-
cals in the soil were spreading into the ground-
water (a source of drinking water for many)
and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
sites, while improperly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
community and the environment at others.
The EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites
The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
sites as the most serious in the Nation. These
sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
mates that, while some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list, commonly called
the NPL, will continue to grow by approxi-
mately 50 to 100 sites per year, potentially
reaching 2,100 sites by the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL CLEANUP
EFFORT IS MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the program, Congress
recognized that the Federal government could
-------
INTRODUCTION
not and should not address all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target
Sites on the NPL (1,245) thus are a relatively
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and compelling cases. The
EPA has logged more than 35,000 sites on its
national inventory of potentially hazardous
waste sites and assesses each site within one
year of being logged.
THE EPA IS MAKING PROGRESS
ON SITE CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund program is to tackle
immediate dangers first and then move through
the progressive steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public health and the
environment
Superfund responds immediately to sites
posing imminent threats to human health and
the environment at both NPL sites and sites not
on the NPL. The purpose is to stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a release of
hazardous substances, or the threat of one, into
the environment. These might include tire
fires or transportation accidents involving the
spill of hazardous chemicals. Because they
reduce the threat a site poses to human health
and the environment, immediate cleanup
actions are an integral pan of the Superfund
program.
Immediate response to imminent threats is one
of Superfund's most noted achievements.
Where imminent threats to the public or
environment were evident the EPA has initi-
ated or completed emergency actions that
attacked the most serious threats of toxic
exposure in more than 2,700 cases.
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent solution to an environ-
mental problem that presents a serious threat
to the public or the environment This often
requires a long-term effort The EPA has
aggressively accelerated its efforts to perform
these long-term cleanups of NPL sites. More
cleanups were started in 1987, when the
Superfund law was amended, than in any
previous year. By 1991, construction had
started at more than four times as many sites as
in 1986! Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500nearly half have had
construction cleanup activity. In addition,
more than 400 more sites presently are in the
investigation stage to determine the extent of
site contamination and to identify appropriate
cleanup remedies. Many other sites with
cleanup remedies selected are poised for the
start of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through the
cleanup pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining
momentum.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup construction to understand that envi-
ronmental protection does not end when the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies like those designed to clean up ground-
water must operate for many years in order
to accomplish their objectives.
The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed. No matter
who has been delegated responsibility for
monitoring the cleanup work, the EPA will
assure that the remedy is carefully followed
and that it continues to do its job.
Likewise, the EPA does not abandon a site
even after the cleanup work is done. Every
five years, the Agency reviews each site where
residues from hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public and environmental
-------
INTRODUCTION
health are being safeguarded. The EPA will
correct any deficiencies discovered and will
report to the public annually on all five-year
reviews conducted that year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also depend upon local
citizen participation. TheEPA'sjobisto
analyze the hazards and to deploy the experts,
but the Agency needs citizen input as it makes
choices for affected communities.
Because the people in a community where a
Superfund site is located will be those most
directly affected by hazardous waste problems
and cleanup processes, the EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in cleanup decisions.
Public involvement and comment does influ-
ence EPA cleanup plans by providing valuable
information about site conditions, community
concerns, and preferences.
The State and U.S. Territories volumes and the
companion National overview volume provide
general Superfund background information
and descriptions of activities at each NPL site.
These volumes clearly describe what the
problems are, what the EPA and others partici-
pating in site cleanups are doing, and how we,
as a Nation, can move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES TOGETHER
To understand the big picture on hazardous
waste cleanup, citizens need to hear about both
environmental progress across the country and
the cleanup accomplishments closer to home.
Citizens also should understand the challenges
involved in hazardous waste cleanup and the
decisions we must make, as a Nation, in
finding the best solutions.
The National overview, Superfund: Focusing
on the Nation at Large (1991), contains impor-
tant information to help you understand the
magnitude and challenges facing the
Superfund program, as well as an overview of
the National cleanup effort. The sections
describe the nature of the hazardous waste
problem nationwide, threats and contaminants
at NPL sites and their potential effects on
human health and the environment, vital roles
of the various participants in the cleanup
process, the Superfund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's serious hazardous
waste sites, and the current status of the NPL.
If you did not receive this overview volume,
ordering information is provided in the front of
this book.
This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
up under the Superfund program. These sites
represent the most serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation and require the most
complicated and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each book gives a "snapshot" of
the conditions and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site. Information
presented for each site is current as of April
1991. Conditions change as our cleanup
effons continue, so these site summaries will
be updated annually to include information on
new progress being made.
To help you understand the cleanup accom-
plishments made at these sites, this volume
includes a description of the process for site
discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
cleanup of Superfund sites. This description,
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up
Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
which to review the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.
-------
.SUPERFUND
The diverse problems posed by hazard-
ous waste sites have provided the EPA
with the challenge to establish a consis-
tent approach for evaluating and cleaning up
the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, the
EPA has had to step beyond its traditional role
as a regulatory agency to develop processes
and guidelines for each step in these techni-
cally complex site cleanups. The EPA has
established procedures to coordinate the
efforts of its Washington, D.C. Headquarters
program offices and its front-line staff in ten
Regional Offices, with the State and local
governments, contractors, and private parties
who are participating in site cleanup. An
important pan of the process is that any time
How Does the
Program Work
to Clean Up
Sites?
THREE-STEP SUPERFUND PROCESS
STEP1
Discover site and
determine whether
an emergency
exists*
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
environment
STEP 3
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process.
during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible
for site contamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
flow diagram above provides a summary of the
three-step process.
Although this book provides a current "snap-
shot" of site progress made only by emergency
actions and long-term cleanup actions at
Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads
to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
-------
SUPERFUND.
waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this
summary description of Superfund involve-
ment at hazardous waste sites.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND
EMERGENCY EVALUATION
How does the EPA learn about
potential hazardous waste sites?
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways.
Information comes from concerned citizens.
People may notice an odd taste or foul odor in
their drinking water or see half-buried leaking
barrels; a hunter may come across a field
where waste was dumped illegally. There may
be an explosion or fire, which alerts the State
or local authorities to a problem. Routine
investigations by State and local governments
and required reporting and inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about actual or potential threats of
hazardous substance releases. All reported
sites or spills are recorded in the Superfund
inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
What happens If there Is an Imminent
danger?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
reported, the EPA determines whether there is
an emergency requiring an immediate cleanup
action. If there is, they act as quickly as
possible to remove or stabilize the imminent
threat. These short-term emergency actions
range from building a fence around the con-
taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
rarily relocating residents until the danger is
addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
dents while their local drinking water supply is
being cleaned up or physically removing
wastes for safe disposal
However, emergency actions can happen at
any time an imminent threat or emergency
warrants them. For example, if leaking barrels
are found when cleanup crews start digging in
the ground or if samples of contaminated soils
or air show that there may be a threat of fire or
explosion, an immediate action is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
If there Isn't an Imminent danger, how
does the EPA determine what, If any,
cleanup actions should be taken?
Even after any imminent dangers are taken
care of, in most cases, contamination may
remain at the site. For example, residents may
have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contami-
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up. The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so any long-term threats
need to be evaluated. In either case, a more
comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious, but not
imminent, danger and whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-
mation not only from their own files, but also
from local records and U.S. Geological Survey
maps. This information is used to identify the
site and to perform a preliminary assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the
questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
SUPERFUND
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or
natural resource area such as a wetland
or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land,
water, air, people, plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that
they do not threaten public health or the envi-
ronment. But even in these cases, the sites
remain listed in the Superfund inventory for
record-keeping purposes and future reference.
Currently, there are more than 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.
If the preliminary assessment
shows a serious threat may exist,
what's the next step?
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional
information to evaluate its hazard potential.
During this site inspection, they look for
evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking
drums and dead or discolored vegetation.
They may take some samples of soil, well
water, river water, and air. Inspectors analyze
the ways hazardous materials could be pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access to
the site.
How does the EPA use the results of
the site Inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
The HRS is the scoring system the EPA uses to
assess the relative threat from a release or a
potential release of hazardous substances from
a site to surrounding groundwater, surface
water, air, and soil. A site score is based on
the likelihood that a hazardous substance will
be released from the site, the toxicity and
amount of hazardous substances at the site, and
the people and sensitive environments poten-
tially affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and envi-
ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on the
NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can
have a long-term cleanup paid for from
Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
fund. Superfund can, and does, pay for emer-
gency actions performed at any site, whether
or not it's on the NPL.
Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious
problems among uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites in the U.S. In addition, a
site will be proposed to the NPL if the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
issues a health advisory recommending that
people be moved away from the site. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in
which sites will be cleaned up. The order is
influenced by the relative priority of the site's
health and environmental threats compared to
other sites, and such factors as State priorities,
engineering capabilities, and available tech-
-------
SUPERFUND.
nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.
A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.
How do people find out whether the
EPA considers a site a national
priority for cleanup under the
Superfund Program?
All NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
After a site Is added to the NPL, what
are the steps to cleanup?
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent, long-term cleanup.
