-
,-
a
."
1>,,1
. . c
. 11- 11- \.
-------
EPA/540/8-91/004
Publication 9200.2-13
February 1992
Progress Toward
Implementing
SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
REPORT TO
CONGRESS
Required by
Section 301 (h) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND fiscal Year 1990
Notice
This Report to Congress has been subjected to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's review
process and approved for publication as an EPA document. For further information about this Report, contact
the Policy and Analysis Staff in the Office of Program Management, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
at 202/260-2182. Individual copies of the Report can be obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Technical Information Service (NITS) by writing to: NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA
22161, or calling (703) 487-4650.
ll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
Foreword
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at the end of fiscal year 1990 (FY90), was well on its way
toward intensifying the Superfund program. As it completed the fourth year of a five-year reauthorization and
approached its tenth anniversary, the Superfund program statistics were impressive. Work has begun at 89 percent
of the 1207 sites on the National Priorities List, and the number of sites with remedial activities in progress has
grown by one-third since the end of FY89. These accomplishments indicate the Agency's accelerated success in
implementing the Superfund program and the recommendations of A Management Review of the Superfund Program
(the 90-Day Study). EPA is pleased to submit this report documenting the fiscal year's achievements.
Section 301(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA,
or Superfund), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, requires
the Agency to report annually on response activities and accomplishments, and to compare remedial and
enforcement projects with those undertaken in previous fiscal years. Since the enactment of SARA, Superfund
accomplishments have continued to accelerate dramatically. At the end of FY90,1,095 remedial actions (RAs)
and remedial investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FSs) were ongoing at 775 National Priorities List (NPL) sites,
compared with 890 ongoing RAs and RI/FSs at 695 NPL sites at the end of FY89. At the end of FY90, 340
remedial designs (RDs) were underway at 266 NPL sites, compared to 253 RDs at 121 NPL sites at the end of
FY89. As of September 30,1990, cleanup was complete at 63 NPL sites and environmental progress documented
at 507 NPL sites.
A key recommendation of the 90-Day Study was the "One Superfund/Enforcement First" approach. Under
this new approach, the Agency aggressively seeks potentially responsible party (PRP) involvement at every site
where PRPs are identified. Like other aspects of Superfund, enforcement has continued to expand after the
enactment of SARA. During FY90, EPA entered into 283 settlements with PRPs with a potential value of more
than $1.3 billion - compared with 218 settlements with a potential value of $1 billion in FY89. Of the response
work started in FY90, PRPs are conducting nearly half of the RI/FSs, 60 percent of the RDs, and nearly 60 percent
of the RAs. During FY90, the Agency recovered $105 million from PRPs, compared with $66.5 million in FY89.
In addition to providing an overall perspective on progress in the past fiscal year, the Report contains
information Congress specifically requested in Section 301(h)(l), including an abstract of each Record of Decision
(ROD) that was signed in FY90; a report on the status of remedial actions, including enforcement activity in
progress at the end of the fiscal year; and an evaluation of newly developed feasible and achievable treatment
technologies. The Report also includes a description of minority firm participation in Superfund contracts and
our efforts to encourage their participation, as required by Section 105(f). The Report fulfills the requirement
of Section 301(h)(l)(E) for an annual update on progress being made on sites subject to review under Section
121(c). Appendix D consists of a matrix that charts the progress of EPA and other government organizations in
meeting Superfund-related statutory requirements. In addition, this Report satisfies other reporting requirements
of Section 121(c); the EPA Annual Report to Congress: Progress Toward Implementing CERCLA at EPA Facilities
as Required by CERCLA Section 120(e)(5) is included as Appendix E. The report of the EPA Inspector General
on his findings concerned the reasonableness and accuracy of the information in this Report, as required by Section
301(h\£), is included, as Append
k&t
William K. Reilly ^^-^__-X Don R. Clav' /
Administrator Assistant Astanflstrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
iii
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
Acknowledegments
Completing this fourth annual Report to Congress required the cooperation and contributions of many staff
members associated with the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal departments and agencies. In
particular, the Agency appreciates the contributions made by Vera Ashworth, Ken Ayers, William Baird, Jan Baker,
Daisy Berlinger, Frank Biros, Scott Blair, Ann Bonner, Jennifer Boyd, Dr. William Cibulas, Maria Cintron,
Chick Craig, Martha Daniels, Marshall Dick, Kevin Donovan, Kevin Dorey, Connie Dwyer, Bruce Englebert, Dave
Evans, Jim Fary (project manager), Mike Feldman, John Ferguson, Art Flacks, Velda Frisco, Steve Golian, Rafael
Gonzalez, Ben Hamm, Penny Hanson, John D. Harris, Cheryl Hawkins, Winston Haythe, Lynne Hodgkins, Carol
Jacobson, Sven-Eric Kaiser, Carolyn Kaplan, Justin Karp, Jeff Langholz, Sandra Lee, Frank Leony, Trudy Link,
Chad Littleton, Henry Longest, Macara Lousberg, Scott Maid, Sally Mansbach, Dale Manty, John Martin, Vince
Martin, Brenda Masingill, Thea McManus, Jim McMasters, Bob Meyers, Chris Meyers, Mark Mjoness, Nicholas
Morgan, George Mori, Paul Nadeau, Richard Nalesnik, Murray Newton, Katherine Nolan, Dr. Ralph O'Connor,
Mike Osborne, Dan Powell, Caroline Previ, Clem Rastetter, Larry Reed, Robin Richardson, Linda Ross, William
O. Ross, Linda Rutsch, Melissa Shapiro, Nadine Shear, Tom Sheckells, Bill Sherman, Patricia L. Sims, Steve
Suprun, T. Michael Taimi, Debbie Thomas, Joe Tieger, Louis Trouche, Betti VanEpps, Ted Voboril, James
Waddell, Stuart Walker, Hubert Walters, Beverly Whitehead, Zella Williams, Esther Williford, Howard Wilson,
Rob Wing, Rosemary Wisniewski, Jim Woolford, George Wyeth, Elizabeth Zeller, Ed Ziomkoski, and many others
whose collective efforts made this Report possible.
iv
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
Contents
Foreword: William K. Reilly and Don R. Clay iii
Acknowledgements iv
Contents ,. v
s *
Executive Summary ; xi
Introduction xxi
Chapter 1 Major Program Accomplishments 1
1.1 Remedial and Enforcement Activities 1
1.1.1 The Enforcement Process 3
1.1.2 The Remedial Process 3
1.1.3 Fiscal 1990 Accomplishments 3
1.1.4 Status of Ongoing Remedial and Enforcement Activities 4
1.1.5 Remedy Selection 4
1.2 Remedial Initiatives 1 12
i
1.2.1 Worst Sites First 12
1.2.2 Environmental Indicators 12
1.2.3 Other Initiatives 13
1.3 Enforcement Initiatives 14
1.3.1 Increased PRP Activity 15
1.3.2 Emphasis on Use of Enforcement Measures 15
1.3.3 Enforcing PRP Agreements 16
1.3.4 Increased Focus on Cost Recovery 17
1.3.5 Other 90-Day Study Enforcement Initiatives 17
1.4 Removal Activities 21
1.4.1 Status Report on Removal Actions 21
1.4.2 The Removal Action Process 21
1.4.3 Actions Taken in Response to the 90-Day Study 23
1.4.4 Superfund Removal Procedures Manual 24
1.4.5 Environmental Response Team 24
1.5 Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements ...; 24
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Tear 1990
Contents
(continued)
Chapter 2 Other Response Activities • 25
2.1 Site Assessment 25
2.1.1 The Inventory of Sites (CERCLIS) 25
2.1.2 Preliminary Assessments 25
2.1.3 Site Inspections 26
2.1.4 National Priorities List Update 26
2.1.5 Relationship Between CERCLIS and NPL Data 29
2.1.6 Hazard Ranking System Revisions 29
2.1.7 Guidance Documents and Rulemakings 29
2.2 Federal Facilities Program : 30
2.2.1 Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
and Facility Site Evaluation 31
2.2.2 Federal Facilities and the National Priorities List 31
2.2.3 Federal Facility Agreements Under CERCLA Section 120 31
2.2.4 Report to Congress on EPA Responsibility Under
CERCLA Section 120(e)(5) 32
Chapter 3 Estimate of the Resources Required to
Implement Superfund 33
3.1 Sources and Uses of Superfund Resources 34
3.1.1 Remedial Program Costs 34
3.1.2 PRP Contributions to the Clean-up Effort 34
3.2 Estimating the Resources Needed to Complete the Cleanup of the Existing NPL 35
3.2.1 Estimated Cost to Complete Current NPL Sites 37
3.2.2 Additional Program Element Assumptions Represented in the Model 37
3.3 Other Executive Branch Department and Agency Estimates of
Resources Necessary to Complete Superfund Implementation 39
VI
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
Contents
(continued)
Chapter 4 Other Statutory Requirements for
the Report 47
4.1 Use and Development of Treatment Technologies 47
4.1.1 The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program 47
4.1.2 Superfund Research Grants 50
4.1.3 90-Day Study Objectives ; : 50
4.2 Minority Firm Participation in Superfund Contracting 53
4.2.1 EPA Efforts to Identify Qualified Minority Firms 54
4.2.2 Efforts to Encourage Other Federal Agencies and Departments
to Use Minority Contractors 56
4.3 Report on Facilities Subject to Review Under CERCLA Section 121(c) 57
4.3.1 90-Day Study Recommendations 57
4.3.2 Progress Toward Minimizing Waste and Facilities Subject to Review 57
Chapter 5 Program Implementation and Other Support Activities 59
5.1 Community Relations and Public Information 59
5.1.1 Community Relations Regulations 59
5.1.2 Technical Assistance Grants Under CERCLA Section 117(e) 61
5.1.3 Additional Community Relations Activities 61
5.1.4 A Coordinated Approach to Public Information 62
5.2 EPA Partnership with States and Indian Tribes 63
5.2.1 Regulations Affecting the Partnership 63
5.2.2 Response Agreements and the Core Program 65
5.2.3 Other Program Developments 67
5.3 Activities Undertaken to Improve Program Efficiency 68
5.3.1 Making Action a Priority 68
5.3.2 Assisting Remedial Project Managers and On-Scene Coordinators 69
5.3.3 Assisting Regional Coordinators 71
5.3.4 Achieving Efficiency in Internal Management 71
5.3.5 Flexible Funding 71
5.3.6 Technical and Policy Guidance 72
vii
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Contents
(continued)
5.3.7 Attracting and Retaining Field Staff
5.3.8 Long-Term Contracting Strategy ..
72
,72
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Status of Remedial Investigations, Feasibility Studies, and Remedial Actions at Sites on the
National Priorities List, in Progress on September 30,1990
Appendix B: Remedial Designs in Progress on September 30,1990
Appendix C: Record of Decision Abstracts
Appendix D: Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
Appendix E: EPA Annual Report to Congress: Progress Toward Implementing CERCLA at EPA
Facilities as Required by CERCLA Section 120(e)(5)
Appendix F: Report of the EPA Inspector General
Appendix G: List of Sources
viii
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Contents
(continued)
EXHIBITS
Exhibit ES-1 Summary of Fiscal 1990 Superfund Program Activities xiv
Exhibit ES-2 Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year xvi
Exhibit 1.0-1 NPL Sites Where Work Has Begun 2
Exhibit 1.1-1 Potentially Responsible Party Response as a Percentage
of Superfund Remedial Activity Starts 5
Exhibit 1.1-2 Fiscal Year and Cumulative Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts 6
Exhibit 1.1-3 Fiscal Year and Cumulative Remedial Design Starts 7
Exhibit 1.1-4 Fiscal Year and Cumulative Remedial Action Starts 8
Exhibit 1.1-5 Ongoing Projects at National Priorities List Sites by Lead for
Fiscal 1987 Through Fiscal 1990 9
Exhibit 1.1-6 Summary of Remedies Selected During Fiscal Year 1990 10
Exhibit 1.1-7 Remedies Selected in Historical Records of Decision 11
Exhibit 1.3-1 Potential Value of Enforcement Settlements for Fiscal Years 1987 Through 1990 ... 16
Exhibit 1.3-2 Cost Recovery Site Status Through Fiscal 1990 18
Exhibit 1.3-3 Value of Costs Sought Through Cost Recovery Referrals for
Fiscal Years 1987 Through 1990 19
Exhibit 1.3-4 Actual Cost Recovery Amounts Collected for Fiscal Years 1987 Through 1990 19
Exhibit 1.4-1 Removal Action Starts and Completions by Fiscal Year 22
Exhibit 2.1-1 Historical Pre-Remedial Accomplishments by Fiscal Year 27
Exhibit 2.1-2 Historical National Priorities List Sites 28
Exhibit 2.2-1 Number of Facilities on the Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket 32
Exhibit 2.2-2 Distribution of Federal Facilities on the Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket 32
Exhibit 3.1-1 EPA Superfund Operating Plan and Budget Estimates 35
Exhibit 3.1-2 EPA Superfund Staffing Requirements in Workyears by Fiscal Year 36
Exhibit 3.2-1 Estimate of Total Liability to Complete the National Priorities List 38
Exhibit 3.3-1 CERCLA Resource Needs and Interagency Funding for Other Federal
Departments and Agencies 41
Exhibit 4.1-1 Innovative Technologies in the Emerging Technologies Program 49
Exhibit 4.1-2 Innovative Technologies in the Demonstration Program 49
Exhibit 4.2-1 Minority Contractor Utilization 55
Exhibit 4.2-2 Total Worth of Contracts Awarded to Minority Firms for
Fiscal Years 1987 Through 1990 55
ix
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
Contents
(continued)
EXHIBITS (continued)
Exhibit 4.2-3 Services Provided by Minority Contractors 56
Exhibit 4.2-4 Amount of Money Awarded for Each Type of Minority Contract 56
Exhibit 5.2-1 State-lead Ongoing Remedial Activities 64
Exhibit 5.2-2 Number and Value of Core Program Cooperative Agreements for
Fiscal Years 1987 Through 1990 67
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Executive
Summary
As it completed the fourth year of a five-year
reauthorization, the Superfund program was moving
sites toward construction, and progress towards actual
cleanup of sites had become evident. The statistics of
the program, as it headed toward its tenth anniversary
in December 1990, were impressive:
• Site work had been initiated at 89 percent of
the 1,207 sites on the National Priorities List;
and
• 44 percent of NPL sites have had remedies
selected and are either in or moving toward
construction.
The pace of the program has increased
significantly since the enactment of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Fifty
percent of the studies, 70 percent of the remedies
selected, and 80 percent of the projects in design and
the projects under construction have been initiated in
the last four years of this ten-year-old program. New
program directions that resulted from the
Administrator's review of the Superfund program, A
Management Review of the Superfund Program (the 90-
Day Study or the Study), show evidence of expanding
that progress.
By the end of fiscal year (FY90), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was well on
its way toward revitalizing Superfund in the manner the
90-Day Study envisioned. The Study outlines a new
strategy for Superfund, the goals of which are to use
"enforcement first" to compel potentially responsible
party (PRP) response; to make sites safer by
controlling acute threats immediately, to clean up sites
by addressing the worst problems at the worst sites
first; and to develop new technologies for more
effective cleanups. During FY90, progress in
implementing Superfund was characterized by the
Agency's efforts to achieve these goals. For example,
the Agency has:
Increased use of enforcement tools and
reached more settlements at a higher
settlement value with PRPs than in any
previous fiscal year;
Assessed all NPL sites for immediate threats
and began removal actions necessary to abate
such threats;
Prioritized, according to threat posed, all of
the sites with remedial actions (RAs)
scheduled to start in FY90 and issued
procedures for prioritizing remedial
investigations/feasibility studies (RI/FSs);
Published the final National Contingency
Plan (NCP), articulating goals and
expectations for cleanup of Superfund sites,
and incorporating statutory provisions and
management direction from the 90-Day Study
into the regulatory structure of the program;
Selected a "Technologies Czar," established a
Technology Innovation Office to develop and
implement actions necessary to remove
barriers to use of treatment technologies, and
established the Superfund Technology
Assistance Response Team (START) and the
Treatability Assistance Program;
Completed a long-term contracting strategy
supporting the integrated fund/enforcement
program and outlining the portfolio of
Superfund contracts for the next decade;
Enhanced community relations activities with
new guidance, additions to the NCP, and
revised requirements for Technical Assistance
Grants (TAGs) to make them easier for
citizens to obtain;
xi
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
• Completed data collection to initiate reporting
of Superfund progress in terms of
environmental progress; and
• Hired 500 new staff to work on Superfund,
including more Remedial Project Managers
(RPMs), On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs),
attorneys, community relations specialists,
technical support, enforcement support, and
administrative staff.
At the end of FY90, the Agency documented
the completion of construction activity at 63 NPL sites
and environmental progress at 507 of the nation's
worst hazardous waste sites. The Agency addressed
acute threats at 429 of these sites and made progress
toward long-term health and environmental goals at
373 of them.
The 90-Day Study
William K Reilly, the EPA Administrator,
commissioned a task force at the onset of his tenure to
examine the difficulties experienced by the Superfund
program. The 90-Day Study, the result of this analysis,
examines many of the chronic problems that have
hindered the program's progress and outlines a clear
new strategy for Superfund. The strategy emphasizes
greater use of EPA's enforcement powers to ensure
that responsible parties pay to clean up the problems
they created. It also energizes the Agency's approach
to Fund-financed clean-up actions. The heart of the
new mandate is to streamline and focus Superfund on
the environmental problems that pose the greatest
threats nationwide. In this way, EPA can work on the
"worst problems at worst sites first."
The Study makes specific recommendations for
changing the Superfund program that include:
• Emphasizing enforcement to induce PRPs to
undertake more cleanups under EPA
direction, referred to as the "Enforcement
First" policy,
• Using permanent remedies where possible and
aggressively seeking innovative treatment
technologies that reduce the toxicity, mobility,
or volume of wastes at Superfund sites;
• Improving efficiency of program operations by
employing a "One Superfund Program"
concept that would allow EPA to match the
most appropriate tools available to the
environmental problems to be corrected,
regardless of whether the project is being
financed by the Hazardous Substances
Superfund (Fund) or PRPs;
• Encouraging greater community participation
by broadening public outreach programs and
allowing the public more involvement in
remedy selection;
• Building solid relationships with states,
Natural Resource Trustees, Health and
Human Services, and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to
ensure that the Superfund process is working
as efficiently as possible. (Natural Resource
Trustees are federal officials designated by
the President who act on behalf of the public
as a trustee of natural resources);
• Improving management and administration to
ensure the Agency's ability to attract and
retain key Superfund personnel; and
• Communicating progress in cleaning up the
environment through additional measures,
including environmental indicators.
