EPA
REGION 7
Progress at Region 7
National Priorities List (NPL)
Superfund Sites
MISSOURI
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:
Bee Cee Manufacturing Plant 11
Big River Mine Tailings/St Joe Minerals 13
Conservation Chemical Company 15
Ellisville Area Site 18
Fulbright Landfill 21
Kern-Pest Laboratories 23
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant 25
Lee Chemical 28
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek Site 30
Missouri Electric Works Site 33
North U Drive Well Contamination Site 36
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt 38
Quality Plating 40
Shenandoah Stables 42
Solid State Circuits 44
*St Louis Airport/HIS/Futura Coating 46
Syntex Facility-Verona 49
Times Beach 51
Valley Park TCE 54
Weldon Spring Quarry/PLNT/PITS (USDOE) 56
Weldon Spring Ordnance Works (FORMER) 59
Westland Landfill 62
Wheeling Disposal Service Company Inc 64
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets 66
-------
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. The EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and to deploy the expens,
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
oh each State or Territorial site being cleaned
up under the Superfund program. These sites
represent the most serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation and require the most
complicated and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each book gives a "snapshot" of
the conditions and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site. Information
presented for each site is current as of April
1991. Conditions change as our cleanup
efforts continue, so these site summaries will
be updated annually to include information on
new progress being made.
To help you understand the cleanup accom-
plishments made at these sites, this volume
includes a description of the process for site
discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
cleanup of Superfund sites. This description,
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up
Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
which to review the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.
-------
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*
f
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 shon 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
appear to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to two years to
complete. This blueprint for site cleanup
includes not only the details on every aspect of
the construction work, but a description of the
types of hazardous wastes expected at the site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
how long does It take to actually
clean up the site, and how much
does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site
cleanup, called the remedial action, are as
varied as the remedies themselves. In a few
cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or
dredging contaminated river bottoms can take
several years of complex engineering work
before contamination is reduced to safe levels.
Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site.
Once the cleanup action is
completed, is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. 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 panics can be identified.
10
-------
MANUFACTURI
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980860522
EPA REGION 7
Dunklin County
City of Maiden
Site Description
The former owners of the Bee Cee Manufacturing Co., a 2-acre site in Maiden's industrial
park, manufactured aluminum storm windows and doors from 1964 to 1983. Workers
discharged chromium-contaminated wastewater directly onto the ground without any
treatment or an EPA-approved permit. An area about 50 feet by 100 feet is visibly affected,
possibly to a depth of 1 or 2 feet. In 1981, the State advised the owners that their disposal
practices put them in violation of the Missouri Qean Water Law. Bankruptcy proceedings
ended the State's efforts to have the owners install a wastewater treatment system. Another
company now leases the building, and the City of Maiden owns the contaminated land. Four
shallow wells and two deep wells in Maiden supply drinking water for 11,500 people; one
shallow well is about 1,000 feet southwest of the site. Approximately 8,500 people live within
a 3-mile radius of the site; 60 live within 1 mile. The closest residence is 1/4 mile away from
the site. Fifteen wells lie within 1 mile of the site, and 150 wells are within 3 miles. A low-
income nursing home project located 1/2 mile south of the site is of particular concern.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Off-site groundwater and on-site soils are contaminated with chromium and
aluminum. Private wells in the vicinity used for watering livestock and irrigating
crops have been contaminated since 1984. Groundwater contamination has been
demonstrated in a shallow aquifer well about 1/2 mile from the site. The public
wells, 2 miles downgradient from the site, may be connected to the contaminated
aquifer. People who have direct contact with the contaminated soils or drink
contaminated groundwater are at risk. Local soils are sandy, which makes it easier
for contaminants to enter the groundwater.
11
July 1993
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1992, the State began sampling the contaminated soil and
groundwater at and around the site in an attempt to characterize the nature and
extent of pollution, as well as the options for final cleanup. The study was
completed in 1993. It indicated that the contamination in groundwater is stable. EPA
removed contaminated soil.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Bee Cee Manufacturing site to the NPL, the EPA performed a preliminary
evaluation and determined that no immediate actions were necessary to protect the nearby
population or the environment while the investigations leading to a final cleanup solution are
taking place. EPA removed the contaminated soil from the site. The state investigated the
grundwater and determined that a area of contamination has stablized under site and is not
moving off site.
Site Repository
Maiden Branch - Dunklin County Library, 113 N. Madison, Maiden, MO 63863
July 1993 BEE CEE MANUFACTURING CO.
12
-------
BIG RIVER MIN
TAILINGS/ST. JO
MINERALS CORP.
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD981126899
EPA REGION 7
Si Francois County
Desloge
Site Description
The Big River Mine Tailings/St. Joe Minerals Corp. site is located in a former mining region
known as the "Old Lead Belt", which is 70 miles south of St. Louis. Numerous tailings ponds
and piles are found in this rural region, approximately 110 square miles in size. From 1929 to
1958, mine tailings rich with lead, cadmium, and zinc were disposed of at the 600-acre Big
River Mine Tailings area by the St. Joe Minerals Corp. Three sides of this site are bounded
by Big River. In 1972, St. Joe Minerals Corp. donated 502 acres of land in the area to St.
Francois County. Since 1973, St. Francois County Environmental Corp. (SFCEC) has leased
approximately 60 acres of the southern portion of the tailings pile from the County to
operate a sanitary landfill. In 1977, heavy rains caused an estimated 50,000 cubic yards of
tailings to slump into Big River. Elevated levels of lead were first detected in bottom-feeding
fish by the Missouri Department of Conservation and then later in surface water by the
Columbia National Fisheries Research Laboratory in 1982. Local residents were advised not
to eat the fish. In 1981, St. Joe Minerals Corp. made an attempt to stabilize the tailings. Big
River is used for recreational purposes such as fishing, as well as for commercial activities
such as watering livestock. Some 23,000 people reside within 4 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 02/07/92
Final Date: 10/14/92
Elevated levels of lead, cadmium, and zinc have been detected in the tailings pile.
Surface water and various forms of biota in Big River contain elevated
concentrations of lead. Wind erosion and airborne dust have contaminated the
surrounding air and are a potential hazard to on-site workers, residents, and
children at a nearby day care center. People on site risk being exposed to
contaminants in the soil.
July 1993
13
-------
Cleanup Approach
An Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis has been prepared for the conduct of a non-time
critical removal action to stabilize and contain contamination onsite. A Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study will be performed for groundwater at the site subsequent to
site stabilization activities.
Response Action Status
Surface Soil/Stream Sediment: In late 1993, an investigation is scheduled to
begin to determine the nature and extent of contamination. This investigation will
conclude with recommendations for final site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
Initial investigations indicate that the Big River Mine Tailings/St. Joe Minerals Corp. site
poses no immediate threat to the health and safety of the nearby population while
investigations are underway and activities are being planned for cleanup of the site.
Site Repository
».
Not established.
July 1993 BIG RIVER MINE TAILINGS/
- , ST. JOE MINERALS CORP.
-------
CONSERVATI
CHEMICAL CO.
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD000829705
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
Jackson County
3900 Front Street, Kansas City
Other Names:
CCC
The Conservation Chemical Company site, located in eastern Kansas City, operated as a
chemical storage and disposal facility from 1960 until 1980. The owners began waste disposal
operations almost immediately after building chemical treatment basins, a process area, and a
roadway ramp. Waste disposal basins, which either were unlined or poorly lined, were used to
store and receive wastes, and also served as drying beds and containers for by-product
sludges. Many operating records were destroyed in a 1970 fire; those records that survived
listed organic chemicals, solvents, acids, caustics, metal hydroxides, and cyanide compounds as
some of the materials accepted for disposal at the site. Reports also indicate that pesticides,
herbicides, waste oils, organic solvents, halogenated compounds, arsenic, and elemental
phosphorus were handled by the facility, as well as pressurized cylinders and other metal
containers placed in the lagoons. Information is incomplete, but it is estimated that the
facility handled at least 48,000,000 gallons of liquids and sludges and 1,144 tons of solids.
About 93,000 cubic yards of materials including drums, bulk liquids, sludges, and solids were
buried at the site. By-products from any treatment processes used on the waste materials also
were dumped on site. An attempt was made to neutralize hazardous chemicals by blending
some wastes and to stabilize the upper waste layers on the site by mixing acidic metal
finishing wastes with fly ash and certain sludges, which produced a mixture consisting largely
of gypsum. In 1977, the Missouri Clean Water Commission ordered the site closed and
covered, and the owner covered the soil caps with gypsum. The site is located in the 100-year
flood plain of the Missouri River, about 500 feet away from its banks, and near its confluence
with the Little Blue River. The site itself was raised about 10 feet above the surrounding
area, but most of it would be immersed during a flood. Private wells provide drinking water to
approximately 120 people within 3 miles of the property. The Courtney Bend well field is
downstream from the site; it supplies drinking water to the City of Independence, which is 5
miles from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL UST1NG HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/10/85
Final Date: 10/04/89
July 1993
15
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater both on and off the site contains heavy metals including arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, and lead; cyanide; phenolic compounds; and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including benzene, chloroform, and toluene. Surface and
subsurface soil on the site contained all of the above, as well as dioxins and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Contaminants were entering the Missouri River
via groundwater that feeds the river. The Missouri River is used locally and
regionally for recreation, industry, irrigation, and as a municipal water supply.
People on or near the site may have been exposed by coming in direct contact with
contaminated soils or eating food grown in contaminated soil or game that feeds
on contaminated plants before site cleanup.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focused on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA selected a remedy for this site in 1987. It featured both
source control and groundwater cleanup measures: surface cleaning including
demolition and disposal of existing buildings, tanks, and debris and placing them in
an on-site cap; installing a withdrawal well system designed to keep groundwater from moving
away from the site; building a groundwater extraction and treatment system to remove
contaminants; and monitoring the quality and level of off-site groundwater. The surface
cleanup began in early 1989 and was completed by August 1989. Installation of the well
networks was started in 1989 and was completed in early 1990. Construction of the treatment
plant began in 1989 and was completed in March 1990. The groundwater extraction system
will be in operation for 30 years, after which, the EPA will evaluate if cleanup goals have
been met.