Since every site presents a unique set of chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:
1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
detail the extent of the site contamination
2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
possible cleanup remedies
3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
which remedy to use
4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy
5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy
This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity study (RI/FS) that determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and identify
and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These
studies may be conducted by the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private
parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, the remedial investigation
is much more detailed and comprehensive than
the initial site inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described
as a carefully designed field study. It includes
extensive sampling and laboratory analyses to
generate more precise data on the types and
quantities of wastes present at the site, the type
of soil and water drainage patterns, and specific
human health and environmental risks.
The result of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
.SUPERFUND
a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose
of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
Identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called a feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered effective. Often, special pilot studies are
conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to
clean up a site. Therefore, the combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study can
take between 10 and 30 months to complete,
depending on the size and complexity of the
problem.
Does the public have a say in the
final cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made.
The results of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, which also point out the
recommended cleanup choice, are published in
a report for public review and comment. The
EPA or the State encourages the public to
review the information and take an active role
in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets and
announcements in local papers let the commu-
nity know where they can get copies of the
study and other reference documents concern-
ing the site. Local information repositories,
such as libraries or other public buildings, are
established in cities and towns near each NPL
site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
to review all relevant information and the
proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
tion repositories for each NPL site described in
this volume are given in Appendix B.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
is published. These comments can be written
or given verbally at public meetings that the
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
ing written answers to specific community
comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
summary" is pan of the EPA's write-up of the
final remedy decision, called the Record of
Decision, or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains
the cleanup remedy chosen and the reason it
-------
SUPERFUND.
was selected. Since sites frequently are large
and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD may
be necessary for each contaminated resource or
area of the site. This may be necessary when
contaminants have spread into the soil, water,
and air and affect such sensitive areas as
wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned
up in stages. This often means that a number
of remedies, using different cleanup technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.
If every cleanup action needs to be
tailored to a site, does the design
ofthe remedy need to be tailored,
too?
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried
out, it must be designed in detail to meet
specific site needs. This stage ofthe cleanup is
called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected rem-
edy will be engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may
appeal- to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to two years to
complete. This blueprint for site cleanup
includes not only the details on every aspect of
the construction work, but a description of the
types of hazardous wastes expected at the site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
how long does it take to actually
clean up the site, and how much
does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site
cleanup, called the remedial action, are as
varied as the remedies themselves. In a few
cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or
dredging contaminated river bottoms can take
several years of complex engineering work
before contamination is reduced to safe levels.
Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site.
Once the cleanup action is
completed, Is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected
-------
.SUPERFUND
remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
until public comments are taken into consid-
eration that a site actually can be deleted from
the NPL. All sites deleted from the NPL and
sites with completed construction are included
in the progress report found later in this book.
Can a site be taken off the NPL if
no cleanup has taken place?
Yes. But only if further site investigation
reveals that there are no threats present at the
site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
sary. In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
action" remedy and may move to delete the
site when monitoring confirms that the site
does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
the NPL if new information concerning site
cleanup or threats show that the site does not
warrant Superfund activities.
A site may be removed if a revised HRS
scoring, based on updated information, results
in a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
A site also may be removed from the NPL by
transferring it to other appropriate Federal
cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
cleanup actions.
Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
serves Superfund monies for the Nation's most
pressing hazardous waste problems where no
other cleanup authority is applicable.
Can the EPA make parties
responsible for the contamination
pay?
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters
should pay," after a site is placed on the NPL,
the EPA makes a thorough effort to identify
and find those responsible for causing con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
EPA is willing to negotiate with these private
parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it
has the authority under the Superfund law to
legally force those potentially responsible for
site hazards to take specific cleanup actions.
All work performed by these parties is closely
guided and monitored by the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for actions
financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the EPA may decide to use Superfund
monies to make sure a site is cleaned up
without unnecessary delay. For example, if a
site presents an imminent threat to public
health and the environment or if conditions at a
site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for
causing site contamination are liable under the
law (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.
10
-------
29TH & MEAD
GROUND WATE
CONTAMINATIO
KANSAS
EPA ID# KSD007241656
REGION 7
jwick County
Wichita
Site Description
The 29th & Mead Ground Water Contamination site covers approximately 1,440 acres at the
intersection of 29th and Mead Streets in a highly industrialized area of Wichita. Studies
conducted from 1983 to 1986 by the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment
(KDHE) and the U.S. Geological Survey confirmed heavy metals and organic contamination
in shallow wells on and around the site. The actual boundary and the extent of groundwater
contamination have not been clearly defined. There are several potential industrial sources of
contamination in the area that include facilities currently in operation and facilities that have
ceased operations. An estimated 3,300 people obtain drinking water from public and private
wells drawing from the shallow aquifer within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including trichloroethylene (TCE), carbon tetrachloride, toluene, and vinyl
chloride. People who come in direct contact with or ingest contaminated
groundwater may be at risk. Also, the contamination on site could pollute
Chisholm Creek, which is used for recreational purposes.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the
entire site and the Coleman Operable Unit Area.
11
July 1993
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the groundwater
contamination are carrying out an investigation to determine the nature and extent
of contamination and to identify cleanup alternatives. The investigation is expected
to be completed by 1995.
Coleman Area: In 1991, the potentially responsible party began an investigation
to determine the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination and to
identify cleanup alternatives at the Coleman Operable Unit Area. The primary
contaminant at this location is TCE. The investigation was completed and a Record of
Decision was signed in late 1992. Remedial design is expected to start in late 1993.
Site Facts: The KDHE has identified more than 70 parties potentially responsible for the
wastes associated with groundwater contamination at and in the vicinity of the site. In 1987,
the parties organized a steering committee to negotiate future investigations and remedial
activities. In 1989, the steering committee signed a Consent Agreement with the KDHE to
complete an investigation of the site.
Environmental Progress
Extensive follow-up investigations are taking place to determine the source of contamination
at the 29th and Mead Ground Water Contamination site so that cleanup efforts may begin.
The EPA has determined that the site currently does not pose an immediate threat to the
neighboring communities or the environment as long as the contaminated wells are not used.
Remedial design at the Coleman Operable Unit area is expected to start in late 1993.
Site Repository
KDHE, District Office, 1919 Amidon, Witchita, KS 67203
July 1993 12 29TH & MEAD GROUND
WATER CONTAMINATION
-------
57TH AND N
BROADWAY
SITE
KANSAS
EPA ID# KSD981710247
EPA REGION 7
Sedgewlck County
flchlta Heights, near Wichita
Site Description
The 57th and North Broadway Streets site is located in an area that is both residential and
commercial. The sources of contamination in this area are close to the intersection of these
two streets. Local and State officials were first alerted to the presence of contamination in
1983 when a resident complained about the poor quality of the drinking water. Subsequent
investigations led to the detection of contamination of soil and residential and industrial wells
in this ISO-acre area. In 1989, the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment
(KDHE) identified four parties potentially responsible for site contamination in 1989: an oil
refining plant, a trucking company, an abandoned gas station, and an abandoned paint factory
which generated paint sludge and cooling water. Other sources of contamination may have
originated from other local tire companies, trucking companies, and gas stations as well as an
area landfill. A potential for major contribution to site contamination is the Derby Costal
Pipe line which transects the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 02/07/92
Threats and Contaminants
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including benzene, toluene, and xylene, and
heavy metals, including arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, and lead, have been
detected in on-site soil and residential and industrial wells.
13
July 1993
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and one long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1990, the EPA provided bottled water to residents and
small businesses affected by site contamination using Superfund emergency funds.
A water supply line is being constructed using funds from a State grant and was
completed in the Summer of 1992.
Entire Site: The EPA is scheduled to begin investigations into the nature and
extent of contamination at the site in late 1993.
Environmental Progress
Immediate actions such as the provision of bottled water and the construction of a water
supply line to affected residences and small businesses have reduced the risks posed to the
safety and health of the nearby population while investigations are being completed by the
EPA.
Site Repository
Not established.
July 1993 i a 57TH AND NORTH BROADWAY
STREETS SITE
-------
ARKANSAS
CITY DUMP
KANSAS
EPA ID# KSD980500789
EPA REGION 7
Cowley County
In southwest Arkansas City,
31/2 miles north of the
Oklahoma State Une
Other Names:
Mllllkln Refinery
Site Description
The Arkansas City Dump is a 200-acre site in southwestern Arkansas City. From 1916 until
the mid-1920s, an oil refinery onsite treated partially refined crude oil with sulfuric acid to
separate asphalt and paraffins. This process created an acidic sludge waste. Operators
disposed of about 1 1/2 million cubic feet of sludge in the northern waste area. Municipal
wastes were disposed of at the site after an explosion and fire in 1927 destroyed the oil
refinery. Between 500,000 and 1 million gallons of residual oil product from the refinery
operation are present in the subsurface soils. Such wastes were acidic and contain potentially
toxic concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Much of the organic
contamination is related to the release of petroleum products and cannot be addressed under
the Superfund program because the Superfund "Petroleum Exclusion" excludes cleanup of
petroleum products. However, the organic contaminants do not present a current threat to
public health or the environment.