The Agency's plan for implementing the
recommendations of the Study includes 120 tasks
designed to transfer the suggestions into program
results. This fourth Superfund Report to Congress
documents EPA fiscal year accomplishments toward
implementing Superfund, progress toward realizing
the goals of the 90-Day Study, and historical progress
made toward reducing risks and exposure to
hazardous and toxic waste as measured using the new
environmental indicators.
Remedial and Enforcement Program Accomplishments
The accomplishments of the Agency's
remedial and enforcement programs during 1990
reflect Superfund's new strategy as modified by the
90-Day Study. A key step in the changed Superfund
strategy is the Agency's implementation of the "One
Superfund" approach, with "Enforcement First." This
approach, recommended in the 90-Day Study,
integrates the Fund and enforcement programs and is
aimed at ensuring that the remedial process will move
forward as PRP involvement in site cleanup increases.
Xll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Under this new strategy, the Agency aggressively seeks
PRP involvement at every site where PRPs are
identified. If liable, financially viable PRPs are not
willing to conduct the cleanup, the Agency issues a
unilateral administrative order (UAO), when there is
imminent and substantial danger, before spending Fund
money for design and construction. To assist in
implementing the One Superfund/Enforcement First
approach, the Agency finalized a timeline in FY90 that
integrates the enforcement activities into the
requirements for all sites. The timeline establishes
goals for managers to use in planning their approach
to site remediation and illustrates the progress of
remediation at all sites.
Under this approach, during FY90, EPA
entered into 283 settlements with PRPs with a
potential value of more than $1.3 billion. Ninety-seven
of these settlements were for remedial designs (RDs)
or remedial actions (RAs). This is more than in any
previous fiscal year. An important component of the
One Superfund/ Enforcement First approach is the use
of unilateral administrative orders when PRPs are not
willing to sign a consent decree or consent order with
the Agency. The Agency issued 131 UAOs in FY90,
31 percent more than in FY89. Of the response work
started in FY90, PRPs are conducting nearly 50
percent of the RI/FSs, 60 percent of the RDs, and
nearly 60 percent of the RAs.
The Agency has taken action to recover seven
out of every ten dollars spent by the government on
Superfund cleanups. During FY90, the Agency
recovered $105 million from PRPs, compared with
$66.5 million in FY89.
In addition, EPA started 33 RAs using Fund
money. PRPs started an additional 43 RAs for a total
of 76 new RA starts. EPA also financed 77 new RI/FS
starts, and PRPs financed 74, for a total of 151 new
RI/FS starts during FY90.
On September 30, 1990,1,095 RA and RI/FS
projects were ongoing at 775 NPL sites (including
federal facility sites listed on the NPL) compared with
890 ongoing RI/FSs and RAs at the end of FY89.
With remedies selected at 113 sites, and 340 RDs and
259 RAs in process, the remedial pipeline is full and
more and more sites are moving into construction. In
addition, there were 340 RDs in progress at the end of
the fiscal year compared with 253 RDs in progress at
the end of FY89. RAs and RI/FSs are listed in
Appendix A, with their completion status; RDs are
listed in Appendix B. (Exhibit ES-1 summarizes FY90
program accomplishments, and Exhibit ES-2 illustrates
FY90 accomplishments in comparison to
accomplishments of previous years.)
Enforcement Program Initiatives
A significant focus of the 90-Day Study was
to increase the use of enforcement measures to
ensure that an even greater proportion of clean-up
activity is undertaken by the parties responsible for
site contamination. As a result, the Agency launched
a number of new initiatives aimed at streamlining the
enforcement process and ensuring that every effort is
made to compel PRPs to undertake responses
without delaying the start ofthe clean-up process.
Enforcement initiatives include:
• Emphasizing the use ofde minimis and mixed
funding settlements;
• Developing guidance that provides strategies
for pursuing non-settling PRPs and bringing
and settling enforcement claims against PRPs
that are not in compliance with
administrative orders or consent decrees.
• Drafting a model consent decree to assist
Regions and the Department of Justice in
negotiating RD/RA settlements;
• Drafting a proposed rule to identify the types
of expenditures appropriate for cost recovery;
• Redistributing resources to EPA Regional
offices to ensure that the proper level of
resources are devoted to oversight of PRP
clean-up activities;
• Using a combination of highly qualified EPA
technical personnel (civil investigators) and
contractors to conduct PRP searches and
support negotiations and litigation; and
• Developing a workplan to upgrade the civil
investigator program through the use of the
Federal Enforcement Training Center.
Remedial Program Initiatives
As a result of 90-Day Study
recommendations, the remedial program has
undertaken a number of new initiatives aimed at
Xlll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
'
-
^ ,"-."
V > ;
'
Summary of Fiscal 1990 Superfund l^ogram
ENi^BCEMENTFRpGR*!* JUJXlVJfl IfcS ,
Settlements for all PRP Response Activities 283
RD/RA Settlements * 97
Unilateral Administrative Orders issued (all actions) 131
RD/RA Unilateral Administrative Orders
VJ
complied with
Cost Recovery Dollars Collected
"; "' ' --;- REMEDIAL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Percentage of NPL sites where work has begun
Sites where all clean-up work was completed during FY 90
Sites with remedial activities (RI/FSs, RDs, & RAs)
in progress on September 30, 1990
RODs (Records of Decision) Signed
RI/FS (Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study) Starts
Fund-financed
PRP-financed
RI/FSs in progress on September 30, 1990
RD (Remedial Design) Starts
Fund-financed
PRP-financed
RDs in Progress on September 30, 1990
, /-; ---•-<•-•-••> ,
&&$&. -\?fr'
v ., ""'">,: :•.'''' .v*
ffs\ f4ff ^
W f f f*A
*f #4 ^*
*' N
0-
f
-;v /^f
* r * * ft
•• f
•. f
f f f
:%'''i
f f
t f
-:
*ffff l
XIV
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
5
f f X"
Exhibit ES-1
Jummary of Fiscal 1990 Superfund Program Activities (continued)
1 , '"* '' ;• ,'/•• '~
RA (Remedial Action) Starts
Fund-financed
PRP-financed
RAs in progress on September 30, 1990
"••. "• "• ^ ^ "" * ^-v*.** «-w ' .moil
-. \ ", ' ^'^"KKMOVAfcrKCK^JiA^ACJlWITil^ - ,
Removal Completions
Fund-financed
PRP-financed
Removal Starts
Fund-financed
PRP-financed
76
33
43
259
"• "* : JJ
•• ..\A* •• % "^ V
280
797
83
388
290
98
^j^y^-it OCtf'CNSkiiE'Jiyl^i'* ^tftpf\f^^*t Jt. ^ 4t A-^^K^ V ^k/¥m?'G * *" f f f
'• x-u.* Kf -ft A/*^ T^H?i?" * ffj*f^l K « -H-U^LlI K%ir%iJtyjl_ £K.Xi^ • JL V *-*-ld« .•
CERCLIS Inventory Sites Added
PAs - Preliminary Assessments
Sis - Site Inspections
NPL - National Priorities List* (program-to-date)
Sites Proposed for Listing During FY90
Final Sites Listed During FY90
Sites Proposed for Deletion During FY90
Sites Deleted During FY90
1,671
1,589
1,897
1,207
25
300
4
1 (42) 4
ACCOMPLISttMEtfTS ATMDfcftAL rACILfTY ttffiBS ^ t ;; ;/
RODs Signed
RI/FS Starts
RD Starts
RA Starts
16
148
15
7
' ' " \ '.....'* - ",* -.
3 Includes proposed and listed sites.
4 EPA deleted one site from the NPL during F Y90 and removed 42 additional sites.
SOURCES : CERCLIS; U.S. EPA Office of Waste Programs Enforcement; Progress Toward
Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990 (Appendix A), OERR; Federal Register
notices through September 30,1990.
'••. <• * " ''
s % % .
I.-*" x%
\ **
""^ ^
.' ^--V'
•f f f f
, >•:
s
f"- f *•
yff f
' f f f
•>
XV
-------
::;if^V^^^fi^|?^
mfc^fcAA^iVfc *V» ^.^ ..^ •" -Afc 4tf^_ * ^ V ^ ^^ .A V j ^ ^ ^ ^fr ^ *4mM ^ ** ^ 4£X)i
BBS
21
I
5?
i
i
i
1 Includes only activities where Fund monies were spent.
2 Includes activities where fund monies were spent, activities conducted by federal facilities, and activities by states where no Superfund resources were used.
3 The figures reported in this row represent the cumulative total of sites inCERCLIS at the end of each fiscal year rather than die number added in each
fiscal year.
4 Approximately 45 percent of the sites that receive PAs require no further remedial action and, therefore, do not receive Sis. As of September 30,1990,
EPA had not yet conducted Sis at 4,079 sites at which it has determined they are necessary.
5 The figures reported in this row include proposed and final NPL sites as of the end of each fiscal year. During FY 90,25 sites were proposed for listing.
Also, 42 proposed sites were dropped from the NPL.
6 Four of these sites were listed on the Interim Priorities List and were cleaned up prior to (he publication of the first group of sites proposed for the NPL.
Hie fifth site was included in the initial list of sites proposed for the NPL. EPA, however, determined that the PRPs had sufficiently cleaned up the site
while it was on the list of proposed sites and, therefore, deleted it on September 8,1983.
SOURCES: Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 7959, October, 1990; CERCLIS.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
ensuring that the program is moving in the direction
envisioned by the Study. These include:
• Initiating a worst sites first strategy for
projects/sites where studies are to be initiated
or construction is planned;
• Issuing guidance to expedite clean-up
approaches;
• Developing RI/FS and remedy selection
models;
• Issuing guidance to quickly narrow the number
of remedial alternatives at a site;
• Comprehensively evaluating all FY89 RODs to
improve consistency in remedy selection; and
• Employing environmental indicators to gauge
progress; using these indicators, it was found
that measurable progress had been made at
507 sites in protecting human health and the
environment from immediate and long-term
threats.
Removal Program Activities
During FY90, the Agency focused on making
sites safe by controlling acute threats. As part of
implementing the 90-Day Study, the removal program
assessed every NFL site, and initiated removal actions
as appropriate. In response to these assessments, the
program started 23 removal actions during FY90 and
plans to begin 27 additional removals. In all, the
Agency or PRPs started 388 removal actions, exceeding
the number started during FY89 by 17 percent, and
completed 280 removal actions, exceeding the number
completed during FY89 by 11 percent.
EPA may conduct a removal action on an NPL
or non-NPL site to stabilize, prevent, or mitigate a
release or threat of a release. Because they
significantly reduce the threat a site poses to human
health and the environment, removal actions are an
integral part of the Superfund program and contribute
substantially to its achievements.
Site Assessment
During the site assessment stage of the
Superfund program, the Agency undertakes
investigative and analytical activities to evaluate the
threat or potential threat to human health or the
environment posed by conditions at a site. Sites enter
the program when they are recorded in the CERCLA
Information System (CERCLIS). The site assessment
stage starts when the Agency conducts a preliminary
assessment (PA) of a CERCLIS site. EPA completed
1,589 PAs during FY90 bringing the total number of
PAs completed by the program to date to 30,886, 92
percent of the sites in CERCLIS. At the end of the
fiscal year, 2,689 sites in CERCLIS required PAs.
If a PA indicates that further evaluation is
required, the Agency conducts a site inspection (SI)
of the site. EPA completed a record 1,897 Sis during
FY90,165 more than in FY89. Forty-five percent of
the PAs have resulted in a decision to conduct no
further action. EPA still must conduct Sis at 4,079
sites.
Using information from the SI, EPA scores
a site using the hazard ranking system (HRS) to
determine whether it is eligible for listing on the
National Priorities List (NPL). EPA placed 300 new
sites on the NPL during FY90 and proposed an
additional 25 sites for listing. At the end of the fiscal
year, there were 20 proposed and 1,187 final NPL
sites, bringing the number of proposed and final NPL
sites to 1,207.
During FY90, the Agency received and
considered more than 2,500 public comments from
approximately 145 commenters as it drafted the final
HRS rule, which was published soon after the end of
the fiscal year. The revised HRS is a more
comprehensive and accurate scoring system than the
original HRS; it incorporates SARA requirements
and analysis from EPA's Science Advisory Board.
Federal Facility Compliance with Superfund
Requirements
EPA continued to focus special attention on
improving federal facility compliance with CERCLA
requirements. EPA listed a record number (75)
federal facility sites on the NPL during FY90,
bringing the total number of federal facilities on the
NPL to 116. As of the end of the fiscal year, no
additional federal facilities were proposed for the
NPL. In addition to the remedial projects carried on
directly by EPA or PRPs under the Superfund
program, other executive agencies and departments
have undertaken a substantial number of clean-up
activities in compliance with CERCLA. The federal
government started RI/FSs at 148 federal facility sites
(includes action at both NPL and non-NPL sites),
xvii
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
signed RODs for 16 such sites, started RDs at 15, and
began RAs at seven. To facilitate the remedial process
at federal facilities, EPA entered into 43 Interagency
Agreements (lAGs) during FY90, bringing the total
number of LAGs entered since the beginning of
Superrund to 69.
Estimate of Resources Necessary to Implement Superfund
Using the Outyear Liability Model (OLM),
EPA estimates that it will cost the Superfund program
$16.4 billion after FY92 to complete cleanup of sites
on the existing NPL. The estimate is based on
planning data for active sites and on a number of
assumptions about future sites and events. The actual
site data are drawn directly from CERCLIS. The three
assumptions that have the greatest impact on the $16.4
billion estimate include:
• Approximately 35 percent of all new RI/FS
starts will be financed with Fund monies.
PRPs, however, will take over a growing
portion of these clean-up actions so that by
FY97, PRPs will be starting approximately 70
percent of all new RAs.
• The dollar figure does not incorporate
estimates on the cost of cleaning up NPL sites
that have not yet been listed.
• The cost of cleanup will change as the Agency
adjusts the way it uses existing technologies
and develops new technologies, and as the
overall cost of technology changes.
Development of Treatment Technology
During FY90, the Agency was active in
research and development efforts directed towards the
identification and testing of new technologies to be
used in the cleanup of Superrund sites. Technology
developers demonstrated four new technologies during
FY90 under the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) program, and EPA accepted 17 new
technologies into its emerging technologies program.
Additionally, the Agency awarded 18 grants for
research and development.
Minority Firm Participation in Superfund Contracting
During FY90, the Agency awarded contracts
valued at approximately $41.7 million to minority firms.
Of the total, $6.7 million was awarded through prime
contracts, $10.1 million through subcontracts, and
$24.9 million through small business (8(a)) contracts.
Report on Facilities Subject to Review Under CERCLA
Section 121(c)
As required by CERCLA, EPA will conduct
five-year reviews at all sites where, after completion
of all remedial activities, hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain above levels that
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
On October 30,1989, as a first step in implementing
the 90-Day Study recommendations for five-year
reviews, EPA issued a memorandum on the
applicability of five-year reviews to pre-SARA
deletions. On December 31,1989, EPA completed a
concept paper describing both the substance and
logistics of future reviews.
Public Participation
EPA emphasized community participation in
the Superfund program during FY90. The emphasis
was a result of recommendations by the 90-Day Study
task group and at the urging of Congress,
environmental groups, and private citizens. The 90-
Day Study focused on EPA's need to accept the
public as a legitimate partner and to increase the role
of citizens by involving them at each stage of the
clean-up process. The revised National Contingency
Plan (NCP) reflects this emphasis on community
relations and incorporates many of the 90-Day Study
recommendations. In contrast to the previous NCP,
it discusses the community relations requirements in
conjunction with the relevant regulations for removal
and remedial actions. EPA purposely reorganized the
placement of community relations requirements to
ensure a clear and more orderly integration of
community relations into each phase of the Superrund
process.
In addition to revising community relations
requirements in the NCP, EPA instituted the
following changes to the technical assistance grant
(TAG) program in an effort to promote greater
public participation:
• The 35 percent citizen match of the TAG
program costs was reduced to 20 percent;
• The 15 percent cap on administrative costs
was eliminated;
xviii
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
• The Superfund TAG Handbook was re-
written;
• The procurement procedures were streamlined;
and
• Criteria for a waiver of the $50,000 TAG limit
were issued.
During FY90, EPA awarded 14 TAGs to
citizens' groups in seven Regions, bringing the total
number of TAGs awarded to 40. lAGs are awarded to
local groups affected by sites proposed for or listed on
the NPL for employing technical advisors to help them
understand information developed during the
Superfund clean-up process.
EPA Partnership with States and Indian Tribes
The 90-Day Study encourages the Superfund
program to build solid relationships with states and
Indian tribes. The Agency, therefore, has bolstered its
efforts to include states and Indian tribes in the
Superfund process. Publication of the revised NCP and
promulgation of 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart O,
Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts
for Superfund Response Actions, are the most important
fiscal year developments with regard to state and
Indian tribe involvement in the Superfund program.
The revised NCP includes new provisions with regard
to state and Indian tribe involvement. For example,
under the new NCP, EPA and states are no longer
required to enter into a Superfund Memorandum of
Agreement (SMOA) for state-lead response actions.
Subpart O provides the mechanics of joint state or
Indian tribe, and EPA response under Superfund. It
describes EPA's authority to transfer funds and
responsibilities to states and Indian tribes so that they
may undertake response actions in accordance with the
NCP. The promulgation of these two regulations has
already increased the level of involvement of states and
Indian tribes in the Superfund program. During FY90,
EPA awarded 45 new core program cooperative
agreements in FY90, at a total funding level of
$21,575,674.
To ensure continued involvement of states and
Indian tribes in the Superfund process as envisioned in
the 90-Day Study, EPA, in cooperation with the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials (ASTSWMO), hosted a
conference on state Superfund programs. Also, the
Agency initiated a series of policy forums designed to
foster a better understanding and coordination of
state and federal response efforts.