Site Facts: In November 1982, the United States filed suit against the parties it deemed
responsible for the site contamination; these defendants in turn sued a host of other
potentially responsible parties in 1984. By August 1985, the defendants had agreed to design
and conduct a cleanup on the site that included the construction of a slurry wall and to
reimburse the Government for its costs to date. However, new information about the expense
and construction difficulty associated with the slurry wall caused a delay in actions. After
additional negotiations, the potentially responsible parties agreed to perform a cleanup based
on hydraulic control through extraction wells.
July 1993 CONSERVATION CHEMICAL CO.
16
-------
Environmental Progress
Construction of the remedies selected by the EPA to clean up the Conservation Chemical
site has been completed. These actions have eliminated surface contamination and have
halted further pollution of surface and groundwater resources. The EPA and the potentially
responsible parties are continuing to actively monitor the effectiveness of the continuing
groundwater cleanup.
Site Repository
Mid-Continent Public Library, 317 W. Highway 24, Independence, MO 64050
CONSERVATION CHEMICAL CO.
July 1993
17
-------
ELLISVILLE
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980633010
EPA REGION 7
Si Louis County
Near Ellisvllle, 20 miles west of
downtown St Louis
Other Names:
Mario Angelo Stte
Rosalie Investment Co.
Mid-America Arena
Callahan Property
Bliss, Russel Site Bliss Ranch
Site Description
The Ellisville Site consists of three nearby non-contiguous subsites: the Bliss property, the
Callahan property, and the Rosalie property. Initial investigations at the sites focused on
these three properties. During the investigations, an additional four contaminated properties
were discovered adjacent to the Bliss Property and were added to that subsite. During the
1960s and 1970s, Russell Bliss owned and operated the Bliss Waste Oil Company, a business
engaged in the transportation and disposal of waste oil products, industrial wastes, and
chemical wastes. These wastes were disposed of in pits, drums, and on the surface of
properties around the company's headquarters in Ellisville. The Bliss property subsite is,
located in western St. Louis County and covers approximately 11 acres of land. Developed
portions of the subsite include the Mid-America Arena and associated buildings and stables.
The property is drained by Caulks Creek, which empties into a tributary to the Missouri
River. Pits were dug at the site and were used for industrial waste disposal. Drums of wastes
had been buried at the site, and liquid wastes had been dumped on the ground. The Callahan
property is an 8-acre tract of land located approximately a mile from Ellisville. Drummed
liquid and solid wastes were disposed of on the property during the 1970s. The Callahan
subsite is situated on a steep-walled gully that drains into a tributary to the Missouri River.
The Rosalie property is an 85-acre tract of land. Drummed liquid and solid wastes were
disposed of on approximately 4 acres of the site. A housing development now is located on
the Rosalie subsite. Approximately 1,000 people live within a 1-mile radius of the subsites;
5,000 live within 3 miles. Residents rely on drinking water drawn from private wells and the
public distribution system. Roughly 265 wells exist within 1 mile, and 789 are within 3 miles of
the sites.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
July 1993
18
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Soil is contaminated with dioxin and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at the
Bliss properties. Soils at the Callahan and Rosalie properties contain VOCs.
Potential health risks exist through the airborne migration of contaminated fugitive
dusts and leachate migrating into the groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases directed at cleanup of the Callahan and Rosalie subsites and the Bliss subsite, which
includes four adjacent contaminated properties.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1981, the State removed, covered, and overpacked
drums; took samples; and staged the drums from the Callahan subsite. Workers
posted signs and the State maintained 24-hour security at the site. Excavation
activities revealed up to 1,000 drums buried on the site. In early 1982, EPA emergency
workers performed the following activities: posted additional warning signs, drained and
sealed Farm Pond, built runoff control and leachate interception trenches, excavated and
overpacked buried drums, sampled and sorted drums, built an on-site storage area, and
removed and disposed of contaminated soil. In late 1984, drums and other wastes were
delivered to the TWI incinerator in Illinois for disposal. In 1990, the EPA steam-cleaned
some drum fragments on the site and constructed a fence to restrict site access. In 1992, the
EPA performed maintenance on the synthetic cover in the creek bank at the Bliss subsite.
Callahan and Rosalie Subsites: The EPA selected a remedy for the Callahan
and Rosalie properties in 1985. The Callahan property cleanup remedy includes:
(1) controlling erosion and slippage of the fill area where drums had been
excavated from 1980 to 1981 and removing what remained of that cleanup; (2) removing and
disposing of the plastic cover and hold-down blocks from the fill area; (3) regrading the fill to
a more stable slope, covering it with a compacted soil layer, and reseeding; and (4) removing
and salvaging fences and gravel from the former drum-storage areas. The Rosalie subsite
cleanup remedy includes: (1) excavating contaminated soil from two locations and removing it
to an EPA-approved hazardous waste facility; (2) placing debris in drums; (3) excavating and
overpacking buried drums and sampling and testing their contents; (4) disposing of drums at
an EPA-approved disposal facility; (5) testing soil to verify the effectiveness of the cleanup;
and (6) backfilling excavated areas with clean soil and reseeding disturbed areas. Under State
supervision, cleanup at the Rosalie property was completed. The design of the technical
specifications for the cleanup of the Callahan property subsite was completed in mid-1990.
Work at the Callahan property is expected to be completed by the end of 1992.
July 1993 ELUSVILLE SITE
19
-------
Bliss and Adjacent Properties: During the investigation of the Bliss property
subsite, contamination was discovered on four neighboring parcels: the Dubman
and Weingart property, Primm property, Wade and Mercantile Trust Company
property, and the Russell, Evelyn, and Jerry Bliss property. The EPA selected a remedy for
these properties in 1986. The first part of the cleanup focuses on dioxin-contaminated soils;
the second entails excavation and off-site disposal of buried drums and materials
contaminated with chemicals other than dioxin. The Bliss/contiguous properties soils cleanup
remedy selected in 1986 includes: (1) excavating dioxin-contaminated soils and containerizing
them; (2) storing the containers of waste temporarily in a metal building on the site; and (3)
maintaining security, controlling surface drainage at the site, and sampling the groundwater.
The drum and other cleanup remedies include: (1) excavating, sampling, and overpacking
buried drums; (2) excavating hazardous wastes and contaminated soils and materials; (3)
taking drums and waste mixtures suitable for land disposal to an appropriate EPA-approved
facility; (4) incinerating drums and waste mixtures unsuitable for land disposal off site at an
EPA-approved facility, and (5) disposing of non-hazardous material and debris at a permitted
sanitary landfill. For both components of this remedy, site restoration activities will include
backfilling, regrading, and seeding, where needed. In late 1991, the EPA issued an amended
cleanup remedy for the dioxin-contaminated materials at the Bliss subsite. Under this
remedy, interim storage of dioxin-contaminated material was eliminated. Instead, these
materials will be excavated and transported directly to the nearby Times Beach Site where
contaminated materials will be destroyed by thermal treatments. The EPA is designing the
technical specifications for the cleanup at the Bliss/contiguous properties subsite. Design
activities are scheduled for completion in 1993.
Environmental Progress
All contaminated materials have been removed from the Rosalie and Callahan subsites. The
perimeter fence installed at the Bliss subsite has controlled unauthorized access to this
portion of the site, thereby reducing the potential for direct contact with contaminated soils
while final cleanup activities are being planned.
Site Repository
EPA Information Trailer, 1-44, Lewis Exit, Times Beach, MO 63025
ELUSVILLE SITE July 1993
20
-------
FULBRIGHT
LANDFILL
MISSOURI
EPAID#MOD980631139
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
Greene County
3 miles north of Springfield
Other Names:
Springfield Fulbrlght Landfill
Sac River Landfill
Murray Landfill
Highway 13 Landfill
The 212-acre Fulbright Landfill site consists of the Fulbright and Sac River Landfills
(formerly known as the Murray Landfill). The City of Springfield used these landfills, both of
which now are closed, for the disposal of municipal and industrial wastes. The Fulbright
Landfill, consisting of 98 acres, accepted waste from 1962 through 1968. The Sac River
Landfill, which consists of 114 acres, operated from 1968 until 1974.
Industrial wastes disposed of in these landfills included cyanides, acids, plating and paint
sludges, pesticide residues, waste oil, and solvents. The contents of between 1,200 and 2,600
drums were dumped into pits at the site with the empty 55-gallon drums left in the pits or in
the general landfill areas. In 1967, a waste hauler died from toxic fume inhalation when he
inadvertently dumped a drum of acid into a pit containing cyanide. A sinkhole on the bluff
above the Fulbright Landfill contained a few dozen drums and waste residues. An estimated
10,000 people live within a 3-mile radius. The landfill lies in a semi-rural area in the flood
plain of the Little Sac River. Surrounding land use includes a police shooting range, a dog
pound, an active wastewater treatment plant, and an inactive wastewater treatment plant.
The local drinking water supply is drawn from a municipal well and a lake upgradient of the
site. Groundwater also is used for crop irrigation and industrial processes. The nearest
population and well are 1,000 feet upgradient of the landfills.
Site Responsibility: This site has been addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater contained a wide variety of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and other organic chemicals, as well as heavy metals and cyanide from former
waste disposal practices. Chromium was found in sediments. Groundwater flows
into the adjacent Sac River, which also receives treated municipal wastewater.
Since the landfill is in the flood plain of the Little Sac River, high waters may have
spread site contaminants.
21
July 1993
-------
Cleanup Approach
Responsible parties have completed short term remedial actions, consisting of drum and
waste removal for offsite disposal under EPA. EPA has not yet identified the need for any
additional long term, response actions.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Under monitoring by the EPA, the parties potentially responsible for
the site contamination completed a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS)
of the site in 1988. The following short term remedies was selected for the site:
removing drums and drum remnants from the sinkhole and the associated trench east of the
Fulbright Landfill; sampling drum contents to establish the hazardous nature of their
contents; disposing of the removed contents at an off-site EPA-approved facility, performing
groundwater and surface water monitoring for a 30-year maintenance period; monitoring the
leachate that occasionally seeps from the landfill during this period to determine if future
action is warranted to curtail it; and imposing deed restrictions to prevent future development
on the site and groundwater use prohibitions. The cleanup activities began in 1990 and were
completed in early 1992. Groundwater and surface water monitoring will continue.