The remainder of the wastes at the site consist of domestic and municipal solid wastes. These
wastes also do not appear to present a current threat to public health or the environment.
The site lies within the 100-year flood plain of the Arkansas River and is separated from the
rivCr by a levee. The surrounding land includes commercial and residential areas.
Approximately 6,500 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site. About 60 homes are
located within one half miles of to the eastern boundary. A city park lies to the west, and
several nearby businesses employ up to 100 people. There are no known or suspected uses of
groundwater at or near the site. Municipal drinking water, which is available to all homes or
gullys near the site, is obtained from a well field on the other side of the Arkansas River, and
upriver of this site. The drinking water supply is not at risk of contamination by this site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
July 1993
-------
Threats and Contaminants
The undisturbed sludge may have presented a direct contact hazard; it contained
sulfuric acid that could have caused chemical burns or eye irritation. Contaminants
have not been detected in the Arkansas River. No drinking water wells are at risk
of contamination. The sludge contained significant concentrations of PAHs, other
organics, heavy metals, amonia and sulfur which could have been toxic to humans
if exposed.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the source
of contamination.
Response Action Status
Groundwater and Sediments: By 1991, the EPA had assessed the remaining
portions of the site, namely, the oil-contaminated sediments and groundwater, and
determined that they did not pose a threat Therefore, no further cleanup action
was required for these areas. In addition, the EPA lacks jurisdiction to clean up petroleum-
related problems under the Superfund program due to the "Petroleum Exclusion" clause in
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Source Control: In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy for the northern waste
area to cleanup acidic sludges by neutralizing them with high pH materials and
covering the area with soil after treatment was complete. Cleanup began in 1991
and was completed in 1992.
Environmental Progress
All construction has been completed at the Arkansas City Dump site and the EPA is
considering the site for deletion.
Site Repository
Arkansas City Public Library, 120 E. Fifth Ave., Arkansas City, KS 67005
July 1993 !$ ARKANSAS CITY DUMP
-------
BIG RIVER S
COMPANY
KANSAS
EPA ID# KSD980686174
EPA REGION 7
Sedgwlck County
900 W. 21st St, Wichita
Site Description
The Big River Sand Company site is a 123-acre sand and gravel mining operation that lies 1/2
mile west of the Arkansas River and next to the Wichita Valley Center Floodway. The
western half of the site has been, and continues to be, extensively mined. The eastern half
belongs to the former owner of the entire property. During the 1970s, roughly 2,000 drums of
paint-related waste were disposed of on the site, next to a 5-acre sand quarry lake. In 1978,
the Big River Sand Company bought 80 acres of the site and, in 1982, under the sales
agreement and a court order, the previous owner started moving the drums to his side of the
property. Nearly 200 drums had been transferred before the Kansas Department of Health
the and Environment (KDHE) stopped the action. The facility was not licensed to store or
dispose of the waste and on-site workers did not use protective equipment. The State's
intervention in 1982 showed that drums on site were damaged, corroded, and leaking. Waste
solvents and paint sludges from several drums contained metals and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), which were flammable. In 1984, the State and the property owner
completed a surface cleanup. All paint wastes were taken off site, as were about 2,000 barrels
and four large solvent storage tanks. State analysts found solvents and heavy metals in nearby
residential wells in 1982 and 1984. Approximately 25 homes lie within 1/4 mile to the west of
the property. Two offices and three homes are located on the site's southern edge. An
estimated 1,000 people draw drinking water from wells within a 3-mile radius of the site.
Groundwater also is used for crop irrigation and industrial processes.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Deleted Date: 10/14/92
Threats and Contaminants
This site presents no significant threat to human health or the environment, since
cleanup actions and natural processes have reduced contaminant levels; however,
people using private wells in the area should be advised that the natural levels of
iron, manganese, and selenium in their wells are higher than State and Federal
standards recommend.
17
July 1993
-------
Cleanup Approach
Intensive investigations of site conditions showed that the site does not pose a threat to
people or the environment.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: After an intensive study of the site in 1988 and consultation with the
State of Kansas, the EPA determined that no further actions are required for the
Big River Sand Company site at this time.
Site Facts: The State ordered a potentially responsible party to conduct cleanup of surface
contamination in September 1982. The party completed a surface cleanup in 1984.
Environmental Progress
After intensive investigations, the EPA and the State determined that the Big River Sand
Company site does not pose a threat to the community or the environment. The Big River
Sand Company site was deleted from the NPL on October 14, 1992.
Site Repository
Wichita Public Ubrary, 223 S. Main Street, Wichita, KS 67202
July 1993
BIG RIVER SAND COMPANY
-------
CHEROKEE
COUNTY
KANSAS
EPAID#KSD980741862
EPA REGION 7
Cherokee County
Other Names:
Tar Creek Area Site
Trl-State Mining District
Tar Creek-Cherokee County
Site Description
The Cherokee County site is a mining area covering about 110 square miles. It is part of a
larger area sometimes called the Tri-State Mining District, which encompasses Cherokee
County in Kansas, Jasper County in Missouri, and Ottawa County in Oklahoma. One
hundred years of widespread lead and zinc mining created piles of mine tailings, covering
4,000 acres in southeastern Cherokee County alone. The mine tailings, containing lead, zinc,
and cadmium, have leached into the shallow groundwater. Runoff from the waste piles also
moves contaminants into nearby streams. The EPA has divided this site into six subsites that
correspond to six general mining locations. Cleanup work is further along at the Galena
subsite, in the east-central portion of the entire site, than at the other subsites. This 25-
square-mile area has large tracts of mine and mill wastes, water-filled craters where the
ground has collapsed, open mineshafts, and pits. Wastes have affected the quality of the
shallow groundwater, a primary drinking source for the residents of the area, and the surface
water. Several heavy metals were found in water samples from private wells. Surrounding
lands are used for residences, business, light industry, fanning, and grazing. Of the 22,320
people living in Cherokee County, 3,600 of them reside in Galena. Galena's city water does
not contain contaminants. Another 1,100 residents live outside the town and depend on
groundwater from the contaminated aquifer for drinking supplies.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Radon gas from the mining operations has been detected in the air around the
Galena subsite. Private wells in Galena contain lead, cadmium, selenium, zinc, and
chromium. Acidic waters in mine shafts throughout the site, tailing piles and
surface waters in the mine pits, and streams across the site contain significant
concentrations of lead, zinc, and cadmium. Risks to public health include
accidentally ingesting soil or mine wastes; inhaling contaminated household dust;
stirring up and-inhaling metal-laden dusts while motorbiking on the tailings piles;
touching contaminated soils, wastes, or surface waters; or ingesting contaminated
surface waters, foodstuffs, or groundwater. Acid mine drainage containing dissolved
heavy metals contributes to the transport of heavy metals into the Spring River,
Short Creek, and Shoal Creek; analysts have found contamination in fish from
local surface waters. Polluted mine water also surfaces in Oklahoma's Tar Creek.
July 1993
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in six stages: immediate actions and Ove long-term remedial
phases directed at an alternate water supply, cleanup of the Spring River, Treece, and Baxter
Springs subsites; and cleanup of the Galena groundwater and surface water.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA installed water treatment units on eight
contaminated wells in Galena in 1986. In 1987, the EPA conducted a county-wide
study of wells and a water supply monitoring program for public and private
sources of water. This study showed that two more homes needed the treatment units. These
units were installed, and along with the other units, continue to be maintained by the EPA.
Bottled water is being supplied to two residences with wells contaminated by cadmium. The
bottled water supply will continue until the alternate public water supply is operational.
Alternate Water Supply: The EPA selected an approach for supplying an
alternate source of water to Galena in 1987. It features: (1) collecting clean
groundwater through existing wells owned by the City; (2) distributing that water
through a pipeline network to the houses, businesses, and farms within the subsite, but
outside the municipal water system; (3) rehabilitating two wells needed for the project; and
(4) drilling a new well if the existing ones cannot be fixed. The remedy includes the
construction and equipment necessary to establish an alternate water supply to the area.
Based on public comments, the EPA decided to amend the cleanup actions to include
construction of two deep aquifer wells to collect water and two water storage tanks. These
wells will be maintained and operated independently of the City of Galena. Water line
easement acquisition activities began in 1991 and are expected to be completed in mid-1993.
Construction of the two deep aquifer wells and the two water storage tanks was completed in
1992.
Spring River Subsite: The Spring River runs through all the other subsites and
will be handled appropriately, pursuant to each respective subsite cleanup plan.
Treece Subsite: The EPA initiated investigation activities at the Treece subsite
in 1988. The parties potentially responsible for contamination of this area took
over the study in early 1990. This investigation is exploring the nature and extent
of soil and water pollution at the subsite and will recommend the best strategies for Gnal
cleanup. The investigation was completed in early 1993. The Feasibility Study is scheduled
for completion in the Spring of 1993, and a Record of Decision is anticipated for late fall of
1993.