Improving Program Efficiency
The Agency has taken a number of initiatives
to improve the overall efficiency of the Superfund
program. Many of the initiatives have already taken
effect and have helped to reduce staff workload,
accelerate the site clean-up process, and streamline
program management and operations systems.
Specific initiatives undertaken during FY90 include:
• Assisting Remedial Project Managers and
On-Scene Coordinators - To help alleviate
the burden on Remedial Project Managers
(RPMs) and On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs),
the Agency (1) issued an additional 285 full-
time equivalents (FIBs) to be divided among
all Regions to reduce the average numbers of
sites assigned to RPMs and OSCs; (2) greatly
expanded the number and range of technical
support services available to RPMs and
OSCs, and took steps to ensure that RPMs
and OSCs are aware of and have easy access
to these services; (3) increased administrative
support to RPMs and OSCs; (4)
implemented a six-week Superfund Academy
session providing training in all phases of the
program; and (5) made progress toward
ensuring that all key field staff have access to
personal computers, portable computers for
use in the field, necessary hardware and
software, and E-mail capabilities.
• Achieving Efficiency in Internal Management
-- The Agency began implementing a process
to review Superfund's internal management
measures with an eye toward eliminating
unnecessary or redundant reporting and
focusing more directly on improving
performance.
• Flexible Funding - The Agency has
established a flexible funding policy that
allows Regional personnel to: (1) move
funds between categories of activities, such as
from remedial design to PRP oversight, and
(2) move funds among sites, affording
Regions the option of using the monies
originally targeted for Fund-financed
response as leverage to compel additional
xix
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
PRP cleanups or to pay for response actions at
other sites.
Technical and Policy Guidance -- The Agency
designated a single official in each Region to
take responsibility for overseeing the planning
and development of all technical and policy
guidance, and to ensure that guidance issued
by the various offices does not conflict.
Attracting and Retaining Field Staff - The
Agency has placed emphasis on new initiatives
for hiring and retaining key field staff. For
example, EPA raised the government-service
level of both RPMs and OSCs and developed
a new promotion policy for Field Attorneys.
Developing a Long-Term Contracting
Strategy - An Agency-wide task force
developed a contracting strategy designed to
emphasize the One Superfund/ Enforcement
First approach; support flexibility to respond
to changing program priorities and budgets;
provide rapid response to immediate risks;
decentralize contract management; and avoid
program disruption.
xx
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Introduction
Approach of the Report
This Report documents the Agency's progress
toward implementing Superfund during FY90. EPA's
achievements during the fiscal year are characterized by
its efforts to implement the recommendations of the
90-Day Study. The 90-Day Study and its
Implementation Plan articulate a clear and
straightforward vision for the Superfund program and
delineate a concrete approach to realize that vision.
This Report, therefore, emphasizes the steps the
Agency took in FY90 to implement the strategy and
the accomplishments achieved as a result.
The 90-Day Study
The 90-Day Study provides a comprehensive
overview of the Superfund program's philosophy by
drawing on program experience and incorporating
ongoing activities that have gained increased credence
over the past years as well as addressing problems that
the program faces.
The Study identifies six major conflicts within
the program.
• The public's desire for both quick actions at
sites and adequate opportunity for community
participation in the remediation and decision-
making processes.
• The expectation that, as a national program,
Superfund should operate consistently for the
nation as a whole, yet remain responsive to
varying site-specific requirements.
• Program success is often gauged only in terms
of the number of sites completely cleaned up
or deleted from the NPL rather than by the
extent to which various sites have progressed
through significant stages of cleanup.
• The Agency's efforts to meet targets mandated
by Congress have driven the program toward
achieving administrative goals, rather than
focusing on actual environmental results.
• EPA has had to strike a balance between
securing potentially responsible parties to pay
for cleanup and drawing on the revenues of
Superfund. Primary reliance on the Fund
will result in swift cleanup, but leveraging
responsible party involvement increases the
total amount of resources available for
cleanup.
• The Agency has had to grapple with the
statutorily mandated provision to use
permanent treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable, while the debate
continues about their technological
feasibility. Currently, the Agency is engaged
in developing innovative permanent
treatment remedies, and ensuring the
protectiveness of these remedies.
To resolve these conflicts, the 90-Day Study
recommends several strategies: (1) the one
Superfund/Enforcement First strategy emphasizing
timely remediation while maximizing PRP cleanups;
and (2) the worst sites first approach to site cleanup.
The latter strategy emphasizes addressing a larger
number of sites in stages, where the margin of risk
reduction is greatest, rather than focusing narrowly on
a smaller number of sites as the rate of marginal
returns decreases. This philosophy ensures that EPA
will deal with the sites posing the greatest public
health or environmental risk first, but remains
cognizant of the long-term remediation necessary at
most sites. To implement this approach, the Study
proposes that the mission of the program encompass
four goals: (1) use enforcement first; (2) make sites
safe; (3) make sites clean; and (4) bring new
technology to bear on the problem. To achieve these
goals, the Study recommends that the Agency employ
a six-part strategy:
xxi
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
• Emphasize enforcement to induce private
party response;
• Accelerate and improve remedial actions;
• Encourage the use of innovative technologies;
• Re-energize the commitment to community
involvement;
• Improve management and administration
effectiveness; and
• Communicate progress effectively at the
national level.
The recommendations in the Study on methods
for achieving these goals both validate existing trends
and articulate steps that will guide future work. Those
recommendations already in practice at the Agency will
continue, and the efforts to implement the remaining
recommendations have progressed measurably over the
fiscal year. The 90-Day Study's Implementation Plan
includes 120 tasks that have effectively transformed the
ideas of the 90-Day Study into concrete program
procedure. Each of the following sections of this
Report describes an aspect of the Superfund program,
documents the major initiatives undertaken to
accomplish the goals of the 90-Day Study, and records
the resulting achievements as of the end of FY90.
Organization of the Report
This Report centers on the Agency's
accomplishments in implementing the
recommendations of the 90-Day Study. Chapter 1,
Major Program Accomplishments, describes remedial
and enforcement processes and activities, examines the
removal program and its accomplishments, and reports
the initiatives undertaken under these phases of the
Superfund program.
Chapter 2, Other Response Activities,
documents progress at the early stages of the remedial
process, including assessing and inspecting sites, listing
on the National Priorities List, and progress on
revisions to the Hazard Ranking System. It also
documents progress EPA made during FY90 in
compelling other federal departments and agencies to
clean up federal facility sites.
Chapter 3, Estimation of Resources Required
to Implement Superfund, discusses resources required
to complete implementation of Superfund. Chapter 4,
Other Statutory Requirements for the Report, focuses
on the use and development of permanent
technologies. It also contains information on
minority firm participation in Superfund contracting,
and on the Agency's policy for five-year reviews of
sites where hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remain above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure following
completion of all remedial activities.
Chapter 5 consolidates all other program
implementation and support activities, including
sections on community involvement in the Superfund
process, technical assistance grants under CERCLA
Section 117(e), and EPA partnership with states and
Indian tribes in the remedial process. The final
section discusses the steps taken to improve the
efficiency of the program, particularly activities to
assist Remedial Project Managers, On-Scene
Coordinators, and Regional Coordinators in managing
clean-up activities efficiently and effectively.
Appendix A illustrates the status of RI/FSs
and RAs in progress on September 30, 1990.
Appendix B illustrates the status of remedial designs
in progress at the end of FY90. All of the records of
decision (RODs) signed in FY90 are summarized in
Appendix C. In response to a recommendation of the
Lautenberg-Durenberger Report on Superfund
Implementation: Cleaning up the Nation's Cleanup
Program, EPA includes a matrix in Appendix D,
which charts Agency progress in meeting statutory
requirements imposed by SARA The matrix lists all
relevant administrative and program implementation
(rather than site-specific) requirements by statutory
section, describes the mandated activity, and indicates
whether the requirement has been met. If the activity
has not been completed, its status is reported.
Appendix E is the EPA Annual Report to Congress:
Progress Toward Implementing CERCLA at EPA
Facilities as Required by CERCLA section 120(e)(5).
Appendix F is the Report of the EPA Inspector
General on the required review of this fiscal 1990
Report to Congress on progress toward implementing
Superfund. All references used in preparing the
Report are listed in Appendix G.
Throughout the Report, for purposes of
brevity and consistency, when the acronym
"CERCLA" appears in the Report, it refers to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) of 1986.
XXll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
The sources for the information in each exhibit
in the Report are included in the exhibits. The
primary source for all data included in this Report is
the CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS). Unless
otherwise noted, CERCLIS data of October 19, 1990
were used in preparing this Report. The data in
CERCLIS are constantly modified to more accurately
reflect events that took place during a particular fiscal
year. Data retrieved from the system on different
dates, therefore, may not be congruent.
Statutory Requirements for the Report
In addition to providing an overview of the
Agency's FY90 progress in implementing CERCLA,
this Report includes the following information
specifically required by CERCLA sections 301(h)(l)(A)
through (G), 105(f), and 301(h)(2):
• In response to the requirement of CERCLA
section 301(h)(l)(A) to include a detailed
summary of each feasibility study, Appendix C
contains an abstract of each record of decision
signed during FY90.
• The status and estimated date of completion
of each feasibility study and remedial action,
required by CERCLA sections 301(h)(l)(B)
and (F), are summarized in Appendix A The
status of enforcement actions and a
comparison of FY90 enforcement actions with
those undertaken in previous years is included in
section 1.1.4. Appendix A contains detailed
information concerning the status and estimated time
of completion of each remedial investigation/feas-
ibility study. The appendix also provides information
required by CERCLA section 301(h)(l)(C)
concerning remedial actions that will not meet
previously published schedules.
• The evaluation of newly developed
technologies required by CERCLA section
301(h)(l)(D) is described in section 4.1
• Section 4.3 contains information that
complies with the requirements of CERCLA
section 121(c) to report to Congress.
• The resource estimates for completion of
CERCLA implementation, required by
CERCLA section 301(h)(l)(G), are included
in Chapter 3.
• Section 4.2 satisfies the CERCLA section
105(f) requirement that EPA describe the
participation of minority firms in contracts
carried out under CERCLA.
« The report of the review conducted under
CERCLA section 301(h)(2) by the EPA
Inspector General on the reasonableness and
accuracy of this Report to Congress is found
in Appendix F.
XXlll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CHAPTER
Major Program
Accomplishments
Over the past decade, the expectations for the
Superfund program have changed radically as the
enormity of the hazardous waste problem unfolds.
Despite these changes, the program is making real
environmental gains. Progress in the Superfund
program has traditionally been measured by the
number of sites deleted from the National Priorities
List (NPL). Recently, with an awareness of the size
and complexity of the hazardous waste problem, EPA
has shifted the focus of the program to address acute
threats first. Accordingly, progress of the program is
measured by new parameters. For example, the Agency
reviewed the work done between 1980 and 1989 on the
1,207 NPL sites, the 29 deleted sites, and on a sample
of the approximately 1,300 removal actions at sites not
on the NPL. With the data gathered through this
review, the Agency can now report on progress toward:
• Controlling acute threats to people and the
environment;
• Achieving long-term clean-up goals for sites;
and
• Removing contamination from the
environment.
To date, the Agency or potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) have conducted 1,843 removal or
emergency response actions in response to emergencies
(e.g., chemical spills) or to make sites safe. Such
actions have included, for example, supplying
alternative water to 267,000 people and evacuating or
relocating 20,000 people. At the same time, EPA has
worked on long-term cleanup of sites, completing the
field investigations and engineering studies necessary to
start cleanups at more than 1,000 NPL sites, and per-
forming actual work leading to permanent cleanup at
373 sites. Exhibit 1.0-1 illustrates the status of the
1,207 sites on the NPL at the end of FY90.
Also, new measures of progress, called
environmental indicators, provide evidence that in the
process of conducting removal and remedial actions,
EPA has treated, isolated, neutralized, or removed
enormous amounts of contaminated materials. The
Agency has done sufficient work to document
environmental progress at 507 NPL sites.
This chapter discusses the historic and fiscal
year accomplishments of the remedial, enforcement,
and removal programs that have yielded these results.
1.1 Remedial and Enforcement
Activities
The accomplishments of the enforcement and
remedial programs are integrated in this section to
reflect the Agency's One Superfund or Enforcement
First approach during the fiscal year. In its impact on
the program, the One Superfund/ Enforcement First
approach, begun in FY89, is one of the most
significant recommendations made in the 90-Day
Study. This approach is aimed at ensuring that the
remedial process will move forward regardless of PRP
involvement. Prior to FY89, sites were usually
classified as enforcement-lead or Fund-lead early in
the remedial process. This classification resulted in
differing clean-up approaches. For sites classified as
enforcement-lead, the Agency often conducted
extensive PRP searches, notifications, and
negotiations, before beginning the actual site cleanup.
If these efforts failed, remedial activity might have
been further delayed to allow the Agency to allocate
Fund resources for the site.
To assist in the implementation of the One
Superfund/Enforcement First approach, the Agency
finalized a timeline in FY90 that integrates the
deadlines for all sites, regardless of lead. The
timeline establishes goals for line managers to use in
planning their approach to site remediation and
illustrates the progress of remediation at all sites.
-------
Exhibit 1.0-1
NPL Sites Where Work Mm Begun
Sites with Work
Completed: 63
Sites with Removal Actions
Underway Only: 15
Sites with Remedy Selected/
Remedial Design Not Begun: 113
Sites with Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Studies Underway: 505
Sites Evaluated for Immediate
Threat/Action Not Begun: 118
Sites with Remedial
Design Underway: 150
Sites with Remedial Action
Underway: 272
Sites with Work Begun or Completed
Proposed NPL Sites
Final NPL Sites
Total Proposed and Final NPL Sites
Deleted NPL Sites
Total Past and Current NPL Sites
Includes 29 deleted sites.
Although there may be more than one remedial activity in progress at a single site, only the
most advanced activity is counted for this exhibit
EPA dropped 42 proposed sites from the NPL during FY90.
SOURCES: CERCLIS; Federal Register notices through 9/30/90
i.
I
I
!
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Acronyms Introduced in Chapter 1
ARAR
CERCLA -
CERCLIS -
DOJ
EE/CA -
EPA
ERT
NPL
O&M
OE
OERR
OSC
OSWER -
OWPE
PA
PRP
RA
RD
RI/FS
RMS
ROD
RPM
SARA
SI
SRP
UAO
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirement
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
CERCLA Information System
Department of Justice
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Response Team
National Priorities List
Operations and Maintenance
Office of Enforcement
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response
On-Scene Coordinator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Preliminary Assessment
Potentially Responsible Parly
Remedial Action
Remedial Design
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Remedial Management Strategy
Record of Decision
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986
Site Investigation
Superfund Removal Procedures
Unilateral Administrative Order
1.1.1 The Enforcement Process
Under the One Superfund/Enforcement First
approach, the Agency conducts a time-limited PRP
search. During the search effort, EPA tries to establish
the liability and financial viability of the PRPs. EPA
then informs the PRPs of their potential liability and
gives them an opportunity to conduct the response.
When PRPs are unwilling to undertake the work, EPA
may attempt to negotiate an enforcement agreement
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) section
122. EPA may issue a unilateral administrative order,
pursuant to section 106 of CERCLA, to compel a PRP
to perform a cleanup when there is an imminent and
substantial danger. Alternatively, EPA may proceed
with the site cleanup using Fund monies. The
Agency, however, has the option to involve PRPs in
later stages of the clean-up process. EPA also can
seek cost recovery and treble damages pursuant to
CERCLA section 107. This approach ensures that
site cleanup and protection of human health and the
environment are primary, and financing is secondary.
1.1.2 The Remedial Process
The remedial process for all sites involves
two phases. The first phase is the site assessment
phase, consisting of the site identification, the
preliminary assessment (PA), and the site
investigation (SI). The results of these activities
determine whether a site will enter the remedial
phase. The remedial phase consists of the remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS), the record of
decision (ROD), the remedial design (RD), the
remedial action (RA), and operation and maintenance
(O&M). The PRP search starts after the site
investigation, and enforcement activities continue
throughout the clean-up process.
A Remedial Project Manager (RPM) over-
sees all remedial and enforcement activities. To
ensure that remediation is protective of human health
and the environment, the RPM must be certain that
the remedial action complies with all applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs).
ARARs are state and federal requirements that
legally apply to the hazardous waste cleanup or that,
in the opinion of the RPM, are relevant and
appropriate in the circumstances of the site. RPMs
are assisted by Regional Coordinators at
Headquarters, whose duties include reviewing
program activities, answering technical and policy
questions, and gathering information from Regional
offices. Under the One Superfund/Enforcement First
approach, the RPM and Regional Coordinators
ensure that all remedial work is performed
consistently whether the Fund or PRPs are financing
and/or conducting the work.
1.13 Fiscal 1990 Accomplishments
During FY90, PRP participation in most
response activities increased. Enforcement activities
increased over FY89, including unilateral
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
administrative orders (UAOs) and judicial referrals.
Because of the Agency's decision to apportion
resources to control immediate threats before
beginning remedial projects (see section 1.2.1),
remedial project numbers are somewhat lower than in
previous years, while removal numbers have increased.
During the fiscal year, 76 RAs were started; of this
number, PRPs financed 43. PRPs financed 74 RI/FSs
and the Agency financed 77, for a total of 151 RI/FSs
started in FY90. In addition, 127 RDs were begun, 76
of which were financed by PRPs and 51 by the Agency.
Exhibit 1.1-1 illustrates the increase in PRP response
as a percentage of Superfund remedial activity since the
enactment of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) for each fiscal
year. This exhibit also illustrates the increase in PRP-
funded activities since publication of the 90-Day Study
in May of 1989, providing evidence of the effectiveness
of EPA's One Superfund/Enforcement First approach.
Additionally, the number of RDs and RAs started by
the Agency has increased dramatically since SARA's
passage in 1986. Exhibits 1.1-2, 1.1-3, and 1.1-4
illustrate the Agency's historical accomplishments in
starting RI/FSs, RDs, and RAs, respectively.
The Agency's enforcement efforts were the
most successful in Superfund's 10-year history. The
Agency achieved 283 enforcement agreements with
PRPs at an estimated value of $1.3 billion. The
Agency also issued a record 131 unilateral
administrative orders to PRPs, a 31 percent increase
over FY89. This fiscal year EPA was also awarded its
first treble damages case valued at $2 million.