Site Facts: In March 1986, the EPA issued a Consent Order to the City of Springfield,
Litton Industries, Inc., and Litton Business Systems, Inc., which had all been identified as
potentially responsible parties. The Order required them to conduct an RI/FS under the
EPA's oversight. In January 1990, the EPA issued a Consent Decree for the potentially
responsible parties to design the short term remedy selected by EPA in this ROD.
Environmental Progress
The removal and disposal of contaminated soils from the sinkhole and trench area has
eliminated the threat of exposure to contamination at the Fulbright Landfill. The
implementation of restrictions on land and groundwater use and continual groundwater and
surface water monitoring to ensure that there is no potential future risk to human health or
the environment.
Site Repository
Springfield/Greene County Library, 397 E. Central, Springfield, MO 65801.
July 1993 FULBRIGHT LANDFILL
22
-------
KEM-PEST
LABORATORIES'
MISSOURI
EPAID#MOD980631113
EPA REGION 7
Cape Girardeau County
Near Cape Girardeau
Site Description
The Kern-Pest Laboratories site covers 6 acres and is located near Cape Girardeau.
Beginning in 1965, Kern-Pest formulated various pesticide products, including liquid pesticides,
granular insecticides, granular herbicides, and pesticide dust. The company suspended
operations in 1975. There have been no production, treatment, or disposal activities at the
site since 1977. A building on site has been used to store equipment and materials. A 1,250-
square-foot lagoon at the facility formerly was used to dispose of plant waste and sewage.
When the company closed the lagoon in 1981, it was filled with compacted clay. An EPA
inspection in 1983 revealed that the lagoon cover was eroding and that no vegetation existed
on the clay cap. Cape Girardeau, with a population of 60,925, draws drinking water from the
Mississippi River, located less than a mile downstream of the site. Approximately 200 people
live within a mile of the site, and 1,284 live within 3 miles. The site is adjacent to the flood
plain of the Mississippi River. A freshwater wetland is located within a mile of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
E
Sampling in 1984 and 1989 detected pesticides including heptachlor, chlordane and
endrin in the shallow aquifer. Drainage channel sediments contained pesticides
including aldrin and dieldrin. Pesticides and various volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) were detected in subsurface and surface soil samples. Potential risks may
exist for those who come in direct contact with the contaminated building
structures or the soil on the site.
July 1993
23
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the soil
and sediments and cleanup of the groundwater and the contaminated on-site structure.
Response Action Status
Soil and Sediments: In 1984, the EPA installed Gve monitoring wells on site
and collected groundwater, soil, and sediment samples. In 1988, the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination sampled soils from the lagoon. The
EPA has excavated approximately 6,075 cubic yards of contaminated soil and sediment and
has disposed of them at a federally approved off-site land disposal facility. Sampling will be
conducted to confirm that all contaminated soils are removed. Clean soil that has been placed
in the excavated areas and will be compacted and graded. Vegetation or gravel will then be
applied to the surface to minimize erosion. The cleanup activities are scheduled to be
completed in mid-1992.
Groundwater and On-Site Structure: In 1988, the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination conducted sampling of the contaminated
building structure. The EPA selected a remedy in 1990 to address this portion of
the site. The 1989 to 1990 study concluded that groundwater did not require any cleanup
activities, although the EPA will continue monitoring to ensure that groundwater maintains
acceptable standards. The remedy to address the contaminated building structure includes
decontamination of the building and off-site incineration in a federally approved facility of the
debris. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has begun to design the remedy and is expected
to begin cleanup activities in 1993.
Site Facts: Pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent entered into in November
1988, the parties potentially responsible for the contamination conducted sampling of soils
from the lagoon and the formulation building in December 1988. An Interagency Agreement
was signed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement the remedy.
Environmental Progress
The excavation and disposal of contaminated soil and sediment at the Kern-Pest Laboratories
site have reduced the threat from hazardous materials to the nearby population while
remaining design activities leading to decontamination and dismantling of the building
are being planned.
Site Repository
Cape Girardeau Public Library, 711 N. Clark Street, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
July 1993 KEM-PEST LABORATORIES
24
-------
LAKE CITY AR
AMMUNITION P
(NORTHWEST
LAGOON)
MISSOURI
EPA ID# M0321 389001 2
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
Jackson County
Independence
The Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (LCAAP) occupies approximately 4,000 acres.
LCAAP has manufactured, stored, and tested small arms ammunition continuously since
1941, except for a five year period following World War n. Virtually all waste treatment and
disposal has been on site. LCAAP has relied heavily on lagoons, landfills, and burn pits for
waste disposal. Industrial operations have generated large quantities of potentially hazardous
waste including oils/greases, solvents, explosives, and metals. There are 11 residences on the
grounds served by LCAAP's water treatment plant. Adjacent to the northern boundary of the
site is Lake City, with a population of approximately SO people. Private residences off site use
groundwater from private wells. There are 13 production wells that supply water for base
personnel. The Missouri River and Little Blue River, located near the site, are used for
recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater beneath the site, soil, and surface water are contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), various explosives, and heavy metals including
lead, arsenic, and chromium from former waste disposal practices. Potential threats
exist for those who accidentally have direct contact with or ingest contaminated
groundwater, surface water, or soil. All on-site personnel and residences' water
supplies are served from a water treatment plant at the site.
Cleanup Approach
25
July 1993
-------
This site is being addressed in five stages: immediate actions and four long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of the installation-wide area, the northeast corner, Area 18 and
Area 8.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Four air strippers were installed in the plant's drinking
water supply facilities to remove contaminants before reaching the water
treatment plant. LCAAP also is monitoring off-site residences' wells quarterly.
Installation-Wide Area: The Department of the Army initiated an investigation
in 1987 to determine the extent and type of contamination on site and to identify
alternative technologies for the cleanup. The study confirmed contamination of the
groundwater beneath the entire site and identified several source areas of concern with
respect to potential environmental contamination. In 1991, the investigation was expanded
and identified additional source areas. Additional fieldwork was completed in 1992.
Northeast Corner: The Army initiated an investigation in 1990 to determine the
extent and type of contamination present in the northeastern comer. Following
review of the preliminary data, the Army has determined that additional field work
is required. This fieldwork was completed in 1992 and the Remedial Investigation Report will
be completed in 1993.
Area 18: Previous environmental data from the installation-wide site investigation
indicate this site has contaminated the soil and groundwater at LCAAP. An
investigation of Area 18, which will provide additional information needed to
determine the magnitude and extent of contamination, was completed in 1992 and the
Remedial Investigation Report will be completed in 1993.
Area 8: Previous sampling activities have identified contamination of the soil and
groundwater in Area 8. Additional information is needed to characterize the
nature and extent of the contamination. Additional field sampling was completed
in 1992.
Site Facts: The plant is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a specially
funded program established by the DOD in 1978 to identify, investigate, and control the
migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DOD facilities. An Interagency
Agreement (LAG) between the EPA, the Army, and the State of Missouri was signed in 1989,
covering the remaining investigative, design, and cleanup activities throughout the installation.
July 1993 LAKE CITY ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
26 (NORTHWEST LAGOON)
-------
Environmental Progress
The installation of air strippers, closure of lagoons, and the LCAAP water treatment plant
has greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the Lake City
Army Ammunition Plant (Northwest Lagoon) site while further investigations leading to final
cleanup activities are taking place.
Site Repository
Mid-Continent Public Library-South, Blue Springs MO
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, Independence, MO
LAKE CITY ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
(NORTHWEST LAGOON)
July 1993
II
-------
CHEMICAL
MISSOURI
EPAID#MOD980853519
EPA REGION 7
Clay County
3 miles southeast of Liberty
Other Names:
Liberty Public Water Supply
Site Description
The 1-acre Lee Chemical site was used for packaging a variety of chemicals from 1966 until
1974, when Lee Chemical abandoned the facility. City officials found several hundred drums
of chemicals on site in 1976, most of which were removed by the City in 1977. Although the
City, which owns the property, has removed the building and visible contamination from the
site and taken soil samples, analyses indicate that trichloroethylene (TCE) is still present on
the site. During a drinking water study in 1980, the EPA sampled the city's water wells and
found TCE. Since then, the most contaminated wells have not been used for drinking water.
The water from the remaining wells no longer contains detectable levels of TCE. There are
approximately 24,000 people living within a 3-mile radius of the site. The nearest residence is
approximately 1/4 mile from the site. The City's drinking water supply wells are 1/4 mile away
from the site; abandoned, unplugged drinking water supply wells are also on the site. There
are several irrigation wells near the site. Industrial and commercial facilities near the site use
groundwater for cooling or process water.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
City actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, and soil are contaminated with TCE.
Contaminated groundwater, surface water, and soil could adversely affect the
health of individuals through direct contact or ingestion. In addition,
bioaccumulation of contaminants in fish, water fowl, livestock, and commercial
agricultural products may be another exposure pathway. The Town Branch of the
Shoal Creek is located approximately 2,000 feet downslope from the site and
receives contaminated water discharged from one city well and an on-site
extraction well. The creek empties into the Missouri River about 1 mile
downstream.
28
July 1993
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The City removed several hundred barrels of chemicals and
arranged to clear the land surrounding the old treatment plant left by Lee
Chemical. In 1983, a contractor working for the City demolished the plant,
cleared the site, and has disposed of the waste material. The City has monitored the well
water and drinking water and has managed the use of supply wells to eliminate TCE in the
drinking water. The City installed two new supply wells in 1982.
Entire Site: The City completed a study of the extent and nature of the
contamination in 1990. Following a public comment period, the EPA selected a
remedy, which includes installation of a more efficient purge well on site and
continuation of the interim action requiring discharge of extracted groundwater to a nearby
creek. In-situ aqueous soil flushing will be used through the installation of an infiltration field
on site. Design activities have been completed and construction is underway. Completion of
the construction activity is expected in August or September of 1993. The EPA continues to
provide the City of Liberty with technical assistance in support of site cleanup.
Site Facts: The State of Missouri and the City of Liberty signed a Consent Order in March
1992. Under the terms of the order, the city will be responsible for the design and
implementation of cleanup activities under State supervision.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions described above, including the removal of contaminated barrels from
the site and the monitoring of well water, have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances at the Lee Chemical site. Further studies leading to the selection of a
long-term remedy for the site have been completed, and the cleanup activities are scheduled
to begin soon.