Baxter Springs Subsite: The EPA initiated an investigation at the Baxter
Springs subsite in 1987. The parties potentially responsible for contamination of
this area took over the study in conjunction with the Treece investigation in early
July 1993 CHEROKEE COUNTY
20
-------
1990. This study is exploring the nature and extent of sofl and water pollution at the subsite
and will recommend the best strategies for Onal cleanup. As with the Treece subsite, a
Record of Decision is scheduled for the fall of 1993.
Galena Groundwater and Surface Water: In 1989, the EPA, with the
agreement of the State, selected a remedy for cleaning up the groundwater and
surface water in the Galena subsite. It includes: (1) removing and selectively
placing mine waste below the ground surface; (2) diverting surface streams away from the
contaminants; (3) recontouring the land surface to control runoff and erosion; and
(4) investigating deep aquifer wells. The engineering designs for the first three activities
above are expected to be completed by the EPA in 1992. The investigation and design of
activities associated with the deep aquifer wells have been completed. Implementation of
cleanup activities is expected to begin in mid-1992 and will involve plugging four wells and
cleaning up one well. The site cleanup is expected to begin early in 1993.
Site Facts: The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to the potentially responsible
parties in May 1990 to design the groundwater and surface water cleanup activities at the
Galena subsite. However, the EPA assumed control of the remedy design in July 1990,
because the parties failed to comply with the Order.
Environmental Progress
The EPA and the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination at the Cherokee
County site have been actively involved in providing water treatment systems and a temporary
alternate water supply to affected residents, reducing the potential for exposure to
contaminants while further studies and cleanup actions are underway.
Site Repository
Galena Public Ubrary, 315 W. Seventh, Galena, KS 66739
CHEROKEE COUNTY July 1993
21
-------
DOEPKE
DISPOSAL
(HOLLIDAY)
KANSAS
EPA ID# KSD980632301
EPA REGION 7
Johnson County
em bluffs of the Kansas River Valley
Other Names:
Doepke-Holllday Stte
Site Description
Between 1963 and 1970, the 80-acre Doepke Disposal (Holliday) site operated as a private
industrial and commercial landGll and accepted unknown quantities of wastes such as paint
sludges, solvents, pesticides, metal sludges, and fiberglass resins. Liquids seeping from the site
flow through a culvert under Holliday Drive into the Kansas River. In the early 1960s, many
wastes were burned and buried. Liquids were later stored in ponds on the site. In 1966, with
County approval, .374 drums of various pesticides and solvents were placed with fire debris in
a trench. When the State closed the site in 1970, it was covered and terraced. Approximately
150 people live within a mile of the site, and 2,500 live within 3 miles. Residents of Johnson
County get drinking water from 21 wells in the Kansas River alluvial aquifer and from a river
intake about 3/4 mile downstream of the site; 200,000 people are served by these systems.
About 30 wells lie within 3 miles; the nearest is 1/2 mile away. Contaminants are not
migrating off site in large enough concentrations to affect water quality in the Kansas River.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and leachate are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals from former waste disposal
activities. Subsurface soils and wastes contain significant concentrations of
contaminants and could threaten people working or trespassing on the site. On-site
contaminated groundwater is not being used, so exposure to contaminants is
unlikely.
June 1993
22
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA selected a remedy for this site in 1989 featuring: removal
and off-site treatment of contaminated liquids currently ponded underground in
the area of the former surface impoundments; construction of an impermeable
multi-layer cap over the majority of the waste disposal area; collection and, if necessary, off-
site treatment of significant groundwater seepage; extended groundwater monitoring of the
effectiveness of the remedy, and deed and access restrictions. The potentially responsible
parties have completed a pre-design hydrogeological study and expect to complete the final
cleanup design in mid-1993. Actual cleanup will begin when the design is complete and
negotiations are final.
Site Facts: In 1987, Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. entered into a Consent Agreement with
the EPA to study site contamination and to develop cleanup options. An Administrative
Order on Consent was signed with the potentially responsible parties in 1990 to design the
remedy for the site.
Environmental Progress
Following the listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA completed a site assessment and
determined that the Doepke Disposal (Holliday) site poses no immediate threat to public
health or the environment while the technical specifications for site cleanup are being
designed.
Site Repository
Johnson County Public Library, 8700 West 63rd Street, Merriam, KS 66201
June 1993 DOEPKE DISPOSAL (HOLLIDAY)
23
-------
FORT RILEY
KANSAS
EPA ID#KS6214020756
EPA REGION 7
Geary County and Riley County
Q^? Near Junction City
Site Description
The Fort Riley site is a 152-square-mile Army base. Fort Riley, established in 1853, has been
a major fort since the Civil War. Its operations are diverse and involve seven landGHs,
numerous motor pools, burn and firefighting pit areas, hospitals, pesticide and mixing areas,
dry cleaners, and shops. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, waste motor oils,
chlorinated solvents, and mercury were deposited in landfills above and below the water table
and were spilled or dumped on the ground near buildings. The most serious problems are
groundwater contamination resulting from past operations at the former sanitary landfill at
Camp Funston, groundwater contamination resulting from past and present operations at
adjacent dry cleaning facilities in the Main Post cantonment area, and pesticide residues in
soils in a maintenance yard in the Main Post area. Recent investigations (1992) have found
vinyl chloride and other VOCs in shallow monitoring wells in proximity to the former Camp
Funston Landfill. Groundwater along the Republican and Kansas Rivers is the sole source of
drinking water for Fort Riley, Ogden, and Junction City. Fort Riley water supply wells are
located approximately 3/4 mile upgradient of the dry cleaning facilities where PCE has been
detected in groundwater sampling conducted in mid-1992. Municipal and Army wells within 3
miles of the base provide drinking water for approximately 47,800 people. Groundwater also
is used for crop irrigation. People use the Kansas River along the site property for
recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Monitoring wells in proximity to the former Camp Funston Landfill have been
found contaminated with vinyl chloride and other VOCs. Landfill debris are
reported to contain waste oils and degreasing solvents. The Landfill site is located
within the flood plain of the Kansas River.
24
July 1993
-------
II
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) has been detected in groundwater at the dry cleaning
facility sites. The dry cleaning facilities are located downgradient of the Fort Riley
well Geld.
Pesticides in the soils at a former pesticide mixing and storage facility have not
migrated a significant distance from the site and have not been found in
groundwater samples collected at the site.
Cleanup Approach
Three operable units have been identified to focus investigatory and remedial actions at sites
where significant contamination has been identified: the former Camp Funston Landfill, the
Dry Cleaning Facilities, and the former Pesticide Storage Facility. In addition, the Army is
performing an Installation-wide Site Assessment to identify all potential areas of
contamination at Fort Riley. As additional sites are identified from this assessment,
preliminary investigations will be performed to evaluate the potential risk associated with
each site and determine the need for more in-depth investigations or interim response
actions.
Response Action Status
Camp Funston Landfill: The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility studies are
to be completed in mid-1993. Interim response actions to address stabilization of
the bank of the Kansas River along the landfill and to provide improvements to
surface materials covering the landfill are scheduled for implementation by late-1993.
Pesticide Storage Facility: The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility studies
are to be completed in mid-1993, interim response actions to either excavate and
remove or cap in-place contaminated soils at the site are scheduled for
implementation by late-1993.
Dry Cleaning Facilities: A Remedial Investigation is planned for the summer of
1993 to define the extent of PCE groundwater contamination and to better define
the site geology. Efforts will be focused on the possibility of interim response
actions to contain the migration of groundwater contamination once the extent is better
defined.
Entire Site: Investigations into the nature of contamination at a large number of
potential sites will begin the summer of 1993. Investigations have been prioritized
such that the sites posing the greatest potential risk will be investigated first.
Investigations are planned through 1995. Interim response actions will be utilized to the
extent practical to address clean-up activities at these sites.
Site Facts: Fort Riley is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a specially
funded program established by the Department of Defense (DOD) in 1978 to identify,
July 1993 FORT RILEY
25
-------
investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DOD
facilities.
Environmental Progress
The EPA and the Army have agreed to utilize the SACM approach, to the extent practical,
to address short-term remedial objectives at Fort Riley. Several interim response actions are
planned for 1993 based on these objectives.
Site Repository
Manhattan Public Library, Juliette and Poyntz, Manhattan, KS 66502
FORT RILEY
26
July 1993
-------
HYDRO-FLEX
KANSAS
EPA ID#KSD007135429
EPA REGION 7
Shawnee County
Topeka
Site Description
Since 1970, Hydro-Rex Inc. has manufactured specialized tubing, hoses, heat exchangers, and
fittings at this 3-acre site. From 1970 to 1981, operators discharged rinse water and sludges
from a chromate metal finishing bath through a septic tank and into a series of buried silos.
Wastes also were discharged into the on-site injection well. These open-ended vertical shafts
were filled with porous Gil material and penetrated to within 2 feet of an aquifer, the sole
source of drinking water in the area. Operators discharged a maximum of 320 gallons per day
to the silos and periodically allowed the overflow of wastes from the third silo onto
neighboring cropland. These techniques were abandoned when municipal sewers became
available in 1981. The silos were filled with sand and covered with earth. In 1987, the Kansas
Department of Health and the Environment (KDHE) detected process-related metals in on-
site wells. A 1989 site visit showed that access to the site was unrestricted, but tall grass had
covered the disposal areas and they appeared untouched for some time. The only evidence of
the past disposal practice is distressed plant growth and discolored soils over the three areas.