1.1.4 Status of Ongoing Remedial and
Enforcement Activities
On September 30, 1990,1,095 RA and RI/FS
projects were ongoing at 775 NPL sites compared with
890 RI/FSs and RAs at 695 sites at the end of FY89.
FY90 projects include 836 RI/FSs and 259 RAs. These
projects are listed in Appendix A, along with their
completion status, as required by CERCLA sections
301(h)(l)(B), (C), and (F). In addition, there were 340
RDs in progress at the end of the fiscal year. All RDs
in progress are listed in Appendix B.
The status of RI/FSs and RAs is based on a
comparison of each project's planned completion date
in the CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS) at
the end of FY89 with the planned completion schedule
in CERCLIS at the end of FY90. An initial
completion schedule is required to be included when
a remedial activity is entered into CERCLIS. Plans
at this point are based on little site knowledge. As
work continues, schedules are adjusted to reflect
actual site conditions. Of the 1,095 projects ongoing
at the end of fiscal 1990, 155 were on schedule. In
addition, 23 projects were ahead of schedule and 372
projects were begun in the fiscal year. Projects
behind schedule totaled 492. There also were 53
projects with no previously published estimates of
completion.
PRPs were conducting 442 of the ongoing
projects: 335 RI/FSs and 107 RAs. Of these 442
PRP-financed projects, 67 were on schedule and 12
were ahead of schedule. Additionally, 218 were
behind schedule, 116 were started during the fiscal
year, and 29 had no previously published estimated
completion dates. States and federal facilities also
undertake or "lead" remedial activities. Exhibit 1.1-5
breaks down the number of ongoing projects at NPL
sites by lead.
1.1.5 Remedy Selection
The Agency signed 168 RODs in FY90,
including 145 new RODs, 16 federal facility RODs,
and 7 ROD amendments. The Agency selected a
variety of remedial methods. The selection of
remedial methods and clean-up technologies is based
on a careful analysis of the unique characteristics of
the specific site and its proximity to people and
sensitive environmental resources. The ROD is
written after the completion of the RI/FS and the
receipt of public comment on the remedial
alternatives for cleaning up all or a portion of an
NPL site. The ROD documents the results of the
study of the site and the consideration of remedial
alternatives. Congress, with the passage of SARA,
sent EPA a clear message that the Agency, when
selecting remedies, should give preference to
treatment remedies. Exhibit 1.1-6 lists the number of
source control treatment technology occurrences in
the fiscal year and the number of occurrences of
source and non-source control remediation methods.
Exhibit 1.1-7 clearly illustrates EPA's efforts to
increase the use of treatment remedies. As the
exhibit illustrates, the selection of treatment-based
remedies has increased steadily since SARA's passage.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
•' ' \ ' - Exhibit 1,14
Ifcfenffailljr Responsible Fart? Kespbitse as a
"
-',-, -" v-*- _•', -*;
'' * ',
RDs
RAs
100%
"8
«
e
•8
on
I
I
0
1987
1988
Fiscal Year
1989
1990
100%
75
50
25
SOURCES: CERCLIS; Reports on Progress Toward Implementing Superfund (for Fiscal Years 1987,1988,
1989), OERR, April 1989, April 1990, October 1990.
NOTE: These accomplishments do not include activities at federal facility sites not listed on the NPL.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
^ ,
Fi$ca! Year and Cumulative Remedial Investigation/
130*
Fund-Financed Starts
PRP-Financed Starts
Total Starts to Date
Fiscal 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 198? 1988 1989 1990 TOTAL
Fund 21 32 112 127 129 37 127 93 70 Tt 825
PRP 0 3 11 28 59 46 56 5? 87 74 421
Total 21 35 123 155 188 83 183 150 i5? 151 1,246
Cumulative Total 21 56 179 344 522 605 788 93& 1,095 1,246 1,246
NOTE: Accomplishments shown are totals of first and subsequent actions.
SOURCES: CERCLIS; Reports to Congress on Progress Toward Implementing Superfund (for Fiscal
Years 1987,1988,1989,1990), OERR, April 1989, April 1990, October 1990.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Fiscal Year and Cum
I
Fund-Financed Starts
PRP-Financed Starts
Total Starts to Date
, 1980 im* im
~
im is*r im ' mi im
s f
Fiscal Y*ar - ,
Fiscal 1980 1981 1982
Fund 0
PRP 0
Total 0
Cumulative Total 0
5
0
5
5
4
0
4
9
1983
7
5
12
21
1984
16
5
21
42
1985
19
10
29
71
1986
26
19
45
116
\m
70
24
94
210
1988
69
30
99
309
1989
63
94
157
466
1990 TOTAL
51
76
12?
593
330
263
593
593
NOTE: Accomplishments shown are the sum of first and subsequent actions
SOURCES' CERCLIS; Report to Congress on Progress Toward Implementing Superfund (for Fiscal
Years 1987,1988,1989,1990), OERR, April 1989, April 1990, October 1990.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
*•<*
400
300
Exhibit
Fiscal Year and Cumulative Remedial Action
Fund-Financed Starts
PRP-Financed Starts
Total Starts to Date
Fiscal Year
Fiscal 1980 1981 1982
Fund
PRP
Total
Cumulative Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
9
9
1983
9
2
11
20
1984
16
9
25
45
1985
8
7
15
60
1986
12
9
21
81
1987
35
19
54
135
1988
51
21
72
207
1989
57
51
108
315
1990 TOTAL
33
43
76
391
230
167
391
391
NOTE: Accomplishments shown are totals of first and subsequent actions.
SOURCES: CERCLIS; Reports to Congress on Progress Toward Implementing Superfund (for Fiscal
Years 1987,1988,1989,1990), OERR, April 1989, April 1990, October 1990.
8
-------
B
a.
Fiscal Year
Fund-financed - State-lead
Fund-financed - Federal-leadl
Fund-financed - EPA performs work at site2
PRP-financed and PRP-lead
Mixed Funding--monies from Fund and PRPs **
PRP-financed-State Order and EPA Oversight **
State Enforcement 3£
Federal Facility 25-
Other 4
TOTALS
29
RDs
87 88 89 90
n <* ;4
*•*f f
fs ff
54
US
32
59
28
30
85
39
2
1
2
2
30 29
105 117
1 1
97 155
7 15
1 "-
9 18
1
83$ 122 158 253 340 7* |»
& n
'4 ,:,$
i-
05
I
I
1 Includes remedial program lead projects and enforcement program lead projects.
2 Projects at which EPA employees, rather than contractors, perform the site clean-up work.
3 The FY87 Report to Congress on Progress Toward Implementing Superfund reported that 563 RI/FSs were ongoing at the end of the fiscal year.
After further data analysis, this number has been changed to 560.
SOURCES: FY87 and FY88 data from CERCLJS; remaining data from Reports to Congress on Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: FY87
(Appendix D). FY88 (Appendix A), FY89 (Appendices A and B), FY90 (Appendices A and B), OERR, April 1989, April 1990. October 1990.
5
V
M
i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDIATION
Treatment Technology 0e
Thermal Destruction/Incineration
Immobilization
In-Situ Vacuum/Vapor Extraction
Soil Washing
Thermal Desorption
Bioremediation
To Be Determined/Unspecified Treatment Technologies
In-situ Vitrification
Dechlorination
Soil Flushing
Volatilization/Aeration
Other Treatment
Decontamination
Gas Flaring
Recovery/Recycling
Surface Water Treatment
NAPLs Treatment
Containment Only
On-site
Off-site
Other Actions (e.g., Institutional Controls Relocation)
CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER REMEDIATION
Active Restoration
Physical/Chemical
Biological
To Be Determined/Unspecified Treatment
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
Alternate Water Supply
Natural Attenuation
Containmentg
Other Actions (Institutional Controls)
NO FURTHER ACTION
TOTAL NUMBER
OF OCCURRENCES
109
28
24
19
8
6
5
10
4
2
2
1
31
10
6
7
S
3
37
28
9
2
192
152
7
18
15
6
6
4
1
9
a Includes 129 final and 27 interim action RODs, 9 no action RODs, and 3 RODs with both a final
and interim component; more than one remedy may be associated with a ROD.
b Based on 168 FY 1990 RODs, including 16 federal facility RODs and 7 ROD amendments
c Includes primary and contingent treatment technologies.
d Data reflect occurrences of technologies as selected in the 125 RODs that addressed source control;
more than one technology may be associated with a ROD.
e For complete descriptions of individual technologies within each group see Exhibit 7, Description
of Treatment Technology Categories.
f Includes in-situ and ex-situ processes.
g Includes management of migration.
10
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Containment-Based
Remedies
SOURCES: Reports to Congress on Progress Toward Implementing Superfund
(for Fiscal Years 1987,1988,1989), OERR, April 1989, April 1990,
October 1990; ROD Summary Reports (for Fiscal Years 1988,1989,
1990), HSCD/OERR.
11
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
1.2 Remedial Initiatives
During the fiscal year, the Agency developed
several significant remedial initiatives to implement the
recommendations of the 90-Day Study. The remedial
program continued implementation of its worst sites
first policy, in an effort to target limited resources to
the most significant threats to human health and the
environment, while at the same time, continuing long-
term site remediation at a steady pace. The Agency
also has continued efforts to develop measures of
Superfund progress in terms of protection of human
health and the environment referred to as
environmental indicators. In addition, the Agency took
steps to expedite site cleanups, promote consistency in
decision-making, and increase the use of innovative
technologies.
1.2.1 Worst Sites First
In response to 90-Day Study recommendations,
the Agency established a policy streamlining the efforts
of the Superfund program to address the
environmental problems that pose the greatest threat
to human health and the environment. Resources are
apportioned to assure the greatest degree of public
safety at the largest number of sites. Accordingly, EPA
has acted to control acute threats by conducting
removal actions, where appropriate, before beginning
long-term remedial actions.
To implement this policy in the remedial
program, the Agency, in FY89, initiated a worst sites
first approach. Under this approach, the Agency
established procedures for setting priorities among
remedial projects to ensure that sites presenting the
greatest threat to human health and the environment
are addressed first. EPA used these procedures to set
priorities for the RAs undertaken during FY90. In
addition, during FY90, EPA established the policies
and procedures for ensuring that the worst problems at
the worst sites enter the study phase of the program
first.
EPA believes that its worst sites first approach
is more protective of human health and the
environment than previous approaches and, therefore,
more clearly satisfies the primary goal of Superfund.
The focus is on reducing risk at a maximum number of
sites, rather than focusing on the last increment of
clean-up action at a few sites. Observers who
measure Superfund progress solely by completion or
deletion of sites, however, may be frustrated because
the policy may result in fewer site deletions in its first
years of implementation.
1.2.2 Environmental Indicators
Although Superfund has made many gains in
the protection of human health and the environment,
to date little attention outside the Agency has been
paid to any measures other than the number of sites
deleted from the NPL. Milestones of progress have
traditionally included the number of removal and
remedial activities started and completed. More
recently, the Superfund program has begun evaluating
progress in terms of new measures, called
environmental indicators. These indicators measure
actual improvement in the environment by calculating
decreases in contamination.
The first environmental indicator report,
Superfund: Reporting Progress Through Environmental
Indicators, summarized data collected from all NPL
sites where clean-up work has been initiated and from
a sample of non-NPL sites. The data collected show
progress for three indicators:
• Making Sites Safe: Controlling Acute
Threats to People and the Environment;
• Making Sites Clean: Achieving Long-Term
Clean-up Goals for Sites; and
• Bringing Technology to Bear: Removing
Contamination from the Environment.
The initial report described the indicators and
detailed Superfund clean-up progress through FY89.
Progress through the end of 1990 has recently been
documented and will be described in an updated
environmental indicator report. The data in the
updated report will show that:
• Superfund has taken action to make sites safe
at 1,620 sites. This includes actions where
Superfund has removed, treated, or contained
waste, provided site security, provided
alternative water supplies, and relocated
people.
12
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEBFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
" Superfund activities have resulted in progress
toward cleaning up the environment at 507 of
the nation's worst hazardous waste sites.
Acute threats have been addressed at 429 of
these sites, and progress toward long-term
health and environmental goals has occurred
at 373 of these sites.
• Superfund has eliminated threats from direct
contact with hazardous waste at 60 percent of
the sites where long-term cleanup of land
contamination has begun.
• Superfund has managed large quantities of
waste in its clean-up activities, including more
than 12,930,000 cubic yards of soil and other
solid wastes; 1,055,000,000 gallons of contained
liquid wastes; 6,350,000,000 gallons of ground
water; and 316,000,000 gallons of surface
water.
EPA has attempted to ensure that the
environmental indicators are understandable,
scientifically credible measurements that are applicable
to a wide variety of sites and clean-up approaches.
With the development of environmental indicators,
EPA hopes to convey that controlling acute threats to
people and the environment, achieving long-term
cleanup of sites, and removing contamination from the
environment are the true measures of the progress of
the Superfund program.
1.23 Other Initiatives
The 90-Day Study task group recommended
accelerating and improving remedial actions by
communicating and regularly reinforcing to Superfund
managers and staff the primary mission of the program,
that is, to take responsible action at sites as rapidly as
possible. In September 1989, the Agency issued a
memorandum assuring that all Superfund personnel are
aware of the need to respond to acute threats quickly
and effectively.
The 90-Day Study also recommended that the
Administrator communicate this primary mission to the
U.S. Attorney General and the heads of other federal
departments and agencies. In keeping with the strategy
outlined in the 90-Day Study Implementation Plan, the
Agency took the following additional steps in FY90:
« Met with members of the National Response
Team to communicate program goals;
• Met with the Department of Justice (DOJ)
and the Fish and Wildlife Service to discuss
program goals in relation to environmental
evaluation;
• Sent letters to the state natural resource
trustees to invite their participation in
environmental evaluations of Superfund sites;
and
• Established goals of accelerating and
improving remedial actions through
interagency agreements.
Use of Expedited Clean-up Approaches
The use of expedited clean-up approaches by
EPA Regional offices was strongly recommended in
the 90-Day Study. Examples of such approaches
include using removal authorities or contracting
mechanisms during the remedial phase of a site
cleanup, dividing sites into operable units to facilitate
fast action, and encouraging PRPs to finance early
remedial measures. The Study also recommended
that Headquarters monitor these activities and take
steps to remove barriers that interfere with their
successful completion. In response, the Agency issued
a "short sheet" on rapid remedial construction and a
guidance document called Accelerated Response at
NPL Sites.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and Remedy
Selection Models
To provide decision-makers with additional
guidance and to promote consistency in decision-
making at remedial sites, the 90-Day Study task group
recommended that the Agency develop a prototype
RI/FS and remedy selection model addressing
recurring .types of remedial sites, such as municipal
landfills, battery-cracking sites, and wood-treatment
plants. In response to this recommendation, the
Agency issued "short sheets" on addressing wood
treatment facilities, municipal landfills, and PCB sites
and on the status of efforts to identify other common
types of sites. The Agency also requested that the
Regions identify other prototypes that would be
useful.
13
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Remedy Selection and Use of Innovative Technologies
During an RI/FS, quickly narrowing the
number of remedial alternatives to those with clear
potential applicability to the site can greatly expedite
the remedial process. The 90-Day Study task group
recommended that the Agency take steps to emphasize
this concept, and in response, the Agency issued:
• A "short sheet" discussing the importance of
narrowing remedial alternatives;
• A ROD update, explaining how to streamline
remedial projects; and
• A discussion of the importance of this concept
in the preamble of the revised NCP, published
in March 1990.
Improving Consistency in Remedy Selection
Several recommendations in the 90-Day Study
were aimed at improving consistency in remedy
selection. Specifically, the 90-Day Study recommended
that the Agency:
• Ensure that Regional Coordinators have time
to review drafts of proposed remedial
alternative plans and RODs as early as
possible in the remedial process to provide
useful feedback;
• Examine remedy selection decisions from a
national perspective by conducting regular
reviews to identify trends that run counter to
statutory requirements or EPA policy; and
• Clearly communicate the results of these
reviews to Regional Administrators.
EPA's ROD data base, which contains
summaries and the full text of all RODs, is a useful
tool in improving consistency in remedy selection. The
90-Day Study recommended that the Agency keep the
ROD data base updated and ensure that RPMs check
the data base before making any recommendations on
remedy selection. The Study also recommended that
the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR) work with the Regions to provide national
consistency on procedures for selection of treatment
technologies.
To implement the recommendations for
improving consistency in remedy selection and
encouraging the use of innovative technologies, the
Agency also has taken the following steps:
• Issued a directive on the use of the ROD
data base to promote consistency in remedial
decision-making among the Regions;
• Maintained the quality and utility of the
ROD data base system by updating the
system with FY89 RODs;
• Continued training RPMs in the use of the
ROD data base.
• Conducted quality analysis of FY89 RODs to
detect potential inconsistencies;
• Developed a framework for a Headquarters
quality assurance program that provides
procedures and criteria for quality reviews of
RODs and other important documents;
• Provided feedback to the Regions on the
ROD analysis, which assisted the Regions in
maintaining and improving the quality of
RODs; and
• Completed a review of proposed remedial
alternative plans and RODs.
13 Enforcement Initiatives
During FY90, the enforcement program
concentrated on the implementation of the One
Superfund/Enforcement First approach. The aim of
the Superfund enforcement program is to achieve
cleanup of hazardous waste disposal sites by the
responsible generators and transporters of wastes or
the owners or operators of sites. Relatively small
investments of enforcement resources can yield
significant environmental and public health benefits.
During FY90, EPA concentrated on involving PRPs
at a larger number of sites through the use of
statutory enforcement measures. The Agency also
continued to focus on taking action against PRPs to
recover government dollars expended at Superfund
sites.
14
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
The Agency implemented specific
recommendations from the 90-Day Study, many of
which were based on ongoing enforcement initiatives
that were proven successful during past fiscal years.
13.1 Increased PRP Activity
Aggressive enforcement has resulted in a
significant increase in the number of projects that
PRPs are conducting and/or financing. Since FY88,
PRPs have been performing nearly one third of the
removal actions and one half of the RI/FSs. In FY90,
PRPs conducted and/or financed 60 percent of the new
RDs and nearly 60 percent of the new RAs.