Site Repository
Liberty Public Library, 1000 S. Kent, Liberty, MO 64048
July 1993 LEE CHEMICAL
29
-------
MINKER/STOU
ROMAINE CREE
MISSOURI
EPAID#MOD980741912
EPA REGION 7
Jefferson County
Near Imperial
Site Description
The Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek site covers about 10 acres of non-contiguous properties
near Imperial. One of the properties, the Bubbling Springs Ranch horse arena, was sprayed
with dioxin-contaminated oil for dust control. Afterward, several horses became ill, and seven
died. The horse arena was excavated in 1972, and the dioxin-contaminated soil was used as
Gil material in residential areas, including the Minker, Stout, Cashel, and Sullins residences.
Much of the Gil from the Minker residence eroded into Romaine Creek. In 1983, the EPA
detected dioxin in the soil on site and in sediments of Romaine Creek. Approximately 500
people live within 1 mile of the site. The sediments of Romaine Creek were contaminated as
far as 6,000 feet downstream; however, the creek was not used as a drinking water source.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The sediments and soil from Romaine Creek were contaminated with dioxin from
the soil that was used as Gil in the residential areas. People who came into direct
contact with or accidentally ingested the contaminated soil or sediments were at
risk. The Gsh of Romaine Creek may pose a health hazard if eaten.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in Gve stages: immediate actions and four long-term remedial
phases focusing on Gnal treatment of contaminated soil, cleanup of Romaine Creek, cleanup
of the Stout area, and relocation activities.
July 1993
30
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Between 1985 and 1989, the EPA excavated about 12,000
cubic yards of soil at the Minker area, at the Sullins and Cashel residences,
Romaine Creek, and the Stout area. The soil was placed in steel storage
Soil: The EPA selected a remedy to clean up the soil, which includes thermally
treating previously excavated contaminated soils from this site at the Times Beach
site, another dioxin-contaminated site. The soil will be incinerated, which
permanently removes the contaminants. The ash from the incinerator will be disposed of on
the Times Beach site. The design of the remedy currently is being prepared in coordination
with the remedy design for the Times Beach site. Completion of EPA design activities is
scheduled for 1993.
Romaine Creek: In 1987, the EPA selected a remedy to clean Romaine Creek,
which included excavating the contaminated soil and sediments and temporarily
storing them in steel structures on site. The excavated areas were backfilled with
clean material suitable for a natural creek. In 1989, the EPA completed the excavation and
storage of contaminated materials.
Stout Area: In 1987, the EPA selected a remedy to clean the Stout property,
which included excavating the contaminated soil and placing it in interim on-site
storage. The EPA completed excavation and storage activities at the Stout
property in 1988.
Relocation: In 1983, the EPA permanently relocated 12 families. Two other
families temporarily were relocated by the State during excavation of the Minker
area; they have been returned to their residences. The administrative activities
relating to the permanent relocation is expected to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: Under the terms of a Consent Decree entered in Federal Court in
December 1990, several settling defendants were given the responsibility to operate a thermal
treatment unit at the Times Beach site for treatment of all contaminated materials excavated
from the Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek site. The EPA is responsible for transporting the soils
from these areas to the Times Beach site for treatment.
Environmental Progress
The relocation of affected residents and the excavation of contaminated soils and sediments
from all portions of the site have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials
at the Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek site while the EPA completes the remaining cleanup
activities.
July 1993 MINKER/STOUT/ROMAINE CREEK
31
-------
Site Repository
EPA Information Trailer, 1-44, Lewis Exit, Times Beach, MO 63025
MINKER/STOUT/ROMAINE CREEK July 1993
32
-------
MISSOURI EL
WORKS
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980965982
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
Cape Girardeau County
Cape Girardeau
Missouri Electric Works, located on this 6 1/2-acre site, has been in operation at its present
location since 1953 and sells, services, and reconditions electric motors, transformers, and
transformer controls. In addition, it recycles transformer oil and copper wire. The transformer
oil was filtered and reused, with about 90 percent being salvaged. The remaining waste oil
either was sold to local residents for dust control purposes, disposed of by a contractor, or
simply was allowed to leak or spill onto the ground around the facility. Some waste oil
reportedly was burned on site. The total amount of waste oil generated was about 28,000
gallons. The facility was issued an order during August 1988, prohibiting the company from
accepting electrical equipment containing oil with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) levels in
excess of 1 part per million (ppm). Approximately 37,800 people live within 3 miles of the site,
while 1,000 people live within a mile of the site. The land around the site is used for
industrial and commercial purposes. Prime agricultural land is less than a mile away. The
Mississippi River, 2 miles from the site, is used for fishing, recreational and commercial
boating, and swimming. The Cape La Croix Creek, which flows into the Mississippi, receives
runoff from the site through a series of drainage ditches. Most of the water needs of the City
of Cape Girardeau are provided by the Mississippi River. However, groundwater from a
public well 2 miles south of the site supplements river water during peak demand periods. A
wetland area is located immediately to the south of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
July 1993
33
-------
Threats and Contaminants
The EPA found PCBs from site operations in on- and off-site air sampling during
1987. The soils in the area are somewhat permeable, and the bedrock is highly
fractured. These conditions have made it easier for PCBs and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) such as trichloroethylene (TCE) to flow into the groundwater.
VOCs, chlorinated hydrocarbons and PCBs have been found in the groundwater
below the site. Sediments in channels draining the site and areas off site contain
PCBs. PCB contamination of the soil is widespread and occurs to a depth of at
least 5 feet from leakage and disposal of contaminated transformer oil. Residents
who eat produce from gardens at the site could be at risk from the contaminated
soil. Breathing contaminated airborne dust near the site could affect the health of
those on or near the site.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The site owner erected barriers to stop PCBs from
migrating off site via drainage ditches and conducted sampling of a structure on
site. When it was determined that the site owner did not adequately perform
these activities, the EPA resampled the structure and erected new barriers across the
drainage ditches to reduce the migration of PCB-contaminated soil off site.
Entire Site: In 1990, the EPA selected a remedy which includes on-site
incineration of the PCB-contaminated soil and pumping and treatment of the
groundwater via air stripping, followed by carbon adsorption. After the site soils
have been incinerated, a further investigation of groundwater contamination is planned. The
design for incinerating contaminated materials is scheduled to begin in 1993.
Site Facts: Over 100 potentially responsible parties signed an Administrative Order on
Consent to study site contamination and the feasibility of various technologies for cleanup.
In late 1991, a Consent Decree was signed between EPA and 175 potentially responsible
parties to design the remedy and cleanup the soil under EPA supervision. The decree was
lodged in the US Court during June 1992. The Judge has not yet made a decision regarding
entry of the Decree.
July 1993 MISSOURI ELECTRIC WORKS
34
-------
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions undertaken by the EPA and the potentially responsible parties have
reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the Missouri Electrical Works
site while final remedies are being designed to clean up the soil and additional groundwater
investigation is being conducted.
Site Repository
Cape Girardeau Public Library, 711 N. Clark Street, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
MISSOURI ELECTRIC WORKS
July 1993
35
-------
NORTH-U
DRIVE WELL
CONTAMINATIONS
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD007163108
EPA REGION 7
Greene County
North of Springfield
Other Names:
ontgomery Metal Craft
Site Description
In 1983, the residents near the North-U Drive Well Contamination site became concerned
over the taste of their water. When the State investigated, it was discovered that seven
private wells at Ove locations were contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
The EPA extended public water supply lines to the affected homes. The source of the
contamination is unknown. Sinkholes in the area could have been used for waste disposal and
might also have served as a conduit for migration of contaminants to the groundwater.
There is no defined site boundary. This site is in a rural residential area with approximately
300 people living within a 1/4 mile radius. The contaminated wells are 1,500 feet west of
Fulbright Spring, a major water source for the City of Springfield, which has a population of
133,000.
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
Threats and Contaminants
Soil and groundwater in the private wells are contaminated with VOCs including
toluene and benzene. The majority of the private wells have been plugged and,
therefore, do not pose a health threat. However, a few owners have refused to
have their wells plugged; people who use the contaminated drinking water may
suffer adverse health effects. Recently, metals were found in some nearby private
wells. However, there are no nearby sources of metal contamination. The metals
found in groundwater may be a natural phenomenon resulting from metals in
alluvial soils, bedrocks, or groundwater, or could be attributed to plumbing.
Because the bedrock is fractured, it may allow contaminants to migrate from the
immediate area in directions and velocities which would not otherwise be expected.
July 1993
36
-------
Cleanup Approach
In March of 1993, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) in which EPA
determined that it could not undertake response action to address the organic
contaminants in the groundwater because the CERCLA "Petroleum Exclusion"
precludes Superfund response actions for the release of petroleum products.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1985, the EPA extended the Springfield
public water supply lines to North-U Drive. In addition, 67 private wells
permanently were plugged to prevent their use and to prevent the well
casings from serving as avenues of deep aquifer contamination.
Entire Site: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources conducted
a remedial investigation at this site. Data from this investigation was
used by EPA to determine the releases were from petroleum products.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions described above have eliminated the potential of exposure
to hazardous substances in the drinking water and will continue to protect
households around the North-U Drive Well Contamination site.
Site Repository
Kearny Branch Library, 630 W. Kearney, Springfield, MO 65801.
July 1993
37
NORTH-U DRIVE WELL
CONTAMINATION SITE
-------
ORONOGO-
MINING BELT
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980686281
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
Jasper County
2 miles northeast of Joplin
Other Names:
Tar Creek-Jasper County
Trl-State Mining Area
The Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt site, which covers 6,400 acres, is considered to be part of
the Tri-State Mining District of Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Two other sites in the
district, Cherokee County in Kansas and Tar Creek in Oklahoma, were placed on the NFL in
1983. Lead and zinc ores, as well as some cadmium ores, were mined from 1848 to the late
1960s, with the greatest activity occurring in an area between Oronogo and Duenweg,
northeast of Joplin. Mining efforts originally were performed by independent operations that,
in later years, were organized by several area mining companies. The site is honeycombed
with underground workings, pits, shafts (open, closed, and collapsed), mine tailings, waste
piles, and ponds holding tailing waters. An estimated 10 million tons of wastes or tailings are
on the site. Throughout the mining era, groundwater had to be pumped to prevent the
flooding of mines. When mining ceased, the shafts and underground workings Oiled with
water. Tailing piles have been left uncovered and unstabilized. Leachate and runoff from the
piles can enter open shafts and pits. Approximately 1,500 people obtain drinking water from
private wells within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Tests conducted in 1977 by the U.S. Geological Survey found on-site groundwater
and surface water to be contaminated with heavy metals including lead, zinc, and
cadmium from the mining operations. Potential risks may exist through drinking
contaminated surface water and groundwater or coming into direct contact with
contaminated water.