Approximately 30 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site, many in older residences that
pre-date the industrial zoning of the area. Approximately 6,500 people obtain drinking water
from public and private wells within 3 miles of the site. The Kansas River and Soldier Creek
are*within a 1-mile radius of the site, and Topeka's surface water intake on the Kansas River
is located about a mile to the south. Two public water supply wells lie about 1 1/2 miles
northeast of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater both on and off the site contained low levels of various heavy metals.
The chief threat to public health from this site was drinking contaminated
groundwater.
27
July 1993
-------
Cleanup Approach
Intensive investigations of site conditions showed that the site does not pose a threat to
people or the environment.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Under State monitoring, the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination conducted an investigation to determine the nature and extent of
contamination and any needed strategies for final cleanup. The investigation was
completed in 1992. The EPA determined that no further cleanup actions are necessary at
the site, as it does not pose a threat to public health or the environment. The EPA began
deletion proceedings in April 1993.
Environmental Progress
The EPA determined that the Hydro-Flex Inc. site does not pose a threat to public health or
the environment. Proceedings leading to the deletion of the site from the NPL began in
April, 1993.
Site Repository
Contact the Region 7 Superfund Community Relations Office.
July 1993 HYDRO-FLEX INC.
28
-------
JOHNS' SLU
POND
KANSAS
EPAID#KSD980631980
EPA REGION 7
Sedgwlck County
Wichita
Othtr Names:
Johns' Oil Sludgs Ptt
Site Description
The Johns' Sludge Pond site covers 1/2 acre and is located in an industrialized area in
northern Wichita. From 1951 to 1970, Super Refined Oil, which no longer is in business,
recycled waste oil and disposed of an estimated 7,000 cubic yards of oily sludge into an
unlined pond. The principal hazard associated with the site was the acidity of the sludge and
the water lying above it. Historically, the site would overflow periodically during periods of
heavy rainfall, releasing its contents to the surrounding surface waters. Most of the site was
owned by the Johns' Estate. The City of Wichita condemned the remainder of the site in the
1970s to provide drainage along the adjacent highway and, as a result, owns the remainder of
the property. A drainage ditch adjacent to the site carries surface water from the site to
Chisholm Creek, 1 1/2 miles downgradient of the site. Chisholm Creek flows into a concrete
ditch receiving runoff from the adjacent highway and empties into the Arkansas River to the
south of the city. Fishing takes place in a borrow pit located adjacent to the site. Currently,
there are no wells at or near the site used for drinking.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and municipal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Deleted Date: 01/06/92
Threats and Contaminants
Before cleanup, the site contained highly acidic sludge, topped by acidic water.
The EPA found heavy metals including lead, as well as volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in groundwater on the site. Site
sludge was highly acidic and contained PCBs and heavy metals including aluminum,
lead, chromium, and zinc. Site cleanup activities have alleviated the potential harm
to public health and the environment.
July 1993
29
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site was addressed through initial actions; further investigations have shown that no
other cleanup actions are required.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Under EPA monitoring, the City of Wichita's Department of
Public Works removed sludge from the impoundment and stockpiled it on the
adjacent ground surface, installed a compacted clay soil liner on the bottom and
sidewalk of the empty impoundment, solidified stockpiled sludge with cement kiln dust, re-
deposited it in the lined disposal cell, constructed a compacted clay cap above the solidified
sludge, and covered the cap with soil and vegetation. Deed restrictions were placed on the
property, preventing land uses that would interfere with the effectiveness of these actions.
The site was fenced to prevent dirt bike riding and other activities that could damage the cap
and cover, and no-trespassing signs were posted. The EPA decided to install additional
monitoring wells to determine the direction of groundwater flow and the nature and degree
of contamination, if any, of downgradient groundwater. Sedgwick County and the City of
Wichita continue to conduct monitoring and maintenance of the cap and vegetative cover.
Entire Site: In 1989 and consultation with the State of Kansas, the EPA
determined that no further cleanup actions are required for the Johns' Sludge
Pond at this time. The EPA finds that the cleanup already conducted at the site by
the City of Wichita is protective of public health and the environment. EPA deleted the site
from the NPL in January of 1992.
Site Facts: In 1983, the EPA issued a Consent Order to the City of Wichita, requiring the
City to submit a site cleanup plan for the EPA's approval. An interim cleanup plan was
submitted, approved, and implemented. The EPA evaluated the adequacy of the interim
cleanup and, in 1989, determined that no further action is required at the site, except for
continued site monitoring and maintenance.
Environmental Progress
The cleanup actions performed by the City of Wichita have eliminated the potential for
exposure to hazardous substances at the Johns' Sludge Pond site. The EPA has determined
that no further cleanup actions are needed at this time and that the site no longer poses a
threat to human health or the environment. The John's Sludge Pond site was deleted from
the NPL on January 1, 1992. The site will continue to be closely monitored to ensure long-
term effectiveness of the cleanup actions.
Site Repository
Wichita City Hall, 455 N. Main, Wichita, KS 67202
July 1993 JOHNS' SLUDGE POND
30
-------
OBEE ROAD
KANSAS
EPAID# KSD980631766
EPA REGION 7
Reno County
Obeeville
Other Names:
Hutchison City Dump
Site Description
The Obee Road site is a plume of contaminated groundwater located in Obeeville. An
investigation in 1983 by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) was
prompted by a citizen's concern over the taste and odor of his well water. Sampling by the
KDHE showed volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the shallow aquifer. The source of the
contamination is suspected to be an old city landfill on the eastern edge of the Hutchinson
Municipal Airport. Before closing in 1973, the landfill accepted unknown quantities of liquid
wastes and sludges from local industries, as well as solvents from small metal-finishing
operations at local aircraft plants. The landfill now is covered with vegetation. Septic tank
systems in the area are another potential source of contamination. Approximately 1,900
people in Obeeville obtained drinking water from private wells that drew water from the
contaminated aquifer before alternate water sources were provided. The area around the site
is rural; some residents have farm animals on their property.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with VOCs such as trichloroethylene (TCE), vinyl
chloride, and chloroform. Soil is contaminated with VOCs including meta-xylene
and toluene. Although the residences in the area now are connected to the public
water supply, the private wells have not been plugged. Therefore, there is the
possibility that the contaminated groundwater may be used for domestic purposes,
such as watering gardens.
July 1993
31
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site was initially planned to be addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-
term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site. An amendment to the
Administrative Order was signed in 1993 which divided the site into two subsites. They are
designated the Obee Road Landfill Subsite and the Airport Road Subsite.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1985, the City of Hutchison constructed a water line extension
to the residents affected by the contaminated well water. An alternate water
supply also was provided to the Obee school system adjacent to the landfill, which
was drawing water from a contaminated well.
Entire Site: In early 1990, the potentially responsible parties, under State
supervision, began conducting a study to determine the extent of soil and
groundwater contamination and to identify the sources responsible. This study, due
to be completed in 1994, will lead to the selection of the final cleanup remedy.
Obee Road Landfill Subsite: The information gathered under the original
Obee Road Administrative Order and the adjacent East Fourth Street Facility
Administrative Order will be used to complete a Remedial Investigation Report by
mid 1993.
Airport Road Subsite: The information from the original Obee Road
investigation and additional information from the East Fourth Street Facility being
conducted by potentially responsible parties, under State supervision, is due to be
completed in 1994.
Site Facts: In March 1990, a group of the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination signed a Consent Agreement with the KDHE to complete an investigation of
the site. After reviewing data from the Obee Road Site investigation and data from the East
Fourth Street Facility, a site bordering the Obee Road Site on the west, it became apparent
that the site needed to be divided into two subsites. In March of 1993 an amendment to the
State Administrative Order was signed and the Obee Road Landfill Subsite and the Airport
Road Subsite were defined.
July 1993 OBEE ROAD
32
-------
Environmental Progress
Providing an alternative water supply-greatly reduced the potential for exposure to
contaminated well water. An interim pump and treat groundwater containment system is
scheduled to be in operation by late 1993 at the East Fourth Street Facility. This system is
designed to contain and treat the groundwater contamination at the East Fourth Street
Facility.