In FY90, EPA achieved 283 agreements with
PRPs to conduct and/or finance future response actions
at an estimated value of $1.3 billion. This represents
an increase of $270 million over the estimated value of
PRP agreements in FY89, and $722 million over the
FY88 level. These increases demonstrate the positive
effect the One Superfund/Enforcement First approach
has had on compelling PRP response. Exhibit 1.3-1
shows the dramatic increase in PRP agreements since
FY87.
13.2 Emphasis on Use of Enforcement
Measures
The 90-Day Study urged the Agency to
augment the use of statutory enforcement measures to
increase the role of PRPs in the expanded universe of
Superfund sites, thereby conserving the Fund for use in
cleaning up sites for which no viable PRP can be
found.
De Minimis and Mixed Funding Settlements
CERCLA section 122 authorizes the use of
settlement tools including de minimis and mixed
funding settlements. In response to recommendations
of the 90-Day Study, the Agency has emphasized the
use of de minimis and mixed funding settlements,
without compromising environmental goals. Generally,
a de minimis settlement provides a settlement
opportunity to owners and operators with no
knowledge of disposal activities at a site, and
generators or transporters who contributed small
amounts of contaminated material (in volume and
toricity) to a site. There are three types of mixed
funding settlements: preauthorization, mixed work,
and cash outs. Preauthorization entails authorizing
PRPs to perform the work and then allowing the
PRPs to submit a claim to non-settling PRPs for
reimbursement. If the non-settling PRPs do not pay
the claim, the settling PRPs are reimbursed by the
Fund, and EPA sues the non-settling PRPs. Mixed
work settlements involve a partnership in which the
PRPs and EPA each perform discrete portions of the
work. Cash out settlements allow PRPs without the
money or expertise to conduct or oversee work to
resolve their liability through a payment of money to
the Trust Fund. In general, mixed funding and de
minimis settlements are used only when there are
financially viable non-settling PRPs. To date, there
have been 14 mixed funding settlements and 31 de
minimis settlements. Nearly half of the total de
minimis settlements were reached in FY90.
To encourage the use of these enforcement
tools on the Regional level, the Agency has developed
a two-day course for Regional staff that has been
incorporated into the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) Superfund Academy.
EPA also provides resources to support
Regional use of these tools. EPA has increased the
level of Regional resources for PRP removals and
oversight to encourage or compel PRPs to conduct
response actions before using the Fund. In
accordance with recommendations of the 90-Day
Study, these goals have been incorporated into the
Regional general management review criteria and are
also included in the Superfund Program Management
Manual. The Agency also is planning a greater
emphasis on Superfund enforcement at the OSC/RPM
Training Academy and Attorney Training Academy.
Additional training courses were developed and
delivered in FY90.
Unilateral Administrative Orders
The Agency has the authority under
CERCLA section 106 to issue a Unilateral
Administrative Order (UAO) to persons, including
PRPs, to compel them to conduct a response action
in situations where there may be an imminent and
substantial endangerment. UAOs are an important
component of the One Superfund/Enforcement First
approach because they reinforce the concept that
negotiations will not go on indefinitely. PRPs know
that if they do not reach an agreement with EPA to
conduct a response, the Agency can and will issue a
15
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
; t*-? ^ ^ ,
Potential Value of Enftjrcemepl
$1.3 billion
(283 settlements)
$1.03 billion
(218 settlements)
$0.578 billion
(213 settlements)
$0.175 billion
'"4( 114 settlements)
UAO. If PRPs do not comply with the order, the
Agency can seek recovery of government expenditures
plus three times that amount in damages and civil
penalties up to $25,000 per day.
In FY90, the Agency issued a record 131
UAOs to PRPs. This represents a 31 percent increase
over FY89. This fiscal year EPA also was awarded its
first treble damages case in the amount of $2 million.
133 Enforcing PRP Agreements
PRPs can agree to conduct or finance a
cleanup through a settlement agreement (i.e., a consent
order or consent decree). EPA has the authority to
monitor and enforce these agreements, which allows
EPA to enforce PRP compliance. Many agreements
stipulate daily penalties that may be invoked for non-
compliance. The Agency has established standard
procedures to notify and negotiate with a PRP that is
out of compliance. In some cases, EPA may choose to
take over work from the PRP and subsequently sue the
PRP for cleaning costs incurred. If the Agency takes
over work covered by a UAO, EPA can recover
government costs plus treble damages plus civil
penalties. EPA has allocated one million dollars for
Regions to use in enforcing PRP agreements. These
monies are available to all Regions and supplement
their normal funds for enforcement.
In response to recommendations of the 90-
Day Study task group, the Agency drafted several
guidance documents, including documents providing
a strategy for pursuing non-settling PRPs at
Superfund sites, and on bringing and settling
enforcement claims against PRPs that are not in
compliance with administrative orders or consent
decrees.
Furthermore, the Agency has drafted a
strategy for providing special litigation support for
CERCLA section 106 civil judicial actions. In April
1990, EPA held a national workshop for new
attorneys as a part of its nationally sponsored training
program for EPA Superfund attorneys. This program
is coordinated with the Superfund OSC/RPM
Academy. To assist Regions and DOT in negotiating
RD/RA settlements, the Agency drafted a model
RD/RA consent decree. The model contains
language consistent with EPA national policy
provisions concerning subjects such as access, force
majeure, dispute resolution, and covenants not to sue.
16
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
In FY90, the Agency referred four cases to
DOJto seek CERCLA section 106(b)(l) penalties
against PRPs that were not in compliance with
agreements. EPA also referred four cases to DOT
seeking treble damages. In any one case, the Agency
may seek penalties, as well as treble damages.
At sites where all claims are not satisfied, EPA
aggressively pursues non-settling PRPs. EPA has
developed an automated system to track non-settling
PRPs at sites with partial settlements. Since FY87, the
Agency has taken action against non-settling PRPs at
38 percent of the 79 sites with partial settlements. At
34 percent of sites, the Agency could not identify any
viable PRPs. EPA is considering action at the
remaining 28 percent of these sites.
13.4 Increased Focus on Cost Recovery
The Agency has placed a great deal of
emphasis on recovering government dollars spent on
response activities. At Headquarters, a separate branch
of the Office of Enforcement (OE) has been dedicated
completely to cost recovery. The Regions also have
instituted separate cost recovery sections or branches
to focus on cost recovery activities. In addition, the
Agency has developed a complex CERCLIS report that
identifies and prioritizes sites requiring cost recovery
action.
In response to recommendations of the 90-Day
Study pertaining to cost documentation and cost
recovery issues, EPA is developing a rulemaking to
identify the types of expenditures appropriate for cost
recovery and the documentation adequate to support
cost recovery. The Agency also undertook a study to
analyze the goals and expectations of the cost recovery
program, and took steps to improve the cost recovery
approach for removal actions. For example,
Headquarters developed an alternative dispute
resolution strategy in collaboration with the Regions
and DOJ.
As of September 30, 1990, EPA had taken
action to address response costs at 58 percent of 2,039
sites which were eligible for cost recovery action. The
Agency had reached settlements with PRPs worth
$475.6 million and collected $2953 million. Cases
worth an additional $643 million had been referred or
filed. The Agency had also determined that, due to the
absence of viable PRPs, an additional $39 million could
not be recovered. Figure 1.3-2 shows the distribution
of the 2,039 sites across categories of cost recovery activities.
Since the program's inception in 1980, cost
recovery activity has continued to increase. In FY89,
the value of referrals was $2.1 million and the value
of settlements was $25 thousand. In FY90, the value
of referrals was $185 million and the value of
settlements was $95.3 million. Post-SARA
performance has shown dramatic increases. Figure
1.3-3 shows the increase in the value of referrals from
FY87 through FY90. Collections, shown in Figure
1.3-4, have also shown a dramatic increase from $18.9
million in FY87 to $105 million in FY90. The FY90
collection of $105 million exceeded the Senate
Appropriation goal of $82 million.
13.5 Other 90-Day Study Enforcement
Initiatives
In the time since the publication of the 90-
Day Study, the enforcement program has
implemented many activities in response to specific
recommendations of the Study.
Ensuring the Proper Skill Mix for Enforcement Support
The 90-Day Study task group found that case
management and case support should be improved to
implement the One Superfund/ Enforcement First
approach, to assure adequate PRP searches and
maximize PRP involvement at all Superfund sites, and
to support additional enforcement actions. The
Study recommended that EPA ensure a proper
personnel skill mix for case management and support
of enforcement actions. The Study further
recommended the creation of specialized Regional
units for enforcement support activities, such as
searching for PRPs, coordinating information
exchange among PRPs, supporting cost recovery
efforts, and developing administrative records. In
response, EPA undertook a study to assess the need
for specialized Regional support units. The Study
indicated that since the publication of the 90-Day
Study the Regions had taken significant measures to
establish such support. EPA, therefore, analyzed the
Regional support structures and made several
recommendations including:
• During FY91, and within 12-18 months after
establishing its support program, each
Region should evaluate the effectiveness of
17
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Cases in LmgaUon
fTTl Planned for Cost Recovery
Under Consideration
Written Off
Achieved
SOURCE: CERCLIS, supplemented by data collected by the Regional Cost Recovery Branches.
NOTE: Dollar figures represent the value of costs sought in cost recovery cases. Future costs,
which may be substantial, are not included.
SOURCE: CERCLIS.
18
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Exhibit 1.3-4
-Ir
^ SOURCE: U.S. Treasury Reports
'A''-1.LJ .. ...I J. . . ..1 1 U L L . I . . I
its enforcement support units in meeting the
RPM's needs.
• Program guidelines should be developed on a
Region-by-Region basis, allowing each Region
to tailor this breakout to its unique blend of
sites, policies, procedures, and staffing
patterns.
• When possible, RPMs should rely on
enforcement support units for assistance with
relatively new sites, rather than old sites. This
may help alleviate some of the difficulties
associated with bringing support personnel up
to speed on existing sites, and with having
RPMs turn over sites in which they have
invested a great deal of time.
In addition, Headquarters has collaborated with the
Regions to develop several skill mix models for site
management and to establish systems to make these
personnel groups feasible.
Two-Way Communication with PRPs
CERCLA section 104(e) authorizes EPA to
request information from persons, including PRPs,
and to take enforcement actions against PRPs who
fail to comply with information requests. Information
requests are valuable for establishing PRP liability
and for encouraging PRP participation in the
settlement process. Section 122(e) of CERCLA
provides that EPA should release information to
PRPs upon issuance of special notice letters, to the
extent such information is available, concerning the
other PRPs at a site, and the nature of the hazardous
substances. A volumetric ranking of the hazardous
substances by party may also be prepared.
Under CERCLA section 104(e), the Agency
has initiated actions to promote and enforce
compliance with information requests to PRPs. This
initiative involves developing model pleadings,
guidance, an updated inventory of enforcement
actions, and a communications strategy. EPA also
has issued a policy directive that emphasizes to the
19
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Regions the importance of releasing available
information under CERCLA section 122(e) as soon as
possible to facilitate settlements.
Oversight of Private Party RIlFSs
The 90-Day Study highlighted a broad
consensus among EPA managers and staff that the
Agency needs to put more effort and resources into
oversight of RI/FSs performed by PRPs. EPA must
ensure that PRP work on RI/FSs is timely, thorough,
and does not compromise environmental goals. During
the fiscal year, EPA took steps to respond to the
Study's recommendations regarding PRP oversight.
For example, the Agency redistributed resources to
Regions to assure that the proper level of resources are
devoted to oversight. To provide an analytical basis for
strengthening oversight support, EPA completed an
evaluation of PRP conduct of RI/FSs.
Top-Level EPA/DOJ Conference
In April 1990, EPA and DOJ held a summit
meeting of top-level officials to ensure a consensus on
goals for the Superfund program and to develop
procedures for addressing Superfund settlement and
litigation issues in a coordinated, effective, and efficient
manner. Furthermore, the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement (OWPE) Director holds monthly
meetings with DOJ's Chief of the Environmental
Enforcement Section.
Case/Site Management Planning
The 90-Day Study recommended that EPA
institute a case or site management planning process
that includes provisions for coordination among the
different offices and organizations that are involved at
critical stages in the enforcement process. A draft
Case/Site Management Plan was developed by OWPE
and distributed to DOJ, the OE, OERR, and the
Regions for review. Extensive comments are being
incorporated and Headquarters expects the Plan to be
completed during FY91.
Enforcement Program Organization
In FY90, EPA completed a formal study
assessing the current organizational structure and
functions of the Headquarters Superfund Enforcement
Program. The study specifically addressed suggestions
to consolidate OWPE and OERR planning and
budget functions and questions of overlapping
responsibilities among OE, Regional Counsel, the
Office of General Counsel, and DOJ. In response to
the study, OWPE has restructured the CERCLA
Enforcement Division. In addition, the Agency
created a new branch in OE to focus solely on cost
recovery.
The study also analyzed existing Superfund
enforcement delegations of authority to the Regional
offices, identified overlaps, and recommended
program changes. As a result of these
recommendations and changes prior to publication of
the 90-Day Study, Regions now undertake all cost
recovery documentation (within the limits set forth in
CERCLA section 122(h)). Regions also have
settlement authority unless the settlement sets a
precedent, significantly compromises government
dollars via cost recovery, or is the first de minimis or
mixed-funding settlement in the Region. One
exception is that all preauthorization settlements
require Headquarters concurrence. Headquarters is
currently considering delegating the authority for
preauthorization settlements to the Regions.
Potentially Responsible Party Searches
EPA took several steps during FY90 to
enhance PRP searches and to implement the Agency's
policy of conducting PRP searches concurrent with
the NPL listing process. The Agency held a training
program in Denver to provide contractors with
expertise in providing support to PRP searches.
Among the topics discussed at the training program
were the following: identifying PRPs, obtaining
information on PRP financial viability, and obtaining
properly documented information to be used as
evidence if judicial action is necessary. To assess
previous search results, the Regions reviewed PRP
searches at 342 sites to determine whether they were
adequate. As necessary, follow-up work will be
initiated to obtain additional financial viability and
liability information. EPA intends to continue this
program in FY91. EPA also developed a workplan to
upgrade the civil investigator program by increasing
the number of civil investigators and through the use
of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
The Agency expects training to be scheduled during
FY91.
20
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
1-4 Removal Activities
Throughout the 10-year history of Superfund,
the removal program has been extremely successful at
preventing or minimizing risk to human health and the
environment. To date, EPA or PRPs have completed
1,843 removal actions at both NPL and non-NPL sites.
Removal actions are taken in response to a
release or a threat of a release of a hazardous
substance that presents a near-term threat to human
health or the environment. Removals generally are
short-term in nature and address the most immediate
threats. Chemical spills or fires, and illegal disposal of
toxic materials (midnight dumping) are examples of
situations that might warrant a removal action.
The sites where EPA conducts removal actions
may or may not be listed or proposed for listing on the
NPL. Specific activities undertaken during a response
might include treatment, excavation, pumping,
incineration, barrier installation, provision of an
alternate water supply, or temporary relocation of
residents. As part of the removal actions taken over
the course of Superfund, the program has supplied
more than 267,000 people with alternative water
supplies, and relocated approximately 20,000 people to
protect them from harm.
1.4.1 Status Report on Removal Actions
EPA or PRPs conducted more removal action
starts and completions in FY90 than in any previous
year. The Agency and PRPs began a record high 388
removal actions during FY90, while also completing a
record 280 removal actions. Exhibit 1.4-1 compares
the number of removal action starts and completions
during FY90 to those of previous fiscal years.
The role of PRPs in funding the removal effort
continued to grow during the fiscal year. Of the 388
removal actions begun in FY90, 98 were financed by
PRPs compared with 86 in FY89. In addition, PRP
funds were used to complete 83 of the 280 removal
action completions, compared with 75 in FY89.
PRPs also funded more removal actions at
NPL sites during FY90 than ever before. Of the 98
removal action starts conducted by PRPs, 33 of these
were at NPL sites. Also, PRPs completed 30 removals
at NPL sites. EPA financed removal action starts at 43
sites on the NPL, while completing 28 removals at such
sites.
1.4.2 The Removal Action Process
To ensure that the most serious risks to
public health and the environment are addressed, the
removal program identifies three types of removal
actions with respect to response time. Removal
actions are classified as emergencies if immediate
action at the site is necessary. Time-critical removal
actions require response activities to begin within six
months. A planning period of more than six months
is available before clean-up activities must begin in
the case of non-time-critical removal actions. During
FY90, 121 of the total number of Fund-financed
removal actions were determined to be emergency
actions. Fund-financed time-critical actions numbered
168, and one non-time-critical removal was financed
by monies from the Trust Fund.
When there is notification of a release that
may require a removal action, the Agency undertakes
a removal site evaluation to determine the source
and nature of the release, the threat to public health,
and whether a non-federal party is undertaking a
proper response. The Agency reviews the results of
the removal site evaluation and a number of other
factors to determine the appropriate extent of a
removal. At any point in this process, EPA may refer
the action to the remedial program or determine no
action is necessary. Once it is determined that a
removal action is required, an appropriate response is
taken to abate, prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate,
or eliminate the threat.
The Agency must prepare an action
memorandum that states the authority for
undertaking the removal action, and describes both
the action(s) to be taken and the rationale for the
selected action(s). EPA also must establish an
administrative record that consists of the documents
that form the basis for the selected removal action.
In the case of a non-time critical removal, the Agency
conducts an engineering evaluation/cost analysis
(EE/CA) and makes the study available to the public
in the administrative record. The purpose of the
EE/CA is to ensure that the most efficient response
is selected and that the public is involved in the
decision.
Community Participation in Removal Actions
There are ample opportunities for public
participation in the removal process. An official
21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Exhibit 1.44
Removal Action Starts and Completions by Fiscal Year
REMOVAL ACTION STARTS
TOTAL: 2,362
Fund-Financed (1,803)
PRP-Financed (559)
REMOVAL ACTION COMPLETIONS
Fund-Financed (1,472)
PRP-Financed (371)
i»BF
TOTAL
0
1983 B84
108 nn 153 i&-w m in
0 1 0 ag 5f ,,24 ; 3J 74; 7$
18 67 108
, s-, ' '
SOURCES: CERCLIS; Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1989, OERR, October 1990.
22
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
spokesperson must be appointed to keep the public
abreast of the progress of a given removal action. All
emergency and time-critical actions require the
administrative record to be made available to the
public for public comment. If the removal action is
expected to continue beyond 120 days, the lead agency
must involve local officials and other parties in the
process. In the case of non-time critical removals,
EPA must also make the EE/CA available for public
comment.