July 1993
38
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation by the EPA into the extent and type of
contamination at the site began in 1991. Once the investigation is completed,
scheduled for 1994, alternatives for cleanup will be reviewed and selected, and
cleanup work will begin.
Site Facts: This mining site is potentially eligible for cleanup funds from the State of
Missouri's approved program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977. The EPA is developing a policy for listing such sites. An Interagency Agreement was
signed with the U.S. Geological Survey in April 1990 to provide technical assistance at this
site.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were needed at the Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt
site while further studies are underway to determine the final cleanup remedy.
Site Repository
Three site repositories have been established within Jasper County:
1.) Webb City Public Library 2.) Joplin Public Library
101 S. Liberty 300 Main Street
Webb City, Missouri 64870 Joplin, Missouri 64801
3) Carl Junction City Hall
105 N. Main Street
Carl Junction, Missouri 64834
July 1993 ORONOGO-DUENWEG MINING BELT
39
-------
QUALITY
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980860555
Site Description
The Quality Plating site covers approximately 5 acres in Sikeston. The site originally consisted
of a 1-acre unlined lagoon and the manufacturing plant. From 1978 until the facility was
destroyed by fire in early 1983, Quality Plating was engaged in contract electroplating of
common and precious metals. Untreated wastewater originating from the flow-through rinse
tanks, as well as acid, alkaline, and metal-plating batch solutions, were continuously
discharged into the lagoon at a rate of at least 10,000 gallons per day. The State detected
elevated levels of chromium and lead in an on-site well. The area now is used for hay
production. The population within a mile of the site is 120 people. Six residences within 1/4
mile of the site obtain drinking water from shallow wells.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
Finaj Date. 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and on-site soils are contaminated with metals such as lead and
chromium from the former electroplating operations. Drinking or bathing with the
contaminated groundwater could cause adverse health effects.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a two phases: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
July 1993
40
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: The Further Investigation of Groundwater Report indicated
the need to do a feasibility study for remediating contaminated groundwater.
Entire Site: Under monitoring by the EPA, the State began an investigation of
the site and alternative cleanup methods in mid-1991. To date, soil sampling,
installation of groundwater monitoring wells and groundwater sampling has been
conducted. The EPA removed contaminated soils from the site.
Site Facts: The State repeatedly has cited the company for discharging untreated plating
waste into subsurface waters. This was in violation of the company's permit under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The EPA and the State have entered into
a Cooperative Agreement to perform a study at the site, led by the State. This study
indicated the groundwter is contaminated with chromium and the plume is moving south of
the site.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated soils from the Quality Plating site has greatly reduce the
potential for future contamination of local groundwater while further investigations leading to
final cleanup activities are taking place.
Site Repository
Sikeston Public Library, 221 N. Kings Highway, Sikeston, MO 63801
July 1993 QUALITY PLATING
41
-------
SHENANDOA
STABLES
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980685838
EPA REGION 7
Lincoln County
Moscow Mills
Other Names:
Arena 1 - Shenandoah Stables
Highway 61 Fill
Slough Area
Site Description
The Shenandoah Stables site covers about 7 acres near Moscow Mills. In 1971, the horse
arena became contaminated with dioxin when a St. Louis waste oil hauler sprayed it with
approximately 2,000 gallons of contaminated oil for dust control. Afterward, numerous birds,
rodents, and over 40 horses died. Several adults and children also became ill. In 1971, the top
6 to 8 inches of contaminated soil were excavated and used as fill material in a new highway.
In 1972, more soil was removed from the arena and placed in a swampy area on site. The
EPA sampling in 1982 indicated that the top 30 inches of soil in the arena and soil in the
slough are contaminated with dioxin. Approximately nine houses are located in the rural area
within a 1/4-mile radius of the Shenandoah Stables. The adjacent properties are mostly
agricultural. The nearest residence is approximately 330 feet east of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The soil in the arena and slough is contaminated with dioxin from the placement
of contaminated oil on the site and from earlier cleanup attempts. Because
cleanup activities have taken place, the site no longer poses a threat to public
health or the environment.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases directed at cleanup of the soil and solid waste and disposal of the soil.
July 1993
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1988, the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination closed the stables, posted warning signs, and restricted access to
the property. Sampling also was done at this time to determine the amount of
contamination at the site.
Soil and Solid Waste: The EPA selected the methods for cleanup of the site in
summer 1988. These cleanup activities included: (1) excavating the soil to health-
based standards; (2) placing the soil in plastic bags and storing the bagged soil on
site in an approved facility; (3) decontaminating on-site structures; and (4) fencing and
posting the area. The EPA completed the cleanup in 1990, which included the excavation and
on-site interim storage of dioxin-contaminated soils above the 1 part per billion (ppb) action
level.
Soil Disposal: In September 1990, the EPA selected a remedy to dispose of the
soil; it will be completed in conjunction with the cleanup of the Times Beach site.
The selected action is to transport the bags of dioxin-contaminated soil to Times
Beach for incineration, once the Times Beach incinerator is operable. The design of the
remedy is scheduled to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: Pursuant to an EPA Administrative Order, the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination restricted public access to the site in 1983. The site initially was identiGed
due to citizen complaints concerning illnesses in children who had visited the site.
Environmental Progress
By closing the stables, restricting access to the site, and removing the contaminated soil, the
EPA has eliminated immediate threats to the community or the environment at the
Shenandoah Stables site. Contaminated soils from the site will be transported to the Times
Beach facility for Gnal destruction of dioxins by incineration.
Site Repository
Moscow Mills City Hall, 500 Highway MM, Moscow Mills, MO 63362
July 1993 SHENANDOAH STABLES
43
-------
SOLID STATE
CIRCUITS, INC
MISSOURI
EPAID#MOD980854111
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
Greene County
Republic
Other Names:
Republic Plant, SSC
The Solid State Circuits, Inc. (SSC) site covers 1 acre in Republic. During a 1980 drinking
water study, trichloroethylene (TCE), a volatile organic compound (VOC), was detected in
one of the City of Republic's public water supply wells. Further investigation by the State
identified the site, at which SSC formerly manufactured printed circuit boards, as the source
of the contamination. Allegedly, barrels of solvents, including TCE that was used as a copper
residue stripper, and plating wastes were stored in a sump pit in the basement of the facility.
The State learned that after a fire destroyed the building, the new property owner (not SSC)
buried the remaining structure and its contents in the basement, where there also was an
unplugged well. SSC excavated material from the basement and installed three monitoring
wells in response to an order from the State. The Town of Republic, with an estimated
population of 5,535, potentially is endangered by contaminated groundwater. There are
private wells and community wells within a 3-mile radius of the site. One community well was
closed as a result of the contamination. Schuyler Creek is located downgradient from the site,
approximately 2 miles away.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater on and off site is contaminated with VOCs including TCE,
methylene chloride, and chloroform from the former site operations. TCE was
measured in on-site soil prior to immediate response actions. Removal of
contaminated surface and subsurface soils eliminated the risk of exposure. Sewer
line and utility workers could be exposed to contaminated groundwater; however,
standard safety procedures eliminate unacceptable risks.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
July 1993
44
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1984, the EPA fenced the area where the building once
stood. In 1985, following SSC's initial cleanup actions at the site, the EPA
removed approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil from the basement, the soil
underneath the basement, and debris to further stabilize the site. The basement was sealed
with a gravel and soil cover to bring it up to grade. The EPA plugged the abandoned well,
and two wells were installed to extract contaminated groundwater.
Entire Site: Under the supervision of the State, SSC conducted an investigation
at the site to determine the extent and nature of contamination and to identify
alternative technologies for cleanup. As a result of the investigation, SSC will
extract the contaminated groundwater by using new and existing wells, perform on-site
treatment of extracted groundwater using two existing air strippers, discharge treated water to
the city sewer system to receive further treatment at the publicly owned treatment works, and
implement a city ordinance to prevent construction of drinking wells in or near the
contaminated groundwater plumes. Monitoring of the groundwater will continue to ensure
groundwater quality. SSC began designing the remedy in the spring of 1991. Installation of
the automated data collection and controller system began in late 1991, replacing the original
air stripper towers. The design was completed in late 1992. A shallow, fractured bedrock
groundwater extraction system and additional deep bedrock monitoring well will be installed
by Fall, 1993. The growndwater pump and treat system will be operational in the Fall, 1993
and it is expected to operate for 40 years.
Site Facts: The EPA, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and Solid State
Circuits signed a Consent Decree in July 1990, requiring SSC to conduct the remedy design,
construction and operation activities, under the supervision of the State. The Consent
Decree was entered by the Court in May, 1991.
Environmental Progress
After the initial cleanup actions undertaken by Solid State Circuits, Inc. the EPA secured the
site, removed contaminated soil and debris, sealed the basement area, and installed wells to
extract and treat the contaminated groundwater. These actions have reduced the potential
for exposure to hazardous substances while final remedy design and cleanup activities are
underway.
Site Repository
Springfield/Greene County Library, 393 E. Central, Springfield, MO 65801
July 1993 SOLID STATE CIRCUITS, INC.
45
-------
ST. LOUIS Al
HAZELWOOD
INTERIM
STORAGE/PUT
COATINGS CO.
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980633176
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
St Louis County
Approximately 15 miles northwest of
downtown
ibert/St Louis International Airport
Other Names:
od Interim Storage & Vicinity
Latty Avenue
mbert-St Louis IntL Airport
The St. Louis Airport/Hazelwood Interim Storage/Futura Coatings Co. site consists of three
areas covering approximately 32 acres. These areas were used for storing radioactive and
other wastes resulting from uranium processing operations conducted in St. Louis.