Site Repository
Hutchison Public Library, 901 North Main, Hutchison, KS 67504
OBEE ROAD
July 1993
33
-------
PESTER
REFINERY CO
KANSAS
EPA ID# KSD000829846
PA REGION 7
Butler County
El Dorado
Site Description
The Pester Refinery Co. site occupies 10 acres in El Dorado. Refinery operations began in
1917. Refining wastes have been stored in a burn pond and these materials periodically were
ignited through the mid-1970s. The burn pit is adjacent to the West Branch of the Walnut
River, which is used for recreational activities. In 1987, the Kansas Department of Health
and the Environment (KDHE) found seepage from the impoundment entering the river, and
later the same year, confirmed contamination of the river. Seepage from the burn pond has
been diked, forming a seepage pit. Rainwater and contaminated pond water, which have
accumulated at the lagoon surface, have overflowed on occasion and discharged to the river
and adjacent flood plain. An estimated 160 people obtain drinking water from private wells
within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/29/89
Threats and Contaminants
IT
Groundwater contaminants include lead and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
such as vinyl chloride. Heavy metals, including lead and chromium, and VOCs have
contaminated the burn pond sediments. The soil is contaminated with heavy
metals. The burn pond sludge and surface water are contaminated with heavy
metals and VOCs. Accidental ingestion of contaminated groundwater, soil,
sediments, or surface water could pose a health risk. Since the site lies within the
100-year floodplain, flooding of the site area is a concern
July 1993
34
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two operable units for (1) groundwater and (2) source control
directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1990, the potentially responsible parties began conducting an
investigation into the nature and extent of the contamination at the site and
alternatives for cleanup. In 1992, a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed for a
remedy to address the source control operable unit The State is negotiating with the
responsible party in order to sign an agreement for cleanup of the groundwater by Fina, the
responsible party.
Site Facts: In 1986, the State issued an Administrative Order to Pester to conduct studies
on how to close the impoundment. The owner demonstrated that he cannot afford to pay for
the cleanup and filed for bankruptcy. In 1990, past owner, Fina along with Pester signed a
Consent Order with the State to condut a remedial investigation and feasibility study.
Environmental Progress
The EPA selected a cleanup remedy in late 1992 for the source control.
Site Repository
Contact the Region 7 Superfund Community Relations Office.
July 1993 PESTER REFINERY CO.
35
-------
STROTHER
INDUSTRIAL
PARK
KANSAS
EPA ID# KSD980862726
EPA REGION 7
Cowtey County
T5jear WInfield and Arkansas City
Site Description
Strother Field Industrial Park is located near Winfield and Arkansas City and covers
approximately 2 square miles. Until 1946, the site was a military facility. The site now consists
of about 20 industrial and commercial businesses, as well as two inactive solid waste landfills.
The landfills were used for the disposal of various industrial wastes. Groundwater is
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Until 1983, the Strother Field
Commission operated a water supply system, consisting of eight wells on the site. The
groundwater no longer is used for drinking, but still is used for industrial processes. Drinking
water was provided by trucks until the Commission installed two wells upgradient of the
contaminant plume. Approximately 2,300 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site. The
size of the worker population on the site is approximately 2,000. There are private and public
wells located in the vicinity of the site; some private wells are in the industrial park.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Samples collected and analyzed by the State indicated the presence of VOCs
including trichloroethylene (TCE) in several wells used for industrial processes
only. People who ingest or come in contact with contaminated groundwater may be
at risk. Workers may inhale VOCs generated from air stripping operations taking
place on the site.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
36
July 1993
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: After the use of the industrial park wells as a source of
drinking water was discontinued, water was brought in by tank trucks. The
Strother Field Commission installed two wells upgradient of the contaminated
plume to supply water. Two of the eight wells remained in use to supply process water for the
industries located on the Geld. For the last several years, the Strother Field Commission has
pumped these wells in order to contain groundwater contamination beneath the site. In 1985,
General Electric installed groundwater extraction wells and air stripping towers to remove
VOCs from the groundwater under an Administrative Order with the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment (KDHE).
Entire Site: The State is monitoring an investigation by the potentially responsible
parties that will identify the types of contaminants remaining in the groundwater
and other areas and will recommend remedies for final site cleanup upon its
completion, scheduled for 1993.
Site Facts: In 1985, the State issued an Administrative Order to General Electric Co., one
of the parties potentially responsible for wastes associated with the northern zone of the site.
The Order called for the company to sample soil; monitor groundwater; construct a
groundwater flow model and use it to help locate, construct, and operate withdrawal wells
under the guidance of the State; and submit a plan for a treatment and disposal system. The
State issued another Administrative Order in January 1986 to each of the four potentially
responsible parties associated with the southern zone of the site. The Order requires one
potentially responsible party to treat the water from the public supply well, each of the
companies to drill monitoring wells on the southern end of the field, and three of the parties
to submit data on chemical use during the past 20 years. In March 1990, General Electric
signed a Consent Agreement with the KDHE to complete an investigation of the site. The
remedial investigation has been completed and the feasibility study is being reviewed. A
Record of Decision should be signed in late 1993, which selects the clean up remedy(s) to be
used at the site.
Environmental Progress
The Strother Field Commission and General Electric, in conjunction with the State and the
EPA, have greatly reduced the possibility of drinking contaminated groundwater by supplying
a safe drinking water source and installing a treatment system for the groundwater while
studies into a final cleanup solution for the Strother Field Industrial Park site have been
underway. A Record of Decision (ROD) is scheduled to be signed by EPA late in 1993,
Design of remedial systems should start in 1994.
July 1993 STROTHER FIELD
37 INDUSTRIAL PARK
-------
Site Repository
Strother Field Commission, Terminal Building, Fourth and "A" Street,
Cowley County, KS 67156
STROTHER FIELD July 1993
INDUSTRIAL PARK 38
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
"39
-------
GLOSSARY
This glossary defines terms used
throughout the NPL Volumes. The
terms and abbreviations contained in
this glossary apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfund program in
the context of hazardous waste management.
These terms may have other meanings when
used in a different context.
Terms Used
in the NPL
Book
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH
(less than 7.0), that are used in chemical
manufacturing. Acids in high concentration
can be very corrosive and react with many
inorganic and organic substances. These
reactions possibly may create toxic com-
pounds or release heavy metal contaminants
that remain in the environment long after the
acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal
and enforceable agreement between the EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination. Under the terms of the Order,
the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules,
responsibilities, and enforcement options that
the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parries. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a
judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A
legally binding document issued by the EPA,
directing the parries potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
the EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for
site studies).
Aeration: A process that promotes break-
down of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR): The Federal agency
within the U.S. Public Health Service charged
with carrying out the health-related responsi-
bilities of CERCLA.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of
air through it in a pressurized vessel The
contaminants are evaporated into the air
stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Ambient Air: Any unconfmed pan of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in die vicinity
of contaminated air sources.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock,
sand, or gravel capable of storing water
within cracks and pore spaces, or between
grains. When water contained within an
aquifer is of sufficient quantity and quality, it
can be tapped and used for drinking or other
purposes. The water contained in the aquifer
is called groundwater. A sole source aquifer
supplies 50% or more of the drinking water of
an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling
into the earth until water is reached, which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a foun-
tain.
40
-------
GLOSSARY.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring pro-
cess by which a compound is reduced in
concentration over time through adsorption,
degradation, dilution, and/or transformation.
Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.
Baghouse Dust: Dust accumulated in remov-
ing particulates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive
in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed
with acids, they neutralize each other, form-
ing salts.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth
used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some
contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living
tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people, as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contami-
nated water, or eat contaminated food.
Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria or
other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
and water.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-
nents.
Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on moisture from the air for their water
source, are usually acidic, and are rich in plant
residue [see Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.
Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-
water.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a
synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated
materials. The surface of the cap generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing
water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that
attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Carbon Disulfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for pans washing.
This compound has both inorganic and or-
ganic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also
cause chemical reactions that increase the
hazard to human health and the environment
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-
tion].
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series
of holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of dirt
CERCLA: [see Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act].
Characterization: The sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis of a site to determine the
^ 4T
-------
^^___^HBiMMMBMM^^^^^B>^^~«^
GLOSSARY
extent and nature of toxic releases. Character-
ization provides the basis for acquiring the
necessary technical information to develop,
screen, analyze, and select appropriate
cleanup techniques.
Chemical Fixation: The use of chemicals to
bind contaminants, thereby reducing the
potential for leaching or other movement.
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecti-
cide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This
salt is used extensively as a wood preservative
in pressure-treating operations. It is highly
toxic and water-soluble, making it a relatively
mobile contaminant in the environment
Cleanup: Actions taken to eliminate a
release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance. The term "cleanup" sometimes is
used interchangeably with the terms remedial
action, removal action, response action, or
corrective action.
Closure: The process by which a landfill
stops accepting wastes and is shut down,
under Federal guidelines that ensure the
protection of the public and the environment.
Comment Period: A specific interval during
which the public can review and comment on
various documents and EPA actions related to
site cleanup. For example, a comment period
is provided when the EPA proposes to add
sites to the NPL. There is minimum 3-week
comment period for community members to
review and comment on the remedy proposed
to clean up a site.
Community Relations: The EPA effort to
establish and maintain two-way communica-
tion with the public. Goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related ac-
tions, assuring public input into decision-
making processes related to affected commu-
nities, and making certain that the Agency is
aware of, and responsive to, public concerns.
Specific community relations activities are
required in relation to Superfund cleanup
actions [see Comment Period].
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA): Congress enacted the
CERCLA, known as Superfund, in 1980 to
respond directly to hazardous waste problems
that may pose a threat to the public health and
the environment. The EPA administers the
Superfund program.