The On-Scene Coordinator
The On-Scene Coordinator (QSC) is
designated to organize and direct removal actions. The
OSC is responsible for preparing a final report
describing the situation at the site as the removal
developed, the response actions that took place at the
site, and any problems that occurred during the
response.
Removal Action Statutory Limits
Removal actions are intended to be short-term,
relatively inexpensive responses to releases or threats
of releases that pose a danger to human health and
the environment. Consequently, Congress included
limitations in CERCLA on the cost and duration of
removal actions of one year and $2 million,
respectively. Congress, however, also established
exemptions under specific circumstances to these cost
and duration limits. For example, removal actions may
exceed the limits if continued response is required
immediately to prevent, limit, or mitigate an
emergency; if there is an immediate risk to public
health, welfare, or the environment, and such action
cannot otherwise be provided on a timely basis; or if
continued response action is otherwise appropriate and
consistent with the remedial action to be taken.
During FY90, EPA granted 30 of the 35
requests for exemption/ceiling increases for removal
actions that exceeded the $2 million limitation.
Additionally, EPA granted 33 requests for exemptions
for removals to continue for more than one year. EPA
did not track information on the total number of
requests made in FY90 for exemptions for removals to
last longer than a year.
1.43 Actions Taken in Response to The
90-Day Study
The removal program has taken action to
accelerate responses, has assessed all NPL sites to
determine whether removal actions are necessary to
make sites safer, and is revising directives for
conducting removal actions.
Accelerating Responses
Site managers have access to a variety of
mechanisms to reduce acute risk to human health and
the environment at an NPL site. In December 1989,
OERR issued guidance for the Regions entitled
Accelerated Response at NPL Sites, outlining the
available mechanisms. The guidance provides for use
of removal authorities, removal contractors, and
remedial funding to accelerate remedial actions, and
the use of the remedial management strategy (RMS)
to identify and establish preferred contracting
strategies. Prompt use of enforcement authority is
emphasized to encourage PRP involvement in site
cleanup.
Making National Priorities List Sites Safer
On January 30, 1990, OERR issued a
supplement to the accelerated response guidance,
intended for Regional staff, entitled Interim Guidance
on Addressing Immediate Threats at NPL Sites. The
interim guidance addresses a 90-Day Study
recommendation to reduce short-term risks at NPL
sites by providing detailed procedures and guidance
for evaluating and addressing immediate threats at
NPL sites. The guidance stipulates that new additions
to the NPL undergo a removal site evaluation to
identify the presence of immediate threats, and that
final NPL sites be reviewed at least once every two
years to ensure, to the extent possible, that all NPL
sites are free from immediate threats.
Conducting Removal Assessments
As a result of the 90-Day Study recommend-
ations and consistent with the new worst sites first
23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
strategy, Regions started conducting site evaluations of
all NPL sites in late 1989 to ensure that no site posed
an immediate threat to human health or the
environment. First, the Regions evaluated all NPL
sites where no action had taken place. As a result of
these initial assessments, the Agency has started 23
removal actions. Regions then conducted evaluations
of all the remaining NPL sites (i.e., sites where some
action has taken place). Preliminary information
gathered during these later evaluations indicates that
27 sites will require removals.
1.4.4 Superfund Removal Procedures
Manual
The Superfund Removal Procedures (SRP)
manual covers all removal action procedural and
administrative requirements and is used for reference
by OSCs, other response personnel, the remedial
program staff, and EPA enforcement personnel, as well
as other federal and state agencies. The manual is
currently being restructured into a series of ten stand-
alone volumes covering separate topics to avoid the
inconvenience of one large, unwieldy volume.
EPA issued the first volume, Action
Memorandum Guidance, in September 1990. This
guidance outlines the requirements for preparing an
Action Memorandum that provides a concise written
record of decision for selecting a removal action. An
Action Memorandum describes a site's history, current
activities, and health and environmental threats;
outlines the proposed actions and costs; and documents
approval of the proposed action by the appropriate
EPA Headquarters or Regional authority. Because
Action Memoranda are the primary decision
documents with respect to selection and authorization
of removal actions, they are a critical component of the
administrative record.
1.4.5 Environmental Response Team
The Removal Program also manages the
Environmental Response Team (ERT) as required by
the National Contingency Plan (Section 300.145). The
ERT is a team of EPA experts in emergency
response, hazard assessment, health and safety, air
monitoring, alternative and innovative technology, site
investigation, ecological damage assessment, clean-up
contractor management, and oil and chemical spill
control. The ERT is available to the OSC/RPM 24
hours per day, 365 days a year to bring its expertise to
bear on problems that occur at individual sites.
During FY90, the ERT responded on-scene to 135
removal actions, 68 remedial actions and 6 oil spills.
In addition to its response support actions,
ERT provides introductory and intermediate level
training courses in health and safety and other
technical aspects of response. During FY90, a total
of 215 course offerings were presented at the ERT
Training Centers in Edison, New Jersey and
Cincinnati, Ohio and over 100 sites throughout the
United States.
1.5 Progress Toward Meeting
Superfund-Related Statutory
Requirements
In response to a recommendation of the
Lautenberg-Durenberger Report on Superfund
Implementation: Cleaning up the Nation's Cleanup
Program, EPA includes in this Report as Appendix D
a matrix, which charts the progress of EPA and other
government organizations in meeting statutory
requirements imposed by SARA, The matrix lists all
Superfund-related administrative and program
implementation (rather than site-specific)
requirements by statutory section, describes the
mandated activity, indicates if the activity has been
completed, and briefly describes what has been done
to meet the requirement. If the activity has not
been completed, its status is reported. EPA has
made significant progress towards meeting its
statutory requirements. The matrix indicates that 32
of the 39 applicable one-time requirements with
specific deadlines have been completed, and one is
not yet due. Furthermore, 10 of 12 requirements due
annually or biannually have been completed, and one
is not yet due. Also, 20 of the 27 with no specific
deadlines have been completed.
24
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CHAPTER
2
Other
Response
Activities
The Agency made marked progress on a
number of other response activities to ensure the
protection of public health, welfare, and the
environment, including assessing newly discovered sites,
revising the system by which those sites are studied,
and encouraging other federal agencies and
departments to undertake clean-up actions at sites
owned and operated by the federal government
2.1 Site Assessment
Among the crucial elements in the timely
response to a potentially threatening site or incident
are notification of the appropriate government
authorities and assessment of the situation. These
activities represent the initial stages of the Superfund
process. EPA is alerted to possible hazardous waste
sites in a variety of ways, including records and
information provided by states and handlers of
hazardous materials, and reports from concerned
citizens.
For example, an individual may report
concerns about a particular site, or local law
enforcement officials may make a formal report to
EPA Facility managers may also notify EPA of a
release, as required by CERCLA section 103. That
section specifies that persons in charge of a vessel or
facility, such as a facility manager, must immediately
report any release of a hazardous substance that is
equal to or greater than the reportable quantity (RQ)
for that substance to the National Response Center
(NRC). The NRC operates a 24-hour hotline that
allows for this immediate notification. CERCLA
imposes penalties for failure to comply with this
requirement.
2.1.1 The Inventory of Sites (CERCLIS)
When the Agency is notified of a site,
regardless of the substance(s) involved or the
significance of the incident, it records basic
information in a computer data base called the
CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS).
CERCLIS is a national inventory of all sites
potentially appropriate for listing on the National
Priorities List (NPL). EPA added 1,671 sites to
CERCLIS during FY90, bringing the inventory of
sites at the end of the fiscal year to 33,575.
When EPA learns of a site, the site
assessment phase of the Superfund process begins.
During this portion of the program, EPA identifies
those sites that represent the highest priority for
further investigation and possible cleanup under
CERCLA.
2.1.2 Preliminary Assessments
The first step EPA takes upon notification of
an incident or site is known as a preliminary
assessment (PA), a low-cost review of existing
information, to determine whether the site poses a
potential hazard. The PA enables the Agency to
determine whether further investigation of a site may
be necessary or whether a removal assessment should
be recommended. During the PA, EPA or the state
collects information that may include past state
permitting activity, local population statistics, or the
site's potential effect upon the environment. Every
PA includes a site reconnaissance unless access to the
area is restricted.
25
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Acronyms Introduced in Chapter 2
DOD - Department of Defense
DOI - Department of Interior
ERNS - Emergency Response Notification System
HRS - Hazard Ranking System
IAG - Interagency Agreement
NRC - National Response Center
OSHA - OccupationalSafetyandHealthAdministration
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976
RQ - Reportable Quantity
In FY90, EPA completed 1,589 PAs. Since the
elimination of the PA backlog on non-federal facility
sites in FY88, the Agency has achieved its goal of
completing a PA within one year from the date a site
is entered in CERCLIS. EPA records in CERCLIS the
completion date of PAs and the determination for
future action at the site (for example, no further
remedial action planned). To date, EPA has
completed PAs at 30,886 sites, 92 percent of the sites
in CERCLIS. Forty-five (44.6) percent of PAs have
resulted in a decision to conduct no further action. If
the site presents a serious imminent threat, EPA may
use the Trust Fund to take immediate "removal" action.
EPA may also decide that further information is
necessary to determine whether the site should be
placed on the NPL.
Of the sites in CERCLIS, 2,689 require PAs.
Exhibit 2.1-1 illustrates the pre-remedial program
accomplishments from FY80 to FY90, including PAs,
Sis, and the total number of sites in CERCLIS.
2.13 Site Inspections
If the PA determines that an actual or
potential contamination problem exists but does not
pose an imminent threat, EPA will perform a more
extensive study called the site inspection (SI). The
purpose of the SI is to determine whether a site is
appropriate for listing on the NPL. The SI usually
includes collection and analysis of environmental and
waste samples to determine: (1) the substances present
at the site; (2) their concentrations; (3) whether they
are being released or their potential for release; and
(4) whether the hazardous constituents are
attributable to the site. These data and any other
additional information are used to calculate a score
using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS), which
measures the relative hazard a site poses to human
health and the environment. The HRS is a screening
tool - it is a means of determining the relative hazard
posed by a site and whether placement on the NPL is
warranted.
Historically, delays have occurred between
evaluation steps, such as PAs and Sis, in the
Superfund process. As a result, the Agency is looking
at ways to improve the technical decision-making
process and reduce the time involved in placing sites
on the NPL.
The Agency completed 1,897 Sis during
FY90. EPA has not yet conducted Sis at 4,079 sites
at which it has determined they are necessary. The
Agency is nearing its goal of eliminating the pre-
SARA SI backlog. Two Regions have met that goal
and the remaining Regions expect to complete the
elimination of their backlogs by the end of FY91.
2.1.4 National Priorities List Update
The NPL is the list of sites that appear to
warrant remedial action. EPA places a site on the
NPL if it has a rank of 28.50 or higher using the
HRS. Before the Agency lists a site on the NPL, it
proposes the site for listing and receives public
comment. During FY90, EPA proposed 25 sites for
the NPL and listed 300 sites that had been previously
proposed. At the end of the fiscal year there were 20
proposed and 1,187 final NPL sites, bringing the total
number of proposed and final sites to 1,207. Exhibit
2.1-2 illustrates the number of sites that the Agency
has listed on the NPL since it was first published in
1983.
The Agency may delete sites from the NPL if
all appropriate response actions have been
implemented. If ho further clean-up action is
appropriate, a site is removed from the list. Pursuant
to CERCLA section 121(c), EPA has recently
announced a policy specifying that the Agency
generally will not delete a site where hazardous
substances remain until completion of at least one
five-year review to ensure that the remedy remains
protective of human health and the environment.
26
-------
Sites in CERCLIS
PA Total to Date
SI Total to Date
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
8,000 10,500 13386 16309 18384 22,621 25,194
1988 1989
30,013 31504
1309 4,447
6294 10,741
5.181 4,262 4,001
15,922 20,184 24,185
2384 2,228
27,069 29297
U37 1,732
9,022 10,754
NOTE: Approximately 45 percent of the sites that receive PAs require no further remedial action, and therefore, do not receive Sis.
September 30,1990, EPA had not yet conducted Sis at 4,079 sites at which it has determined they are necessary.
SOURCE: CERCLIS.
1
§
I
£
CO
«
*
\^
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Sites Added
Previously
Listed Sites
Fiscal Year
Sites Added
Total
1983
406
406
1984
132
538
1985
3
541
1986
170
703
1987
99
802
1988
0
797
1989
101
888
1990
300
1,187 l
1 This is the total of final NPL sites only and reflects the fact that EPA deleted eight sites from the
NPL in FY86, five sites in FY88, ten sites in FY89, and one site in FY90. The total of final and
proposed NPL sites as of September 30,1990 was 1207.
SOURCES: Reports to Congress on Progress Toward Implementing Superfund (for Fiscal Years 1987,
1988,1989,1990), OERR, April 1989, April 1990, October 1990; National Priorities List,
Supplementary Lists and Supporting Materials, OERR; 53 FR 33811, September 1990.
•" * V
28
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
2.1.5 Relationship Between CERCLIS and
NPLData
CERCLIS includes those sites which may
potentially be listed on the NPL and primarily catalogs
administrative information, such as the completion date
of the PA of a site. In contrast, the NPL lists sites
EPA has given highest priority for considering, and
where appropriate, implementing remedial action.
During FY90, the Agency continued work on a study
addressing the characteristics of NPL sites, including
the contaminants present, media affected, and threat
posed. EPA completed a similar study on a random
sample of sites in CERCLIS in FY89. Data from these
two studies will allow the Agency to compare and
contrast the CERCLIS universe with the sites that are
on the NPL on a Region by Region and national basis.
2.1.6 Hazard Ranking System Revisions
During FY90, the Agency received and
considered public comments relating to its proposed
revision of the HRS. At the end of FY89, the Agency
had published the Availability Notice for the Field Test
Report on the HRS Proposed Revisions (54 FR 37949,
September 14, 1989). This gave the public the
opportunity to re-evaluate the proposed rule
(published December 23, 1988, 53 FR 51962) against
its performance in the field test. The final HRS
addresses SARA requirements, recommendations by
EPA's Science Advisory Board, and over 2,500 public
comments from approximately 145 commenters. (The
final HRS was published on December 14,1990 (55 FR
51532).)
Although the HRS has been revised, it retains
the same cutoff score and basic approach as the
original HRS. In addition, the revised HRS retains the
ground water, surface water, and air pathways, drops
the direct contact and fire/explosion pathways, and adds
a fourth pathway, soil exposure.
Several key provisions of the revised HRS
make it more comprehensive and accurate. The revised
HRS:
• Evaluates new exposure pathways or threats
that assess contact of people with
contaminated soils, and contamination of the
aquatic food chain;
Expands toxicity to include not only acute
health effects, but also carcinogenic and
chronic noncarcinogenic effects;
Considers sensitive environments including
wetlands and habitats of endangered species
designated by various federal and state
agencies;
Evaluates the potential for air contamination
and for contaminated ground water to enter
surface water;
Allows use of concentration data to
determine the quantity of waste at a site;
Assigns higher scores when people are
actually exposed to contamination than when
they are potentially exposed;
Assigns increasingly higher scores to
potentially exposed people and sensitive
environments as distance from a site
decreases; and
Includes a new part that describes in detail
the scoring of sites that contain radioactive
or mixed waste.
2.1.7 Guidance Documents and
Rulemakings
EPA is refining its standard operating
procedures for PAs, Sis, and HRS scoring. The
Agency is also developing training sessions to
guarantee rapid and consistent application of the
revised HRS. In addition, a "PreScore" computer
program will be used to perform the calculations
required by the HRS. Prescore will allow users to
perform quick sensitivity analysis to focus SI sampling
on the most important HRS factors, resulting in more
focused and nationally consistent decisions of better
quality. In addition, Prescore will be used to develop
HRS packages for sites proposed for the NPL.
Another computer program will automatically supply
chemical data to PreScore on over 300 chemicals.
These changes-will enable EPA to improve the quality
and timeliness of Superfund's evaluation of thousands
29
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
of potential hazardous waste sites annually and place
those that warrant response action on the NPL.
EPA's Emergency Response Division has
developed various training/outreach and information
transfer programs to support the implementation of
notification regulations:
• The Emergency Response Notification System
(ERNS). This national computer data base
and retrieval system is used to store
information on releases of oil and hazardous
substances. ERNS provides a mechanism for
documenting and verifying incident notification
information as initially reported.
• EPA/Department of Transportation
workshops. These workshops provide a public
forum to explain the federal requirements for
transporting and reporting releases of
hazardous materials.
• EPA On-Scene. The purpose of this
newsletter is to inform Regional personnel of
the statutory, regulatory, and policy changes
that may affect emergency response program
implementation. The newsletter also
disseminates information on emergency
activities taking place in the Regions.
• The Worker Protection Standards Workshops.
The Agency held six worker protection
standards workshops in FY90 to explain the
standards and describe how state and local
governments can comply with them.
Participants have given these popular
workshops impressive reviews.
These activities, directed toward the public,
industry, State Emergency Response Commissions,
Local Emergency Planning Committees, and EPA
Regional personnel, facilitate the compliance and
understanding of reporting regulations promulgated by
the Agency.
In addition, EPA published a number of
guidance documents and directives important to the
Superfund program in FY90, including:
• Field Test of the Proposed Revised Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). This book discusses
the findings and issues brought to light when
the proposed revisions to the hazard ranking
system were tested in the field. The Agency
incorporated public comment on the data in
the preparation to publish the final revisions
to the HRS.
Guidelines for Effective Management of the
Contract Laboratory .Program, Part 1: Contract
Award. Part 2: ContractAdministration. This
book provides internal guidelines for
Superfund Project Officers in procuring,
administrating, and managing Contract
Laboratory Program contracts.
Health and Safety Audit Guidelines: SARA
Title I, Section 126. This book provides step-
by-step guidance for assessing preliminary
evaluations, health and safety plans, and off-
site emergency response programs required
under Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and EPA worker
protection standards.
Update to the "Procedures for Completion and
Deletion of the National Priorities List Sites"
Guidance Document Regarding the
Performance of Five-Year Reviews. This
guidance directive incorporates the Agency's
policy of conducting at least one five-year
review prior to deleting a site from the NPL
into the "Procedures" guidance document.