Radioactive scrap, drums of waste, and bulk waste were stored in the airport area in
uncovered and unstabilized piles from 1947 to the mid-1960s, when they were transferred to
the 9200 Latty Avenue area, later known as the Hazelwood Interim Storage (HIS) site.
Buildings in the airport area were razed, buried, and covered with clean Gil after 1967. In
1973, the land was conveyed to the St. Louis-Lambert Airport Authority. The HIS and the
Futura Coatings Co. plant cover 11 acres adjacent to Coldwater Creek. In 1966, Continental
Mining and Milling Co. acquired the property and recovered uranium from wastes purchased
from the Atomic Energy Commission's (AEC) St. Louis operations. In 1967, the company
sold the property, and by 1973 most processing residues had been removed. Under the
direction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the present owner excavated
contaminated soil and is storing it in two large piles in the eastern portion of the 11 acres.
Since the 1970s, Futura Coatings, a manufacturer of plastic coatings, has leased the western
portion of the site. A McDonnell Douglas office building housing 24,000 employees is within
1/2 mile of the airport area. An estimated 35,420 people reside within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/28/89
Final Date: 10/04/89
July 1993
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Radon-222 was present in the air near the airport area in tests conducted by the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 1986. Elevated levels of uranium, thorium,
and radium are present in groundwater near the airport area and in surface and
subsurface soils. Direct contact with or accidental ingestion of contaminated soils
or groundwater on or near the sites may pose health risks to individuals.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1984, The DOE cleared the HIS and Futura Coatings
areas, constructed a vehicle decontamination facility, installed a perimeter fence,
excavated and backfilled the edges and shoulders of Latty Avenue, and
consolidated the resulting contaminated soils into one secured storage pile. In 1986, during a
city road improvement project, contaminated soil from roads leading to and from all three
areas was excavated and placed into a secured storage pile.
Entire Site: The DOE has investigated the site under its Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). In 1982, the DOE conducted preliminary
studies of radioactive contamination in the ditches along the sides of the roads
leading to and from the areas. In 1986, boreholes were drilled to continue the contamination
study and to collect geological information. The DOE is continuing studies of all the site
areas, which will lead to additional cleanup actions. A more comprehensive investigation
began in 1990 to determine the full extent of groundwater and soil contamination and to
identify alternative technologies for the cleanup. Phase I of the investigation was completed
in 1992. Phase II is underway and is expected to be completed in 1994.
Environmental Progress
The DOE is conducting intensive investigations into the cleanup alternatives for the St. Louis
Airport site. Until these investigations are completed, the immediate actions described above
have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials and further contamination at
the site.
July 1993 ST. LOUIS AIRPORT/HAZELWOOD INTERIM
47 STORAGE/FUTURA COATINGS CO.
-------
Site Repository
St. Louis Public Library, 1301 Olive Street, St. Louis, MO 63102
ST. LOUIS AIRPORT/HAZELWOOD INTERIM July 1993
STORAGE/FUTURA COATINGS CO.
-------
SYNTEX
FACILITY
MISSOURI
EPAID#MOD007452154
EPA REGION 7
Lawrence County
Verona, 30 miles southwest of Springfield
Other Names:
Spring River Basin
Syrrtex Tank Spill Area
Hoffman-Taff Lagoons-Former
Syrrtex Detoxification Area
Syrrtex Trenches
Slough Area-Hoffman/Taff Lagoons
Site Description
The Syntex Facility is a 180-acre site located in rural, predominantly agricultural Verona.
Syntex Agribusiness, Inc. acquired the plant in 1969 from the Northeastern Pharmaceutical
Chemical Company (NEPACCO) and has produced vitamins and prepared animal feeds and
feed ingredients since 1971. From 1969 to 1971, NEPACCO leased a portion of the facility
from Syntex and used it to manufacture hexachlorophene. The production of
hexachlorophene generated the by-product dioxin. Dioxin residues were disposed of in five
areas at the Verona facility. The major areas identified as being contaminated are: the slough
area, lagoon area, spill area/irrigation area, burn area, and trench area. In 1989, Syntex
excavated and transported the lagoon wastes to a mobile incinerator to destroy the dioxin.
The incineration was completed in 1989. The population within 3 miles of the Syntex Facility
site is approximately 650 people. The active portion of the facility is located within the Spring
River 100-year flood plain.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The fish in the Spring River were contaminated with dioxin up to 12 miles
downstream. The soil, pools, puddles, and groundwater on the site also are
contaminated with dioxin. However, groundwater contamination is only slightly
higher than background levels. Exposure to dioxin-contaminated soil, drinking
contaminated water, or eating fish that have been contaminated by dioxin could
present a health threat.
July 1993
49
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of dioxin-
contaminated materials and cleanup of the groundwater.
Response Action Status
DIoxin-Contaminated Soils and Equipment: Syntex and the EPA reached an
agreement in 1988 on the cleanup methods to be used at the site. The selected
cleanup methods include: (1) excavating and off-site thermal treatment of dioxin-
contaminated soil that exceeds a health-based criteria for an industrial site; (2) dismantling
and decontaminating equipment with a series of solutions and water rinses; and (3) installing
a clay cap with a vegetative cover over the trench area and portions of the slough area and
revegetating areas contaminated with dioxin below the action level. Syntex removed
contaminated soil and transported it off site for incineration. The ash residue was disposed of
off site as well. This action also involved clay capping and revegetating over the trench area
and all areas where waste levels were below 20 parts per billion (ppb). The Gnal cleanup
action also will include decontamination of the equipment at the site. Decontamination and
dismantling of contaminated photolysis and old NEPACCO equipment was initiated in 1990
and is expected to continue through 1992. Completion of this cleanup action is contingent
upon the availability of a Federally-approved disposal facility.
Groundwater: Syntex completed the groundwater Remedial Investigation
/Feasibility Study. A ROD has been proposed for the groundwater operable unit
requiring no further action at this time, however, groundwater monitoring will
continue on a quarterly basis for 2 years.
Site Facts: In August 1982, Syntex signed a Consent Order with the EPA, agreeing to study
the disposal sites and Spring River, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). In September 1983, Syntex Agribusiness and the EPA entered into a Consent
Agreement, which outlined the plan for cleanup of the Syntex site.
Environmental Progress
Much of the cleanup work at the Syntex site has been completed. Contaminated soils have
been removed and areas of former contamination have been capped and revegetated, actions
which have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to dioxin-contaminated soil or surface
water at the site. Further investigations into a cleanup remedy for groundwater are taking
place. Dioxin levels in Spring River fish populations have steadily decreased over the past
several years.
Site Repository
Varon Elementary School, 1011 Ella, Verona, MO 65769
July 1993 SYNTEX FACILITY
50
-------
TIMES BEACH^
SITE
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980685226
EPA REGION 7
St Louis County
City of Times Beach
Site Description
The Times Beach Site comprises an area of 1 square mile and is located 20 miles southwest
of St. Louis. The site is a formerly incorporated city whose road system was sprayed annually
with waste oil for dust control in the early 1970s. The oil later was found to be contaminated
with dioxin during an investigation of the city's road systems by the EPA in 1982. During the
same period, the nearby Meramec River flooded the city, and residents were forced to
evacuate their homes. Subsequently, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended
that the residents who had been evacuated, as well as those who had returned following the
1982 flood, be permanently relocated. The EPA transferred funds to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) for the permanent relocation of residents and businesses in
1983. By the end of 1986, all residents were relocated permanently. The buy-out of the
remaining vacant parcels was completed in 1992. Upon completion of the permanent
relocation, title to the site was conveyed to the State of Missouri. Currently, the site is
completely vacant and fenced. All roads leading into the city are blocked and posted with no
trespassing signs. Approximately 13,600 cubic yards of soil are contaminated at levels
exceeding health-based standards. The site is patrolled by security guards on a 24-hour basis.
Most of the former community lies within the 25-year flood plain of the Meramec River. The
population within a 1/2-mile radius of the site is approximately 2,000, and includes a trailer
park, the community of Crescent, and a portion of Eureka. The site is located in a mixed-use
residential and agricultural area.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 03/04/83
Final Date: 09/08/83
51
July 1993
-------
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site surface soils along the roadways are contaminated with dioxin. Human
exposure to dioxin has been limited by the evacuation of the residents and access
restrictions to Times Beach. On-site workers, security guards, and trespassers could
be exposed to dioxin through direct contact or accidental ingestion of dioxin-
contaminated soil or water. Fish in the Meramec River show elevated levels of
dioxin. Area residents who consume these fish could be exposed to this
contaminant. Data indicate that sources downstream of Times Beach are the
primary contributors of dioxin into the Meramec River.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on stabilization of
Times Beach, excavation and treatment of the soil and other materials, and the permanent
relocation of residents and businesses from the Times Beach area.
Response Action Status
Stabilization: The remedies selected by the EPA in 1984 to stabilize Times
Beach and three nearby sites included: construction of an approximately 50,000-
cubic-yard interim storage facility at Times Beach, and excavation of the dioxin-
contaminated soil from Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek, Quail Run Mobile Manor, and the
Castlewood Area sites. Construction of a series of spur levees also was selected in order to
control water velocity during flooding and to limit erosion of contaminated soils. Due to State
legislative and administrative actions, the interim storage facility that was planned to contain
contaminated soils could not be constructed. Only the spur levee portion of the remedy could
be implemented. In 1985, the EPA raised an existing levee constructed by the Missouri
Highway Department as the first phase in the construction of a three-phase spur levee. In
1989, the second and third phases of the spur levee were completed, including relocation of
roadways.
Soil, Structures, and Debris: This phase of the cleanup includes excavation
and thermal treatment of contaminated soil and the final disposal of structures
and debris. Cleanup activities to be performed include: demolition and disposal of
uncontaminated structures and debris at Times Beach in a facility meeting solid waste
disposal requirements; construction of a ring levee to protect a temporary thermal treatment
unit from a 100-year flood; mobilization of a temporary transportable thermal treatment unit
to Times Beach; excavation of all dioxin-contaminated soils at Times Beach exceeding the
levels for protection of human health and the environment; thermal treatment of excavated
soils to destroy contaminants; and on-site disposal of treatment residue (ash), after receiving
EPA approval of its chemical content, in a facility meeting solid waste management
requirements. The design and construction activities involved in the demolition and disposal
of uncontaminated structures and debris were completed in 1992. The engineering design for
the remaining cleanup activities, including the thermal treatment unit, is expected to be
completed in 1992.