Confluence: The place where two bodies of
water, such as streams or rivers, come to-
gether.
Consent Decree: A legal document, ap-
proved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between the EPA and the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the
potentially responsible parties are required to
perform and/or the costs incurred by the
government that the parties will reimburse, as
well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforce-
ment options that the government may exer-
cise in the event of non-compliance by poten-
tially responsible parties. If a settlement
between the EPA and a potentially respon-
sible party includes cleanup actions, it must
be in the form of a Consent Decree. A Con-
sent Decree is subject to a public comment
period,
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order
on Consent].
Containment: The process of enclosing or
containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in a pond or a lagoon, to pre-
vent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
-.42
-------
_^_^BBM^_B_^«_^~M«^^M^^^
GLOSSARY.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental
effects.
Contingency Plan: A document setting out
an organized, planned, and coordinated course
of action to be followed in case of a fire,
explosion, or other accident that releases toxic
chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioactive
materials into the environment
Cooperative Agreement: A contract be-
tween the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site
cleanup responsibilities and other activities on
a cost-sharing basis.
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].
Cover: Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserv-
ing operations and produced by distillation of
tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
[see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating
sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes
may cause skin ulcerations and cancer
through prolonged exposure.
Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an
embankment
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The ~ - k" which a
chemical is reduce*. ~ss complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to settle with
small, or de minimis contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort
Dewater: To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land fanning, deep well
injection, or incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgra-
dient of a contaminated groundwater source
are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas of commercial o; industrial
facilities.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
± 43
-------
GLOSSARY
Endangerment Assessment: A study con-
ducted to determine the risks posed to public
health or the environment by contamination at
NPL sites. The EPA or the State conducts the
study when a legal action is to be taken to
direct the potentially responsible parties to
clean up a site or pay for the cleanup. An
endangerment assessment supplements an
investigation of the site hazards.
Enforcement: EPA, State, or local legal
actions taken against parties to facilitate
settlements; to compel compliance with laws,
rules, regulations, or agreements; and/or to
obtain penalties or criminal sanctions for
violations. Enforcement procedures may
vary, depending on the specific requirements
of different environmental laws and related
regulatory requirements. Under CERCLA,
for example, the EPA will seek to require
potentially responsible parties to clean up a
Superfund site or pay for the cleanup [see
Cost Recovery].
Erosion: The wearing away of land surface
by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally
from weather or surface runoff, but can be
intensified by such land-related practices as
farming, residential or industrial develop-
ment, road building, or timber-cutting. Ero-
sion may spread surface contamination to off-
site locations.
Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh
water from rivers and salt water from
nearshore ocean waters are mixed. These
areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt
marshes, and lagoons. These water ecosys-
tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and
wildlife.
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out
Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway; together,
they are commonly referred to as the RI/FS
[see Remedial Investigation].
Filtration: A treatment process for removing
solid (paniculate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove panicles that contain
contaminants.
Flood Plain: An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods. Rood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that
results from the combustion of flue gases. It
can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides.
water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which
is used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party,
consisting of a written proposal demonstrating
a potentially responsible party's qualifications
^ 44
-------
GLOSSARY.
and willingness to perform a site study or
cleanup.
Groundwater: Underground water that rills
pores in soils or openings in rocks to the point
of saturation. In aquifers, groundwater occurs
in sufficient quantities for use as drinking and
irrigation water and other purposes.
Groundwater Quality Assessment: The
process of analyzing the chemical characteris-
tics of groundwater to determine whether any
hazardous materials exist.
/
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as
chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very
good oxidizing agents and, therefore, have
many industrial uses. They are rarely found
by themselves; however, many chemicals
such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
some volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and dioxin are reactive because of the pres-
ence of halogens.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): The
principal screening tool used by the EPA to
evaluate relative risks to public health and the
environment associated with abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS
calculates a score based on the potential of
hazardous substances spreading from the site
through the air, surface water, or groundwater
and on other factors such as nearby popula-
tion. The HRS score is the primary factor in
deciding if the site should be on the NPL.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society
that can pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health and the environment
when improperly managed. It possesses at
least one of four characteristics (ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), or appears
on special EPA lists.
Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site con-
taining exceptionally high levels of contami-
nation.
Hydrogeology: The geology 01 groundwater,
with particular emphasis on the chemistry anc
movement of water.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge
confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Incineration: A group of treatment technolo-
gies involving destruction of waste by con-
trolled burning at high temperatures, e.g.,
burning sludge to reduce the remaining
residues to a non-burnable ash that can be
disposed of safely on land, in some waters, or
in underground locations.
Infiltration: The movement of water or other
liquid down through soil from precipitation
(rain or snow) or from application of waste-
water to the land surface.
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid
flowing into a reservoir, basin, or treatment
plant.
Injection Well: A well into which waste
fluids are placed, under pressure, for purposes
of disposal.
Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical substances
of mineral origin, not of basic carbon struc-
ture.
Installation Restoration Program: The
specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has
been identifying and evaluating its hazardous
waste sites and controlling the migration of
hazardous contaminants from those sites.
Intake: The source from where a water
supply is drawn, such as from a river or water
body.
Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment between the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,
*~ 45
-------
GLOSSARY
setting forth the roles and responsibilities of
the agencies for performing and overseeing
the activities. States often are parties to
interagency agreements.
Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a permanent permit. The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.
Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure. Lagoons typically are
used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges,
liquid wastes, or spent nuclear fuel
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or
incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in layers, compacted to
the smallest practical volume, and covered
with soil at the end of each operating day.
Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for
hazardous waste. They are designed to
minimize the chance of release of hazardous
substances into the environment [see Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act].
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles
through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leach-
ing (v.t): The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and
carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Leachate Collection System: A system that
gathers liquid that has leaked into a landfill or
other waste disposal area and pumps it to the
surface for treatment.
Liner: A relatively impermeable barrier
designed to prevent leachate (waste residue)
from leaking from a landfill. Liner materials
include plastic and dense clay.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often
incremental, steps that are taken to solve site
pollution problems. Depending on the com-
plexity, site cleanup activities can be sepa-
rated into several of these phases.
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
contain peat moss deposits and is dominated
by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal (see Wetland].
Migration: The movement of oil, gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable soils or rock.
Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].
Mine Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left
from mining operations. Tailings often
contain high concentrations of lead, uranium,
and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Mitigation: Actions taken to improve site
conditions by limiting, reducing, or control-
ling toxicity and contamination sources.
Modeling: A technique using a math
emariral
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
system components have on the overall
performance of the system.
Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at
specific locations within, or surrounding, a
hazardous waste site where groundwater can
be sampled at selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in
^ 46
-------
GLOSSARY.
which groundwater flows and the types and
amounts of contaminants present
National Priorities List (NPL): The EPA's
list of the most serious uncontrolled or aban-
doned hazardous waste sites identified for
possible long-term cleanup under Superfund.
The EPA is required to update the NPL at
least once a year.
Neutrals: Organic compounds that have a
relatively neutral pH, complex structure and,
due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed
into the environment. Naphthalene, pyrene,
and trichlorobenzene are examples of
neutrals.
Nitroaromatics: Common components of
explosive materials, which will explode if
activated by very high temperatures or pres-
sures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a
nitroaromatic.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter
notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability.
A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which the
EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against poten-
tially responsible parties, although the EPA
may undertake certain investigatory and
planning activities. The 60-day period may
be extended if the EPA receives a good faith
offer within that period.
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC): The
predesignated EPA, Coast Guard, or Depart-
ment of Defense official who coordinates and
directs Superfund removal actions or Clean
Water Act oil- or hazardous-spill corrective
actions.
Operation and Maintenance: Activities
conducted at a site after a cleanup action is
completed to ensure that the cleanup or
containment system is functioning properly.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds: Chemical
substances containing mainly carbon, hydro-
gen, and oxygen.
Outfall: The place where wastewater is
discharged into receiving waters.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating
large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or
leakage of contaminating materials. Leaking
drums may be contained within oversized
barrels as an interim measure prior to removal
and final disposal.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic,
modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites
and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.
Perched (groundwater): Groundwater
separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often clay
or rock.
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering
of water or other liquids through subsurface
rock or soil layers, usually continuing down-
ward to groundwater.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery opera-
tions and as fuel oil residues. These include
fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are the bases
from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are
made. These chemical substances often are
toxic to humans and the environment.
Phenols: Organic compounua u«.. *x used
in plastics manufacturing and are by-products
of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye,
and resin manufacturing. Phenols are highly
poisonous.
- 47
-------
GLOSSARY
Physical Chemical Separation: The treat-
ment process of adding a chemical to a sub-
stance to separate the compounds for further
treatment or disposal.
Pilot Testing: A small-scale test of a pro-
posed treatment system in the field to deter-
mine its ability to clean up specific contami-
nants.