2.2 Federal Facilities Program
Facilities owned and/or operated by the
federal government are subject to all requirements of
CERCLA and its implementing program. The Office
of Federal Facilities Enforcement in the Office of
Enforcement works with personnel from EPA
Headquarters, the Regional offices, and the states to
ensure that other federal agencies and departments
comply with CERCLA and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
requirements. Specifically, this office focuses on the
negotiation of interagency agreements, policy and
guidance development, and compliance monitoring.
30
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
2.2.1 Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket and Facility Site
Evaluation
The Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket, established pursuant to CERCLA
section 120(c), documents the federal facilities
Superfund program by:
• Identifying federal facilities that may be
contaminated with hazardous substances;
• Compiling and maintaining information
submitted to EPA on these facilities; and
• Providing a mechanism to make this
information available to the public.
The initial federal agency docket was published
in the Federal Register on February 12,1988 and listed
1,095 federal facilities. Exhibit 2.2-1 illustrates the
increase in the number of sites on the docket since its
first publication. During FY90, 56 sites were added
and 28 were removed. (Facilities are removed from the
docket for such reasons as incorrect reporting of
hazardous waste activity or change in federal
ownership.) The docket listed 1,296 federal facilities at
the end of FY90. Of the 1,296 sites, the Department
of Defense (DOD) owns and/or operates 641 (49
percent) and the Department of Interior (DOI) owns
and/or operates 320 (24 percent). The remainder are
distributed among 16 other federal departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities. A breakdown of the
facilities on the docket is illustrated in Exhibit 2.2-2.
The most recent update of the docket was published in
the Federal Register on September 27,1991.
For facilities listed on the docket, EPA has
established a policy specifying that for each federal
facility that is included in an update, the responsible
federal agency or department must complete a
preliminary assessment, and, if warranted, a site
inspection, within 18 months of publication of the
docket. In FY90, the federal government completed 75
PAs and 43 Sis of federal facility sites.
2.2.2 Federal Facilities and the National
Priorities List
At the end of FY89,41 federal facilities were
on the NPL, and 74 remained proposed for addition
to the NPL. During FY90, two additional federal
facilities were proposed for listing, and one proposed
site was dropped. All 75 remaining federal facilities
proposed for listing on the NPL were made final,
bringing the total federal facilities on the NPL to 116.
Federal departments and agencies made substantial
progress during FY90 toward cleaning up federal
facility sites. Activity at federal facility sites included
starting RI/FSs at 148 sites and signing RODs for 16
sites. The federal government also began 15 remedial
designs (RDs) and seven remedial actions (RAs) at
federal facility sites.
2.23 Federal Facility Agreements Under
CERCLA Section 120
To facilitate the remedial process at federal
facilities, EPA entered into 43 Interagency
Agreements (lAGs). during FY90, bring the total
number of lAGs EPA has entered into to 69 (some of
which may be tripartite agreements that involve the
state where the site is located). These agreements
between EPA and the responsible federal department
or agency document some or all of the phases of
remedial activity to be undertaken at a federal facility .
from the RI/FS through the implementation of the
remedial action. The Army signed 14 lAGs, the Air
Force and the Navy each signed 11, and the
Department of Energy was a signatory to seven.
lAGs formalize the procedure and timing for
submittal and review of documents and include a
schedule for all remedial activities fulfilling the
requirements of CERCLA 120(e). They also establish
a mechanism to resolve any disputes between the
signatories. lAGs must comply with the public
participation requirements of CERCLA section 117
and are enforceable by states and citizens through
citizen suits. Additionally, CERCLA authorizes the
courts to impose penalties against federal agencies
31
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
1 Data we those on which updates were published in the
Federal Register
SOURCE: Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket.
Department of Defense 640 (49%)
Department of the Interior 319 (25*)
Dep«rtment of Energy 67 (5%)
Department of Agriculture 66 (5*)
Department of Truupoiuticia 52 (4ft)
Gvfl Corps of Engineers 25 (2%)
Oenenl Services Adminianmon 19 (1ft)
Department of Veterans'ASain IS (1ft)
Environmental Protection Agency 18 (1%)
Tennessee Villey Authorily 17 (1ft)
KASA 15 (1%)
Deputrnent of Commerce 15 (1ft)
United Suia Postal Service 10 (0.8ft)
Department of Health and
Human Services 5 (0.4%)
Depamnent of Justice 5 (0.4%)
Department of the Treasury 2 (0.2%)
Central Intelligence Agency 1(0.08%)
Small Business Administration 1(0.08%)
Deputment of Libor 1 (0.08%)
TOTAL 1,296
NOTE: fmattft tool leu inn 100» (9&4%) becauD of nxmdm«.
**vtf' ^ , ; '''/.
I SOURCE: Huudau Wut> ConplicaEB DackM.
and departments for failure to comply with lAGs in
suits brought by states or citizens.
2.2.4 Report to Congress on EPA
Responsibility Under CERCLA
Section 120(e)(5)
CERCLA section 120(e)(5) requires each
federal department and agency to furnish an annual
report to Congress on progress toward implementing
CERCLA at its facilities. The report must include
information on the following areas: progress toward
entering into LAGs, cost estimates for the work
proposed in each LAG, public comments on LAGs, a
description of any instances in which no agreement
could be reached, progress of Rl/FSs and RAs
initiated at federal facilities on the NPL, and progress
in RAs at sites not listed on the NPL.
There are 1,296 sites on the federal facilities
hazardous waste compliance docket. Of these, 18 are
EPA owned. None of the EPA-owned sites are on
the NPL. Remedial progress at these facilities is
described in an EPA annual report, as required by
CERCLA section 120(e)5. The report is provided in
Appendix E of this document. Four sites of the 18
are omitted, for the following reasons:
• The Agency's Motor Vehicle Emission
Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has
conducted a PA of its facility. EPA Region
5 agreed with the PA finding that no further
remedial action should be planned for the lab
at this time.
• EPA's laboratory at Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, was recently permitted for
incineration research involving hazardous
waste. The PA for the lab recommends no
further remedial action for the site at this
time.
• The EPA laboratories in Corvallis, Oregon,
and Houston, Texas, are conditionally exempt
small quantity generators and are not subject
to the PA requirements of CERCLA section
120(h).
32
-------
Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CHAPTER
3
Estimate of the
Resources Required to
Implement Superfund
Section 301(h)(l)(G) of CERCLA requires
EPA to estimate the resources needed by the federal
government to complete Superfund implementation.
The Agency interprets this requirement to mean the
cost of completing cleanups of existing NPL sites, many
of which will occur after FY92. This chapter includes
annual information through FY92. The resource
estimate presented in this chapter is divided between
resources needed by EPA and those needed by other
federal departments and agencies. An estimate of the
long-term costs of cleaning up the existing NPL is
included in section 3.2, together with an overview of
the estimating method being used.
The resource estimate in this chapter is based
primarily on the responsibilities and duties assigned to
EPA and other federal departments and agencies by
Executive Order 12580. Computing such an estimate
entails making assumptions about the size and scope of
the Superfund program, the nature and number of
response actions, participation by states and private
parties, the increasing use of treatment technologies,
and other factors. For active NPL sites (those that
have reached or passed the RI/FS planning stage),
these .assumptions relate to management of the
workload already in the remedial pipeline and the costs
of those actions. For NPL sites that have not yet
attained the RI/FS planning stage, the model uses a
wide assortment of assumptions to estimate what
activities will be necessary to move those sites through
cleanup and into NPL deletion.
In developing the resource estimate, EPA has
considered several sources:
• EPA Superfund budgets and budget estimates
for FY88 through FY92, including budget
requests from other federal departments and
agencies;
• Data submitted to EPA by other federal
departments and agencies under an approved
General Services Administration (GSA)
Interagency Report Control Number (IRCN),
issued on February 5,1988, as required under
the provisions of 41 CFR 201-45.6;
• The federal facilities docket developed under
section 120(c) of CERCLA and each
individual federal department's and agency's
annual report to Congress on federal facility
implementation, as required under section
120(e)(5) of CERCLA;
• Various EPA information systems, primarily
CERCLIS and the Integrated Financial
Management System (IFMS).
These sources also will be used for future
reports, but at the same time, the Agency is working
to identify data requirements, improve data quality,
develop cost estimating methods, and collect
additional information. Specifically, EPA has
estimated resource needs for FY91, FY92 (the
President's Budget), and the years beyond FY92. This
long-term effort has been coordinated with the
development of the FY92 budget. In conjunction
with the revised National Contingency Plan (NCP)
and its policies affecting program direction and scope,
EPA is moving closer to a more complete
implementation cost estimate. The initial results of
this effort are presented in section 3.2 of this chapter.
EPA's ability to project the federal resources
requirement for CERCLA implementation improves
with its experience in implementing CERCLA, as
amended. Better coordination with other federal
departments and agencies and additional data on the
implementation of the federal facilities requirement
of section 120 also will help to improve the estimate.
33
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Acronyms Introduced In Chapter 3
ATSDR - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
CRC - Coastal Resource Coordinators
DERP - Defense Environmental Restoration Program
DOE - Department of Energy
DOT - Department of Transportation
FAA - Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management
Administration
GSA - General Services Administration
IFMS - Integrated Financial Management System
IRCN - Interagency Report Control Number
MARAD - Maritime Administration
NASA - National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
NCP - National Contingency Plan
NEHS - National Institute of Environmental Health
Services
NLM - National library of Medicine
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
OLM - Outyear Liability Model
RRT - Regional Response Team
RSPA - Research and Special Programs
Administration
USCG - U.S. Coast Guard
USDA - U.S. Department of Agriculture
VA - Department of Veterans Affairs
3.1 Sources and Uses of Superfund
Resources
Since the passage of CERCLA in 1980,
Congress has provided Superfund with $9.13 billion in
new obligation authority (FY81-FY91 enacted). This
includes $1.8 billion for FY81-FY86, and $7.3 billion
for the post-SARA period of FY87-FY91. The FY92
President's budget provides total resources of $1.75
billion distributed among the following activity
categories:
1. Site Cleanup - Site cleanup accounts for
approximately 51 percent of Superfund resources
including: engineering studies and design work,
and funding/oversight of short- and long-term
construction actions.
2 Support - Support accounts for 36 percent of
Superfund resources. The support category is
largely response support for site/program
analysis, other federal agencies, and
Headquarters and Regional intramural (salary
and expenses) resources. Administrative
management of the program, as well as research
and development, also are components of the
support category.
3. Enforcement - Enforcement accounts for 13
percent of Superfund resources. Enforcement
activities, including potential responsible party
negotiations and settlements and cost recovery
efforts, are captured in this category.
Exhibit 3.1.1 presents a snapshot of total
Superfund resources for FY91 and FY92 broken out
by these uses.
3.1.1 Site Clean-up Costs
Site cleanup is the single largest category of
Superfund expenditures and is expected to remain so
in the future. To project EPA funding needs for
these activities, several key factors must be estimated,
including:
• The projected number and average cost of
studies, RDs, and RAs undertaken;
• The removal activity; and
• The proportion of direct clean-up actions taken
by PRPs.
3.1.2 PRP Contributions to the Clean-up
Effort
The most significant way PRPs contribute to the
hazardous substance clean-up effort is by undertaking
and financing voluntary or ordered remedial activities.
When PRPs agree to finance site clean-up efforts,
potential Superfund obligations for those sites are
dramatically reduced; the principal remaining cost is
PRP oversight. EPA continues to develop and imple-
ment policies designed to encourage PRP cleanups.
34
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
<* N
i. .-
Program Area
Site Cleanup
Site Enforcement
Site Support (total)
Research & Development
Management Support
Response Support
TOTAL SUPERFUND
FY91
Operating Plan
752.9
209.4
653.9
73.6
110.7
469.6
1,616.2
FY92
Budget Request
896.0
225.0
629.0
68.6
112.0
448.4
1,750.0
SOURCE: EPA Superfund Budget Documentation
In addition to remedial and removal actions
actually undertaken by PRPs, a portion of the costs of
certain Fund-financed response actions will be
recovered from PRPs through enforcement activities.
Typically, there are significant delays between
expenditures from the Trust Fund and receipt of cost
recovery revenues.
3.2 Estimating the Resources Needed to
Complete the Cleanup of the Existing
NPL
Developing an estimate of the cost of cleaning up
existing NPL sites depends on a number of factors,
many of which will change as the program continues to
mature. The most important of these factors are:
Changes in Superfund program policies and
procedures because of the revised NCP,
particularly the clean-up standards as required
under section 121 of CERCLA;
Changes in the remedial program because of
revisions to the Hazard Ranking System, as
required under section 105 of CERCLA;
The long period required to identify, develop,
select, and construct a remedy, and the need for
scheduling flexibility to maximize the impact of
enforcement activities;
The level of state Superfund program activity;
The level of PRP participation in the program;
and
The nature of and demand for removal actions.
35
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
EPA has developed the Outyear Liability Model
(OLM) to estimate the long-term resource needs of
Superfund. The design of the OLM allows the
development of meaningful long-range forecasts while
providing the flexibility to accommodate a wide-range
of possible programmatic conditions. Both of these
needs are supported by incorporating modeling
elements for a large number of program related factors.
Flexibility is provided by allowing these variables to be
individually adjusted to reflect real or anticipated
changes in the program.
The OLM uses three distinct approaches, each of
which is applied to a different part of the program.
• Active NPL Sites - For sites at which some level
of planning or other activity is underway, the
OLM draws most of its information from
CERCLIS, Superfund's primary site activity
tracking system. For these sites, the OLM
estimates only ancillary activities, adjustments, and
costs.
• NPL Sites Where the Remedial Process Has Not
Yet Begun - This group is comprised of sites that
have not yet reached the stage where RI/FS
planning data has been entered into CERCLIS.
To estimate the resource needs of these sites, the
OLM must first approximate the activities that
will be involved. This is done by applying several
"generic" activity sequences to the number of sites
being estimated. When the activities have been
set, cost and workyear pricing factors are applied
to estimate the necessary resources. The same
approach is used for all site related activities, both
remedial and enforcement. Using this approach,
tradeoffs such as avoiding clean-up costs but
incurring PRP oversight costs are handled
automatically as assumptions are adjusted.
• Non-site Related Activities ~ Although non-site
related activities comprise a portion of the budget,
individually they are fairly small and stable. For
these reasons, resource needs for these activities
are estimated by applying annual growth factors to
the levels included in the current request year
budget.
To estimate the resources EPA will need to
complete the cleanup of existing sites, the Agency has
concentrated on the remedial and removal programs.
These programs are the major components of the
Superfund program and account for the majority of
Fund expenditures by the Agency. An expanded
description of these and other key model features is
presented in section 3.2.2.
3.2.1 Estimated Cost to Complete
Current NPL Sites
The OLM estimate of the cost to complete
cleanup of the existing NPL is $16.4 billion after
FY92 (Exhibit 3.2-1). Major assumptions shaping
this estimate include:
• The OLM estimates only the cost of the existing
NPL (1,207 listed and 29 deleted sites as of
September 30,1990);
• Removal workloads (NPL) stay at current levels;
• RA cost factors (choice of technology, site size,
and technology cost) continue to follow the
patterns identified in FY87 through FY89;
• Program support and other non-site related
elements are straightlined at FY92 levels;
• Approximately 35 percent of all new RI/FS starts
will involve Fund-lead (i.e., the Trust Fund will
pay at least 90 percent of the cost); and
• To facilitate planning and management, most
Superfund sites are divided into one or more
"pieces," generally referred to as operable units.
Each operable unit involves a distinct series of
activities and is planned and budgeted separately.
Assumptions about future events, or sites, reflect
both planning assumptions taken from the Superfund
Program Management Manual and historic per-
formance averages, both of which are revised
periodically. As a result, OLM estimates will vary
over time and subsequent editions of this Report will
most likely contain different estimates.
Some assumptions have a larger impact cost
estimate than others. Assumptions having the
greatest effect include:
• Changes in PRP involvement - Because
oversight is significantly less expensive than
cleanup, Fund costs drop dramatically when
PRPs assume financial responsibility for more
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Total Obligations
Cumulative Obligations
FY90 and prior
FY91 Operating Plan
FY92 Budget Request
FY93 and Beyond
Total
7,510.5
1,616.9
1,750.0
16.359.4
27,236.8
7,510.5
9.127.4
10.877.4
27,236.8
SOURCE: EPA Superfund Budget Documentation and Outyear Liability Model
cleanups. The estimate of $16.4 billion assumes
that, for non-federal facilities, PRPs will take the
lead on 65 percent of all RI/FS starts, but that
late takeovers will result in PRP lead on 70
percent of RAs; and
• The number of sites on the NPL - The current
estimate addresses only the existing NPL sites
(proposed and final).
We will continue to monitor developments that
affect program costs. As changes occur, they will be
incorporated into the model to better depict future
programmatic direction and refinements of previous
analysis.
3.2.2 Additional Program Element
Assumptions Represented in the
Model
To provide a better estimate of the cost of the
program and the flexibility needed to estimate the costs
of future initiatives, the model includes many
components representing specific program elements.
Currently Active Sites
Remedial efforts are underway at most of the
sites on the existing NPL. Remedial plans are being
developed for another group of sites, leaving only 132
sites on the existing NPL that were inactive at the
end of FY90.
Data on the active NPL sites are stored in
CERCLIS. A version of these CERCLIS data is
incorporated into the OLM to present the most
accurate picture of planned activities. Because most
of the existing NPL sites are active, they constitute a
large portion of the total liability estimate for the
existing NPL.
In addition to planned remedial activities,
enforcement activities have a significant impact on the
costs of addressing Superfund sites. All enforcement
activities are estimated by the model using past
program experience and several standard sequences of
activities, each representing a different enforcement
approach. Enforcement related variables within the
model address not only costs and workyears but also
37
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
the shift in remedial costs when Superfund assumes
responsibility from, or passes responsibility to, a PRP.
As with remedial activities, most enforcement costs and
workyears are estimated.
Sites Yet To Begin in the Remedial Process
The OLM uses the same general approach for all
sites yet to begin the remedial process. Cleaning up an
NPL site involves a number of different activities,
occurring over time and in predictable arrangements.
For sites yet to begin the remedial process, the OLM
estimates site costs by building representative activity
sequences and applying cost factors. Certain key
activity starts are used to tell the OLM how many, and
which types, of these sequences to construct. The
OLM includes several ways to control both the number
and schedule of the following key activities:
• NPL-Removals; and
• RI/FSs (initiate a remedial program site start).