July 1993 TIMES BEACH SITE
52
-------
Relocation: This third cleanup phase addresses the permanent relocation of
residents and businesses and the acquisition of all remaining properties. In 1983,
the EPA provided $30 million to FEMA in a transfer allocation to conduct this
phase of the cleanup. FEMA has completed purchase of all the remaining properties.
FEMA, the State of Missouri, the trustee for the former City of Times Beach, and St. Louis
County entered into a four-party contract for permanent relocation. Ownership of the
properties has been conveyed to the State, in accordance with the four-party agreement.
Site Facts: In 1990, the EPA, the State, and the potentially responsible parties signed a
Consent Decree, under which cleanup activities with be conducted for the Times Beach site
and 27 other dioxin sites in eastern Missouri. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the
EPA is responsible for excavation and transportation of dioxin-contaminated soils from the 27
eastern Missouri sites to Times Beach. The defendants are responsible for demolition and
disposal of structures and debris, and operation of the thermal treatment facility.
Environmental Progress
The Times Beach area has been stabilized, and numerous cleanup actions have been
completed. A security fence was completed in 1992, controlling unauthorized access to the
site. All residents and businesses have been permanently relocated, the purchase of the
remaining parcels by FEMA has been completed and the ownership of the parcels of land has
been conveyed to the State of Missouri. The demolition and disposal of the structures at
Times Beach has been completed. Thermal treatment and removal of dioxin-contaminated
soils from Times Beach and other sites is scheduled to begin soon. A security fence was
completed in 1992, controlling unauthorized access to the site.
Site Repository
EPA Information Trailer, 1-44, Lewis Exit, Times Beach, MO 63025
TIMES BEACH SITE July 1993
53
-------
VALLEY PARK
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980968341
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
St Louis County
Valley Park
Other Names:
TCE Study
The Valley Park TCE site is located in the city of Valley Park. The site is a plume of
contaminated groundwater in the Meramec River alluvial aquifer. In 1982, the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) detected a number of volatile organic chemicals
(VOCs) including trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and trichloroethane in
all three municipal water supply wells serving the community. Private wells within the vicinity
of the site also are contaminated with VOCs. However, area private wells reportedly are used
only for industrial purposes. Possible sources of contamination include the industries located
in Valley Park. One source has been identified, but not all contaminants in the groundwater
can be attributed to the responsible party. There are approximately 3,000 people in the
community who obtained drinking water from the affected groundwater.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/10/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil located at the sources, are contaminated with VOCs
including TCE. Drinking water from the contaminated aquifer poses a potential
health threat to area residents using polluted groundwater resources.
July 1993
54
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the groundwater.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1986, Valley Park installed aeration equipment at its
water plant in order to remove the VOCs that had been detected in the drinking
water. In 1989, Valley Park was connected to the St. Louis County public water
system, which now supplies its drinking water. Since Valley Park was connected to the County
public water system, the residents no longer are using contaminated water for domestic
purposes. In 1990, the potentially responsible party for the identified source removed 331
cubic yards of PCE- and TCE-contaminated soil and backfilled the area. The predetermined
cleanup levels were not attained; however, planned studies and future activities are expected
to attain the cleanup levels.
Entire site: Under supervision by the MDNR, the potentially responsible party
for the identified source agreed to conduct a site investigation that will lead to the
selection of a cleanup remedy for contaminated soil and groundwater at that
location. The selection of a cleanup remedy is expected in early 1994. A search for
additional sources will be conducted to address all contaminants in the groundwater plume.
Site Facts: The EPA negotiated an agreement with one potentially responsible party to
perform soil removal at one known source location to eliminate additional release of
contamination to the grundwater. In addition, the State and the party has negotiated an
Administrative Order, under which the party will perform site studies at the Valley Park TCE
site.
Environmental Progress
By connecting the affected residences to the public water system and removing contaminated
soil, the potential for exposure to contaminated drinking water or soil has been reduced at
the Valley Park TCE site while further investigations leading to the selection of a final
remedy for the groundwater and soil contamination are taking place.
Site Repository
Valley Park City Library, 320 Benton Street, Valley Park, MO 63088
July 1993 VALLEY PARK TCE
55
-------
WELDON SPR
QUARRY/PLAN
PITS (USDOE/A
MISSOURI
EPA ID# M03210090004
EPA REGION 7
St. Charles County
25 miles west of St. Louis
Other Names:
eldon Sprlng-Raffinate Pits
[don Springs Chemical Plant
Site Description
The Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits (USDOE/Army) site covers 230 acres and is located
between the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. This site is closely associated with the nearby
Weldon Spring Former Army Ordnance Works NPL site. A series of land transfers in the
1950s gave the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), later called the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), 220 acres of the original Ordnance Works area. The DOE now is responsible
for the contamination, both radioactive and non-radioactive, on the property. The site
includes a 51-acre disposal area, a 169-acre abandoned uranium feed materials plant, various
smaller properties and a 9-acre former limestone quarry located 4 miles from the plant. From
1941 to 1944, the Department of the Army operated an explosives production plant on the
site. Due to frequent spills, wastewater containing sulfonate derivatives contaminated surface
water and groundwater. The Ordnance Works area was closed at the end of World War II,
and the processing structures were demolished. In 1955, the AEC acquired a portion of the
Ordnance Works area for construction of a uranium feed materials plant. Mallinckrodt, Inc.
operated the plant under a contract with the AEC from 1957 to 1966. The plant converted
uranium concentrates to uranium tetrafluoride and uranium metal. Thorium ore, also a
radioactive metal, was processed. The residues from the processing were disposed of in four
lartje open pits. During that period, the plant, buildings, equipment, soil surface, sewer
system, and the drainage into the Missouri River became contaminated with uranium,
thorium, and their radioactive decay products. From 1943 until 1957, the U.S. Army used an
abandoned limestone quarry located about 3 miles southwest of the plant site for the disposal
of unknown quantities of materials contaminated with trinitrotoluene (TNT) and
dinitrotoluene (DNT) residues. The AEC acquired the site in 1958 and used the quarry from
1959 to 1966 to dispose of uranium, thorium, and radium residues and contaminated
materials and equipment. From 1966 to 1969, the Army deposited additional TNT-
contaminated materials in the quarry. The quarry is located 3/4 of a mile from the St. Charles
County well field, which is used as a drinking water source for approximately 70,000 people.
The population living within 3 miles of the site is 5,000 people.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
July 1993
56
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Off-site groundwater is contaminated with TNT, DNT, and other explosive
materials. The soil is contaminated with radionuclides, TNT, DNT, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy
metals. Off-site surface water is contaminated with uranium. Accidental ingestion
of and direct contact with contaminated groundwater, surface water, or soil may
cause a potential health hazard. Adjacent wildlife and recreational areas may be
threatened due to off-site migration of the contaminants. Contaminant migration
from the quarry to the adjacent Missouri River alluvium poses a potential threat to
the County well field.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four stages: immediate actions to stabilize the site and four
long-term remedial phases focusing on source control, in the chemical plant area cleanup of
the quarry bulk waste, the groundwater at the chemical plant area, and the quarry residuals.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The DOE began interim cleanup actions at this site in
1987, which to date have included removing overhead piping and asbestos,
consolidation and storage of containerized chemicals, removing electric lines and
poles, cleaning up radioactive soil from Army Reserve properties, dismantling the chemical
plant structures, removing PCB transformers, constructing a stormwater diversion dike to
reduce off-site migration, and constructing two wastewater treatment plants. Approximately
13,000 gallons of PCB fluids and flushing solutions were removed and transported to an off-
site incineration facility. The flushed units were removed to an off-site incineration facility.
Five of 15 non-process buildings have been dismantled. Contracts to begin decontamination
and dismantlement of process buildings and structures have been set, and completion is
scheduled for 1995.
Source Control: In 1986, the DOE began an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of contamination of the air, lakes and streams, sludges, and 30
structures, and to identify cleanup alternatives for the site. The studies are
scheduled to be completed in 1993 and will result in final cleanup strategies for site
contaminated areas of the site.
Quarry Bulk Waste: In 1990, the EPA chose to excavate and to temporarily
store quarry bulk wastes on site. Wastes will be transported over a haul road
constructed for this purpose. The construction of the haul road is complete and
the construction of the temporary storage area and the bulk waste excavation are still
underway. The bulk waste excavation is scheduled to begin in summer 1993.
July 1993
57
WELDON SPRING QUARRY/PLANT/PITS
(USDOE/ARMY)
-------
Quarry Residuals: An investigation focusing on residual and groundwater
contamination at the quarry is scheduled to begin after the quarry bulk wastes
have been removed from the site.
Site Facts: Under a 1992 Interagency Agreement with the EPA, the DOE will conduct
cleanup actions at the quarry, as well as the plant area and nearby radioactive contaminated
properties.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated soil and materials described above have reduced the potential
for exposure to hazardous substances at the Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits site while the
DOE continues further cleanup activities.
Site Repository
Spencer Creek Branch, St. Charles City-County Library, 425 Spencer Road,
St. Peters, MO 63376
WELDON SPRING QUARRY/PLANT/PITS
(USDOE/ARMY)
July 1993
-------
WELDON S
FORMER AR
ORDNANCE
WORKS
MISSOURI
EPA ID# M05210021288
EPA REGION 7
St Charles County
25 miles west of St Louis
Other Names:
Weldon Springs National Guard Facility
US Army Training Center
eldon Springs-Ex Army Ordnance
Plant
Ft Leonard Wood
Site Description
The Weldon Spring Former Army Ordnance Works site occupied more than 17,000 acres and
operated from 1941 to 1944. During its operation, the site produced explosives including
trinitrotoluene (TNT) and dinitrotoluene (DNT) for the U.S. Armed Services. A series of
land transfers left the Army with 1,655 acres, which it has operated since 1959 for the Army
Reserve as the Weldon Spring Training Area. Contaminated areas are spread throughout the
17,000 acres of the site, with the greatest concentration in the Training Area. Some of the
transferred land that covered two small areas of the original Ordnance Works area now are
owned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and listed on the National Priorities List as
Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits site. Investigations have identified a number of potentially
contaminated areas, including seven unlined lagoons where TNT wastewater was stored, TNT
production lines, two DNT production lines, drainage ditches below TNT production lines,
and nine areas where explosive wastes were burned. Approximately 5,000 people live within 3
miles of the site, and approximately 70,000 people obtain drinking water from St. Charles
County wells within 3 miles of the hazardous substances at the site. Surface water in the area
flows either to the Mississippi River watershed to the north or the Missouri River watershed
to the south. Surface waters within 3 miles are used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 02/21/90
In 1987, a DOD investigator found explosives such as TNT and DNT in
monitoring wells near the lagoons. TNT, DNT, and lead have been identified in
soil in several areas at the site, and TNT was detected in 1987 in surface water
downstream of the lagoons. The Mississippi watershed, which supports wetlands,
wildlife, and recreational activities, may be threatened by runoff from the site. The
TNT and DNT contamination on the site represent a physical hazard with some
potential for explosion. Ingestion of polluted surface water, groundwater, or
contaminated soil may pose a threat to human health. DNT is a probable human
carcinogen and may be absorbed through direct contact.