Plugging: The process of stopping the flow
of water, oil, or gas into or out of the ground
through a borehole or well penetrating the
ground.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater
flowing from a specific source. The move-
ment of the groundwater is influenced by such
factors as local groundwater flow patterns, the
character of the aquifer in which groundwater
is contained, and the density of contaminants
[see Migration].
Pollution: Generally, the presence of matter
or energy whose nature, location, or quantity
produces undesired health or environmental
effects.
Polycydic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs):
PAHs, such as pyrene, are a group of highly
reactive organic compounds found in motor
oil. They are a common component of creo-
sotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A
group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications,
carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope immersion oils, and caulk-
ing compounds. PCBs also are produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment
because they are very stable, non-reactive,
and highly heat resistant Chronic exposure
to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
also is known to bioaccumulate in fatty
-^ 48
tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control ACL
Polynudear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and
biphenyls, are a group of highly reactive
organic compounds that are a common com-
ponent of creosotes, which can be carcino-
genic.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats,
and floor tiles. Health risks from high con-
centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
the lymphatic and nervous systems.
Potable Water Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Su-
perfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs
until they admit liability or a court makes a
determination of liability. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in site cleanup activity
without admitting liability.
Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid
portions can be disposed of safely; the re-
moval of particles from airborne emissions.
Electrochemical precipitation is the use of an
anode or cathode to remove the hazardous
chemicals. Chemical precipitation involves
the addition of some substance to cause the
solid portion to separate.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of
collecting and reviewing available informa-
tion about a known or suspected waste site or
release to determine if a threat or potential
threat exists.
-------
GLOSSARY.
Pump and Treat: A groundwater cleanup
technique involving the extracting of contami-
nated groundwater from the subsurface and
the removal of contaminants, using one of
several treatment technologies.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium
and uranium-235 and -238, which break down
and produce radioactive substances due to
their unstable atomic structure. Some are
man-made, and others are naturally occurring
in the environment. Radon, the gaseous form
of radium, decays to form alpha particle
radiation, which cannot be absorbed through
skin. However, it can be inhaled, which
allows alpha panicles to affect unprotected
tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Radia-
tion also occurs naturally through the break-
down of granite stones.
RCRA: [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].
Recharge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the
earth to reach an aquifer.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public docu-
ment that explains which cleanup
alternarive(s) will be used to clean up sites
listed on the NPL. It is based on information
generated during the remedial investigation
and feasibility study and consideration of
public comments and community concerns.
Recovery Wells: Wells used to withdraw
contaminants or contaminated groundwater.
Recycle: The process of minimizing waste
generation by recovering usable products that
might otherwise become waste.
Remedial Action (RA): The actual construc-
tion or implementation phase of a Superfund
site cleanup following the remedial design
[see Cleanup].
Remedial Des:' - ~f r
where engineers ac-Ae- jie technical specifi-
cations for cleanup remedies and technolo-
gies.
Remedial Investigation: An in-depth study
designed to gather the data necessary to
determine the nature and extent of contami-
nation at a Superfund site, establish the
criteria for cleaning up the site, identify the
preliminary alternatives for cleanup actions,
and support the technical and cost analyses of
the alternatives. The remedial investigation
is usually done with the feasibility study.
Together they are customarily referred to as
the RI/FS [see Feasibility Study].
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
ing cleanup actions at a site.
Remedy Selection: The selection of the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining con-
tamination will be naturally dispersed with-
out further cleanup activities, a "No Action"
remedy is selected [see Record of Decision].
Removal Action: Short-term immediate
actions taken to address releases of hazardous
substances [see Cleanup].
Residual: The amount of a pollutant remain-
ing in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place, e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wastewater
treatment, or particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubbing, on
other, process.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA): A Federal law that established a
regulatory system to track hazardous sub-
stances from the time of generation to dis-
posal. The law requires safe and secure
49
-------
GLOSSARY
procedures to be used in treating, transport-
ing, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Retention Pond: A small body of liquid
used for disposing of wastes and containing
overflow from production facilities. Some-
times retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons to store
waste.
Riparian Habitat: Areas adjacent to rivers
and streams that have a high density, diver-
sity, and productivity of plant and animal
species relative to nearby uplands.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land
into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contamina-
tion from its source.
Scrubber: An air pollution device that uses a
spray of water or reactant or a dry process to
trap pollutants in emissions.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand, and
minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such
as streams, lakes, and rivers, that absorbs
contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of
liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower
edges of landfills.
Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in the
ground used for storage of liquids, usually in
the form of leachate, from waste disposal
areas. The liquid gradually leaves the pit by
moving through the surrounding soil.
Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank
after the treatment process.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land
surface in which drainage collects; associated
with underground caves and passages that
facilitate the movement of liquids.
Site Characterization: The technical pro-
cess used to evaluate the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, which is
necessary for choosing and designing cleanup
measures and monitoring their effectiveness.
Site Inspection: The collection of informa-
tion from a hazardous waste site to determine
the extent and severity of hazards posed by.
the site. It follows, and is more extensive
than, a preliminary assessment. The purpose
is to gather information necessary to score the
site, using the Hazard Ranking System, and to
determine if the site presents an immediate
threat that requires a prompt removal action.
Slag: The fused refuse or dross separated
from a metal in the process of smelting.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial
or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the
flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by
digging a trench around a contaminated area
and filling the trench with an impermeable
material that prevents water from passing
through it The groundwater or contaminated
liquids trapped within the area surrounded by
the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.
Smelter: A facility that melts or fuses ore,
often widi an accompanying chemical change,
to separate the metaL Emissions from smelt-
ers are known to cause pollution.
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles of soil. Such gases can move through
^ 50
-------
GLOSSARY.
or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction: A treatment process
that uses vacuum wells to remove hazardous
gases from soil.
Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to
remove undesirable materials. There are two
approaches: dissolving or suspending them in
the wash solution for later treatment by
conventional methods, and concentrating
them into a smaller volume of soil through
simple particle size separation techniques [see
Solvent Extraction).
Stabilization: The process of changing an
active substance into inert, harmless material,
or physical activities at a site that act to limit
the further spread of contamination without
actual reduction of toxicity.
Solidification/Stabilization: A chemical or
physical reduction of the mobility of hazard-
ous constituents. Mobility is reduced through
the binding of hazardous constituents into a
solid mass with low permeability and resis-
tance to leaching.
Solvent: A substance capable of dissolving
another substance to form a solution. The
primary uses of industrial solvents are as
cleaners for degreasing, in paints, and in
Pharmaceuticals. Many solvents are flam-
mable and toxic to varying degrees.
Solvent Extraction: A means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges,
and sediment, thereby reducing the volume of
the hazardous waste that must be treated. It
generally is used as one in a series of unit
operations. An organic chemical is used to
dissolve contaminants as opposed to water-
based compounds, which usually are used in
soil washing.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or at-
tracting substances. It is used in many pollu-
tion control systems.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air
Stripping].
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.
Superfund: The program operated under the
legislative authority of the CERCLA and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) to update and improve environ-
mental laws. The program has the authority
to respond directly to releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare, or the envi-
ronment. The "Superfund" is a trust fund that
finances cleanup actions at hazardous waste
sites.
Surge Tanks: A holding structure used to
absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, includ-
ing liquid waste materials.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated
by woody vegetation and does not accumulate
peat moss deposits. Swamps may be fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wet-
lands].
Thermal Treatment: The use of heat to
remove or destroy contaminants from soil.
Treatability Studies: Testing a treatment
method on contaminated groundwater, soil,
etc., to determine whether and how well the
method will work.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, color-
less liquid with a low boiling point TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as
v 51
-------
«_w^M^^B«B_^^_^_mw^^^^^»«
GLOSSARY
a solvent and as a metal degreasing agent.
TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled,
ingested, or through skin contact and can
damage vital organs, especially the liver (see
Volatile Organic Compounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].
Upgradient: An upward hydrologic slope;
dcmarks areas that are higher than contami-
nated areas and, therefore, are not prone to
contamination by the movement of polluted
groundwater.
Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils. Vacuum pumps are connected to a
sehes of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tightly at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the
soil draws VOC-contaminated air from the
soil pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn
down from the surface of the soil.
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with
graded soils and seed for vegetative growth,
to prevent erosion (see Cap].
Vitrification: The process of electrically
melting wastes and soils or sludges to bind
the waste in a glassy, solid material more
durable than granite or marble and resistant to
leaching.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as secondary petro-
chemicals. They include light alcohols,
acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
toluene, and methylene chloride. These
potentially toxic chemicals are used as sol-
vents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels.
Because of their volatile nature, they readily
evaporate into the air, increasing the potential
exposure to humans. Due to their low water
solubility, environmental persistence, and
widespread industrial use, they are commonly
found in soil and groundwater.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that uses
a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from
water.
Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.
Water Table: The upper surface of the
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other
liquids.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to
sustaining many species of fish and wildlife.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes.
and bogs. Wetlands may be either coastal or
inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish
(a mixture of salt and fresh) water, and most
have tides, while inland wetlands are non-
tidal and freshwater. Coastal wetlands are an
integral component of estuaries.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
-* 52
------- |