July 1993
59
-------
Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: and initial action and two long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site. The first action will involve source control to address
all contaminated soil, pipeline and structures. A separate action will be taken to address the
groundwater
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In late 1992, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers removed the
interior wooden boards of a storage room used by the Francis Howell School
District This storage room was a box factory during the operation of the former
Ordinance Works during World War n. Explosive contaminants were discovered within the
interior wooden boards after wipe samples from the building were taken. The interior
wooden boards were removed and replaced with sheetrock. As part of a removal action
burning ground number 1 is currently being fenced to eliminate any potential exposures
while investigatory actions are on going. Surface chunks of TNT have also been removed
from the buring grounds to eliminate any direct contact threat.
Entire Site: In 1987, the Department of Defense (DOD) identified a number of
contaminated areas on the site. Under EPA direction, DOD began a complete
investigation into the extent and type of contamination at the site in early 1990.
The study will identify the nature and extent of contaminants and will recommend cleanup
technologies for soils, pipelines, and groundwater. The site will be divided into two cleanup
phases reflecting these contaminated areas. Phase II of the investigation was completed in
early 1992. Samples from various lakes and springs were collected as well as soil gas samples
from an area known as Mechanical City. A determination of the need for treatability studies
will be made once the initial screening of alternatives is submitted in mid 1992. It is
anticipated that a source control ROD will be issued in mid Fiscal Year 1994. Groundwater
will continue to be monitored to determine the impact of surface contamination on the
groundwater.
Site Facts: This site is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a specially
funded program established by the DOD in 1978 to identify, investigate, and control the
migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DOD facilities.
July 1993 WELDON SPRING FORMER ARMY
50 ORDNANCE WORKS
-------
Environmental Progress
The removal and replacement of interior wooden boards in a storage room at the site has
reduced the potential for exposure to explosive contaminants at the site while further
investigations leading to a Gnal cleanup remedy continue.
Site Repository
Weldon Training Area, 7301 Highway 94 South, St. Charles, MO 63304
WELDON SPRING FORMER ARMY
ORDNANCE WORKS
July 1993
61
-------
WESTLAKE LAND
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD079900932
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
Si Louis County
Bridgeton
The 200-acre Westlake Landfill site is adjacent to prime agricultural land and is in the flood
plain of the Missouri River. From 1939 to 1985, limestone was quarried on the site.
Beginning in 1962, portions of the property were used for landfilling of solid and liquid
industrial wastes, municipal refuse, and construction debris. In 1973, Cotter Corp. disposed of
over 47,000 tons of uranium ore processing residues mixed with soil in two areas covering a
total of 16 acres of the site. A radiological survey conducted for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) in 1981, and 1982, documented radioactive wastes on site. Property
adjacent to the Landfill was investigated in 1990 which identified radiological contamination
that migrated from the Landfill.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater beneath the site and soil are contaminated with radioactive
contaminants. Potential threats exist for those who have direct contact with or
ingest contaminated groundwater or soil.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on 1) cleanup of
radiological areas and 2) addressing the landfill.
July 1993
62
-------
Response Action Status
cleanup.
Radiological Waste Areas: An intensive investigation of contamination within
the radiological areas is scheduled to begin in 1993. This study will explore the
nature and extent of the contamination and will identify the best strategies for
Landfill: In 1995, an investigation is scheduled to begin to explore the nature
and extent of the contamination. This study will result in the selection of final
cleanup strategies to address contamination from the landfill.
Environmental Progress
After listing the site on the NFL, the EPA completed a preliminary study to determine
whether the site required immediate actions to limit access or the potential for residents to
come into contact with contaminants on site.
Site Repository
Contact the Region 7 Superfund Community Relations Office
July 1993
WESTLAKE LANDFILL
63
-------
WHEELING
SERVICE
COMPANY LAN
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD000830554
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
Andrew County
1 mile south of Amazonia
Other Names:
Wheeling Waste Disposal Site
The Wheeling Disposal Service Company operated a landfill that covers approximately 20
acres centrally located on two adjacent areas totaling about 200 acres. The landfill was
established in the early 1970s, and the facility received a State permit in 1975 to operate as
an industrial waste disposal facility. Between 1980 and 1981, the company voluntarily ceased
operations. The facility resumed operations under the authority of a special waste disposal
permit issued by the State of Missouri until it voluntarily closed in 1986. The Missouri
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) periodically inspected the site and monitored
groundwater when the landfill was in operation. Based on MDNR hazardous waste records,
wastes containing pesticides, heavy metals, paint, solvents, and leather tanning sludge were
disposed in the landfill. In field investigations conducted by the EPA, contaminants were
detected in monitoring wells and springs on the site. Drinking water is supplied to ,
approximately 4,000 residents of Savannah through wells that are within 1 to 2 miles of the
site. There are private wells within 1/4 mile of the site. The shallow groundwater below the
site supplies water to the aquifer, potentially contaminating it.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/22/87
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater on site is contaminated with various volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and heavy metals including arsenic, chromium, nickel, and lead from the
former waste disposal activities. Several seeps in Mace Creek are contaminated,
indicating that local surface water is a potential threat. Eating crops grown in
contaminated on site soil could expose people to contaminants from the site.
July 1993
64
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1982,1983,1986, and 1987, the EPA sampled on-site groundwater
and found contamination. In late 1990, the potentially responsible parties
completed a study of the nature and extent of contamination at the site, and the
EPA designated the appropriate cleanup technologies. The remedy includes well capping,
surface water and groundwater monitoring, and upgrading the existing landfill cover to
comply with State and Federal standards. Design activities began in October, 1992 and are
scheduled for completion in Fall, 1993.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed in July 1991, requiring the potentially responsible
parties to conduct the remedy design and cleanup activities. The Consent Decree was
entered by the court in October, 1992.
Environmental Progress
The samplings performed by the EPA and the Missouri Department of Health indicated that
no immediate actions were needed at the Wheeling Disposal Service Company site while the
potentially responsible parties begin the design phase and cleanup activities.
Site Repository
Rolling Hills Library, 514 W. Main Street, Savannah, MO 64458
July 1993 WHEELING DISPOSAL SERVICE
COMPANY LANDFILL
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
.V66
-------
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 Super/and 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
parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a
judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A
legally binding document issued by the EPA,
directing the parties potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
the EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for
site studies).
Aeration: A process that promotes break-
down of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR): The Federal agency
within the U.S. Public Health Service charged
with carrying out the health-related responsi-
bilities of CERCLA.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of
air through it in a pressurized vessel The
contaminants are evaporated into die air
stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Ambient Air: Any unconfined part of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity
of contaminated air sources.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock,
sand, or gravel capable of storing water
within cracks and pore spaces, or between
grains. When water contained within an
aquifer is of sufficient quantity and quality, it
can be tapped and used for drinking or other
purposes. The water contained in the aquifer
is called groundwater. A sole source aquifer
supplies 50% or more of the drinking water of
an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling
into the earth until water is reached, which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a foun-
tain.
-67
-------
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 Disulflde: 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
-------
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
69
-------
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*, oss 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 or industrial
facilities.
Emulsiflers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
^70
-------
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
fanning, 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. Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that
results from the combustion of flue gases. It
can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides,
water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which
is used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Gasification (coal): The conversion of sort
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
^ 71
-------
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 die 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 die lead for site cleanup activities,
-------
^M«M«I^~^^-^^~«
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 mathematical
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
system components have on the overall
performance of the system.
Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at
specific locations within, or surrounding, a
hazardous waste site where groundwater can
be sampled at selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in
73
-------
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 trichlorobenzenc 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
nirroaromatic.
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 compouiiua u.~. arc used
in plastics manufacturing and are by-products
of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye,
and resin manufacturing. Phenols are highly
poisonous.
74
-------
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 groundwatcr
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
tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act
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 chlohde 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.
75
-------
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 panicle
radiation, which cannot be absorbed through
skin. However, it can be inhaled, which
allows alpha particles to affect unprotected
tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Radia-
tion also occurs naturally through the break-
down of granite stones.
RCRA: [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].
Recharge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the
earth to reach an aquifer.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public docu-
ment that explains which cleanup
altemative(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:* ~fr
where engineers ac^e.. _ae 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 parriculates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubbing, o:
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
^ 76
-------
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 with an accompanying chemical change,
to separate the metal. Emissions from smelt-
ers are known to cause pollution.
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles of soil. Such gases can move through
77
-------
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 panicle 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
78
-------
^,^ Jl^^^^^ 11
GLOSSARY
a solvent and as a metal decreasing agent.
TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled,
ingested, or through skin contact and can
damage vital organs, especially the liver [see
Volatile Organic Compounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].
Upgradient: An upward hydrologic slope;
demarks areas that are higher than contami-
nated areas and, therefore, are not prone to
contamination by the movement of polluted
groundwater.
Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils. Vacuum pumps are connected to a
series of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tightly at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the
soil draws VOC-contaminated air from the
soil pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn
down from the surface of the soil.
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed widi
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,
dichloroediylene, 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 die
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 wedands are non-
tidal and freshwater. Coastal wedands are an
integral component of estuaries.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for die
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
79
------- |