For the purposes of the model, site starts for the
removal and remedial programs are not linked, but
there are enforcement considerations for each. By
uncoupling these program areas, it is possible to
estimate costs for the existing program and to
incorporate a wide range of possible programmatic
changes.
The OLM includes a library of different activity
sequences. Each sequence is designed to represent a
"typical" type of site and involves different activities,
durations, and schedules. In addition to the key
activity starts, discussed above, the OLM includes a
number of other factors to control the mix of these
activity sequences.
Who is Responsible? - Who Pays?
Aside from the number of sites requiring cleanup
and the cost of individual cleanups, the assumption of
managerial and/or financial responsibility for a site
(what is referred to as "lead") has the largest potential
impact on the cost of the Superfund program. There
are many factors involved, including:
• Emphasis on the enforcement program;
• Willingness of states to assume financial
responsibility, and
• Cost-sharing arrangements between Superfund
and the states and Superfund and the PRPs.
The model accommodates each of these factors
with one or more variables, allowing the estimation of
Superfund liabilities across a wide range of lead and
cost sharing scenarios. Related variables include:
• Proportion of sites addressed by each lead
category (Fund, PRP, state, state enforcement,
and federal facility);
• Number of sites that are owned and/or operated
by state or local governments; and
• Number of sites which follow each of several
enforcement paths.
Choices among these variables generally affect
both cost and duration of the program. Increases in
PRP-lead will lead to lower Fund costs, but related
litigation will substantially extend the amount of tune
required to reach deletion.
Factors Related to RA Costs
The method of estimating RA costs is based on
analysis of RODs signed between FY87 and FY90,
inclusive. A statistical analysis of RA cost estimates
contained in these RODs identified seven distinct cost
patterns based on the choice of remedial technology.
For each technology type there is a unique average
cost and expected treatment volume. These factors,
together with the expected usage of each technology,
are the factors which control the RA cost module of
the OLM.
Adjustments within the RA cost module make it
possible to estimate the fiscal impact of:
• Policies which affect the selection of
technological approach (e.g., using more
treatment and less containment);
• Changes in the contaminants found on site (e.g.,
if remaining sites have higher levels of heavy
metals than prior sites, incineration would be
less effective);
• Changes in technology costs; and
• Changes in site size.
38
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
33 Other Executive Branch Department
and Agency Estimates of Resources
Necessary to Complete Superfund
Implementation
The second element in fulfilling the requirements
of section 301(h)(l)(G) of CERCLA for this Report is
to estimate the resources needed by other federal
departments and agencies. The Superfund-related
resource needs of the other executive branch
departments and agencies for Superfund are met
through two sources:
Hazardous Substance Superfund {Trust Fund)
• Intel-agency Budget. EPA provides Trust Fund
monies to other federal departments and
agencies that support EPA's Superfund efforts.
This is accomplished through an interagency
budget under Executive Order 12580.
• Site-Specific Agreements. EPA also provides
funds to other federal departments and agencies
from the Trust Fund through site-specific
agreements.
Individual Federal Department or Agency Budgets
• CERCLA-Specific Funds. Funds are budgeted by
individual departments and agencies, specifically
for Superfund activities and support, as part of the
President's annual budget submission.
• General Funds. These funds are used for
CERCLA activities and support by the individual
departments and agencies, but are obtained
through their existing or special appropriations.
Exhibit 3.3-1 summarizes the reported resource
needs of other federal departments and agencies. The
following information was provided by the respective
departments and agencies to supplement the resource
estimates.
• Department of Agriculture. Congress
appropriated $2 million in FY88, $5 million in
FY89, $20 million in FY90, and $25 million in
FY91 for hazardous waste management activities
of the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Because hazardous waste management activities
comprise both CERCLA and RCRA compliance,
USDA split the monies between the two
programs 75/25 (CERCLA/RCRA) in FY88 and
50/50 in FY89 and FY90. Funding will be split
approximately 70/30 in FY91 and FY92. USDA
intends to dedicate its Superfund effort to
planning and remedial action efforts at
abandoned mines for the U.S. Forest Service and
to various other activities by the Agricultural
Research Service, U.S. Forest Service, Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service, Fanners
Home Administration, Soil Conservation Service,
Food Safety and Inspection Service, and the
Commodity Credit Corporation.
Department of Commerce. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) carries out many of the responsibilities
of the Department of Commerce under
CERCLA NOAA's CERCLA program goals
are to: (1) work with EPA and other agencies to
identify, evaluate, and mitigate the adverse
effects of hazardous substances on, and risks to,
natural resources in coastal areas, and (2)
strengthen and accelerate technologies to plan
for and respond to hazardous substance releases
into the environment.
NOAA's CERCLA program goals are addressed
through a Regional network of Scientific
Support Coordinators, who work with OSCs to
mitigate the effects of releases into coastal areas
and Coastal Resource Coordinators (CRCs), who
work with EPA to mitigate the effects of
hazardous waste sites.
NOAA acts on behalf of the Secretary of
Commerce as a federal trustee for natural
resources in coastal and marine areas affected by
hazardous substances releases. NOAA, through
CRCs, works with EPA to evaluate natural
resource concerns at coastal hazardous waste
sites and ensure coordination among state and
federal natural resource trustees. When threats
to natural resources cannot be addressed through
CERCLA remedial actions, NOAA may seek to
recover natural resource damages through its
Damage Assessment and Restoration Program.
This program is funded separately from
CERCLA
39
-------
CERCM Resource Needs and In
HV '-° * "--'- * Wtomt*&A
•%* >••> 's \ •> •• ' % \ ^ >s &
. "**' y > £ TJ v A ^ v.
>^;, v ^V ' vii Vj* *' ;- -^^->>
I
I
Federal Departments
and Agencies
FY88 Actual
Dollars FTEs
FY90 Actual
Dollars FTEs
Defense
Enefgy
Health & Human Services -ATSDR
•NIEHS
Justice
NASA
Transportation «USCG
Interior
FBMA
FEMA Relocation
Commerce -NOAA
Labor .OSHA
Veterans Adminiftration
Genetal Services Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Agriculture
TOTAL
Taut
47,7
Trast Agency Agency
Fund Budget Budget
402.8
87.0
^ ^ ^rl**F
^ ^
"" utr
1.7
7.8
9.6
^
/
^ ^
K* ' *»
'S -;i;1^--;r
'* • ..*r: :-•->
43.0
28.9
18.5
3.0
1.1
ZO
Z4 1.7
0.4
0.3
1.5
993 512.4
175
163
27
24
23
18
16
>^'&#*!**'/~ '^T^J
;?^:f^'"iV v> '•**
'M:i^<^'>
A ^»
450
Trust Agency Agency
Fund Budget Budget
601.3
431.6
45.2
36.3
2S.8
4.8
1.2
1.7
5.9
Zl
1.0
4.6
11.4
1.4
3.6
12.0
10.0
124.0 1.075J
250
212
36
13
23
24
12
570
05
I
1
-------
FY92 Budget Request
Dollars FTEs
Federal Departments
and Agencies
TffiW ' Ageney Agency *
Paa& '*&&* Budget
Trust Agency Agency
Fund Budget Budget
Defense
Energy
Health & Human Services -ATSDR
•NIEHS
Justice
NASA
Transportation -USCG
Interior
FEMA
FEMA Relocation
Commerce • NO AA
Labor -OSHA
Veterans Administration
General Services Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Agriculture
- w * ^ - ^"!3«s-/, -
" ' ,' /' •''f, , /
SOURCE: EPA Superfund Budget Documents.
f
1
r
i.
i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
The Department of Commerce also undertakes
site-specific cleanup actions at facilities under its
control.
Department of Defense. The Department of
Defense (DOD) has the authority and respon-
sibility under CERCLA to clean up contamination
associated with its past activities. Beginning in
1984, DOD increased its emphasis on hazardous
waste cleanup by establishing the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program (DERP).
Under this program, DOD identifies, investigates,
and cleans up contamination and other
environmental damage for which DOD is
responsible. One element of DERP, the Installa-
tion Restoration Program, follows the procedures
of the NCP in cleaning up contamination from
past activities. By the end of FY90, more than
17,000 sites on more than 1,800 installations with
the potential for contamination had been
identified by DOD. DOD is committed to clean-
ing up these contaminated sites currently
identified and plans to spend approximately $1.1
billion during FY91 to continue this effort.
Department of Energy. The Department of
Energy (DOE) has the authority and responsibility
under CERCLA to clean up contamination associ-
ated with its past activities. The Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management Five-Year
Plan is the cornerstone of the Department's clean-
up activities and research efforts. As stated in the
Secretary of Energy's June 27,1989 Ten-Point
Plan, it is DOE's policy that full compliance with
the letter and spirit of environmental laws,
regulations, and requirements is an integral part
of operating DOE facilities. The fundamental
goals are to ensure that risks to human health
and the environment posed by the Depart-
ment's past, present, and future operations are
either eliminated or reduced to prescribed, safe
levels. DOE Order 5400.4, "Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act Requirements, "formally establishes
the DOE program responsibilities and policies
for implementing CERCLA requirements. The
Order requires that DOE respond to releases and
potentially imminent releases of hazardous
substances in accordance with CERCLA, the NCP,
.and Executive Order 12580. It also requires that
the Department enter into lAGs with federal,
state, and local entities for conduct of RI/Fss and
remedial action, under CERCLA section 120(e).
DOE is involved in conducting remedial
activities at all 17 sites currently listed on the
NPL. Prior to FY90, DOE executed three
CERCLA section 120 lAGs with EPA and the
states which addressed four NPL sites: the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory-Main
Site, the Hanford Site, the Monticello Mill Site
and the Monticello Vicinity Properties. During
FY90, DOE executed CERCLA section 120
agreements with EPA for the Feed Materials
Production Center, the Mound Plant, the Ross
Complex (Bonneville Power Administration),
and the St. Louis Airport Site. In January 1991,
a three-party CERCLA 120IAG was reached for
the Rocky Flats Plant bringing the total number
of lAGs executed thus far to 8. CERCLA
section 120 lAGs currently are under negotiation
with federal and state regulatory agencies for the
remaining NPL sites, including the Wayne Site,
Maywood Site, Savannah River Site, Oak Ridge
Reservation, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Weldon
Spring Site, and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory-Site 300.
Department of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. The Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) provides a variety of
services in support of the Superfund program.
During FY90, ATSDR provided approximately
1,850 health consultations to EPA Regional and
state/local officials, supported EPA emergency
response activities with approximately 1,000
site/incident consultations, and prepared 217
health assessments. ATSDR has prepared
assessments at over 1,200 NPL sites.
In the area of health education, ATSDR
continued to implement an educational program
for health care professionals on issues related to
the prevention, surveillance, diagnosis and
treatment of persons exposed to hazardous
substances. ATSDR also continued its efforts to
educate health care prpfessionals engaged in
emergency response activities. In addition,
ATSDR continued to work with the National
Library of Medicine (NLM) to establish and
42
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
maintain an inventoiy of literature, research, and
studies on the health effects of toxic substances.
Examples of projects conducted during FY90
included: case studies in environmental medicine,
state and county cooperative physician education
programs, a fellowship program with the
Association of Occupational Environmental
Clinics, and a series of projects with the NLM
designed to improve and enhance TOXNET and
other related NLM on-line files.
In FY90, ATSDR provided: (1) TOXNET/
Database training for 259 health professionals; (2)
emergency response training for 1,500 health
professionals and emergency responders; and (3)
environmental health training for 2,910 state,
county, and federal health officials and 2,105
primary care health professionals. Organizations
and associations involved included the National
Association of County Health Officials, the
Association of State and Territorial Health
Officials, the National Environmental Health
Association, the American Public Health
Association, the Academy of Pediatrics, the
American Medical Association, the National
Medical Association, the Association of Minority
Health Professions Schools, the Association of
Occupational and Environmental Clinics, and the
American Association of Poison Control Centers.
In December 1990, ATSDR developed and
distributed the first issue of a newsletter entitled
Hazardous Substances and Public Health to local,
state, and private health care providers.
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences. CERCLA section 311(a) authorizes the
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) to conduct research in the
development of advanced techniques for the
detection and evaluation of the effects of
hazardous substances on human health. In FY90,
11 universities received funding from NIEHS to
conduct 103 separate basic research studies in a
grants program designed to fulfill the
requirements of a Superfund Basic Research and
Professional Training Plan. The Plan was
developed by NIEHS and approved by the Health
and Human Services Advisory Council on
Hazardous Substances Research and Training.
NIEHS also administers the worker training grant
program, authorized by SARA section 126(g).
Sixteen organizations received these grants in
FY90.
Department of the Interior. Each of the nine
bureaus and four territorial elements of the
Department of the Interior (DOI) provides
support to the Superfund program, mostly
assisting the National Response Team and the
Regional Response Teams (RRTs). DOPs role
in the program focuses on three general areas:
Response Management, including RRT
assistance activities, incident-specific activities,
and NPL site remedial response activities;
Emergency Response Preparedness, including
RRT participation, regional RRT workgroups,
and RRT support; and
Trust Resources/Damage Assessment, including
coordination of natural resource trustee
concerns, natural resource damage assessment
briefings, and settlements of trustee resources.
Department of Justice. The Department of
Justice (DOJ) has two objectives under the
Superfund program: to defend Superfund from
legal challenges and to compel PRPs to comply
with the law. Enforcement is a major key to the
success of the program.
DOJ plays an integral role in the Superfund
program through judicial enforcement actions to
recover clean-up costs, impose civil penalties,
and compel PRPs to perform cleanups. To this
end, DOJ's three priorities for Superfund
litigation are: (1) lodging and entering consent
decrees that provide for privately funded
remedial action; (2) injunctive relief actions to
compel privately funded remedial action; and (3)
cost recovery lawsuits to recoup Trust Fund
monies spent cleaning up sites.
Department of Labor. Funds appropriated under
general lAGs allow the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) to provide EPA
with technical assistance in the area of worker
safety. Programs operated by OSHA or states
with OSHA-approved plans protect workers at
Superfund sites, implement the worker safety
program at Superfund sites, and support the
National and Regional Response Teams.
43
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CERCLA section 126 requires OSHA to conduct
inspections at Superfund sites to ensure that
employers are in compliance with all applicable
OSHA standards, including the standards for
employees engaged in hazardous waste operations,
and to provide training such as the program
implemented in FY90.
OSHA performs laboratory analyses of samples
collected at Superfund site inspections and
maintains and calibrates technical equipment used
for these inspections. OSHA's analytical
laboratory also maintains a computerized system
for tracking hazardous waste inspection activity.
In FY90, OSHA performed technical assistance
site visits and updated the Agency's Hazardous
Waste Reference Manual. As a member of the
National Response Team and the associated
Regional Response Teams, OSHA assists the
teams in meeting their annual workplans.
Department of Transportation. The Department
of Transportation (DOT) uses funding from its
budget to support CERCLA-related activities as
carried out by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the Research and Special
Programs Administration (RSPA), the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG), and the Maritime Administration
(MARAD). The primary funding areas in support
of CERCLA requirements include pollution
abatement related to the operation of DOT
facilities; response to any release or threatened
release of hazardous substances within the Coastal
Zone, Great Lakes waters, ports, and harbors;
emergency response training; and technical
support.
Federal Aviation Administration. All of FAA's
CERCLA activities involve pollution abatement.
They focus on hazardous waste cleanup at
Regional facilities and other clean-up efforts.
This amounts to 75 percent of DOT funding for
pollution abatement.
United States Coast Guard. The USCG provides
major support to the Superfund program in that
it provides OSCs to respond to any release or
threatened release of hazardous substances in the
Coastal Zone. USCG also undertakes pollution
abatement activities related to the operation of its
own facilities. They account for almost 25 percent
of DOT funding in this area.
Maritime Administration. All of MARAD's
activities in support of CERCLA involve testing
and cleanup for hydrocarbons in storage tank
facilities at Kings Point and other locations.
Research and Special Programs Administration.
The RSPA conducts four activities that support
Superfund. These activities include: hazardous
waste cleanup; rulemaking; technical support;
and emergency response training and support.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. The
enactment of SARA in 1986 made many of the
voluntary preparedness and planning activities of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), including activities required by Title
III, ineligible for funding under the Superfund
budget after September 30, 1987. To continue
the ongoing Superfund assistance to state and
local governments and to support their efforts to
implement Title III, FEMA consolidated its
funding requests under two separate
authorizations of appropriation.
Funding for all Superfund activities was
requested under the Superfund Interagency
Budget, and the remainder of FEMA's hazardous
materials activities, including Title III, was
incorporated into FEMA's own operating budget
(under its Technological Hazards Budget). Thus,
no additional funds have been requested under
Section 301(h)(l)(G) to carry out Superfund
activities after FY87.
General Services Administration. Resources for
environmental studies and corrective projects are
included in the General Services Administration
(GSA) budget and can be used for CERCLA
studies/corrective projects, if necessary. In
addition, GSA currently is involved in five
Superfund site investigations in which it is a
PRP; as a result, GSA may incur third-party
PRP costs in future years.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) Environmental
Compliance and Restoration Program had a very
active and aggressive FY90. NASA's FY90
funding level was over $30 million. This
programis continuing into FY91 at a funding
level of $32 million with funding projected to
44
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
increase in succeeding fiscal years. The purpose
of this program is to ensure compliance with
mandatory statutory environmental requirements.
In FY91, approximately $4.6 million is slated for
air pollution-abatement, asbestos removal, and
PCB replacement; $12.9 million is allocated for
hazardous waste monitoring and control; and $8.6
million is budgeted for replacement of under-
ground storage tanks and upgrade of treatment
systems. Many other activities also are within the
program including studies, assessments, designs,
remedial investigation, and feasibility studies. These
activities are valued at $5.9 million.
• Veterans Administration. Prior to FY89, no
funds had been specifically budgeted for
Superfund cleanups. In FY91 and subsequent
years, the Veterans Administration (VA) will be
budgeting $5 million to meet projected costs. At
the present time, the VA is a PRP at two sites
(Baldwin, Florida and Holden, Missouri).
Tennessee Valley Authority.
provided.
No narrative
45
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CHAPTER
4
Other Statutory
Requirements for
the Report
In addition to reporting on program
progress, CERCLA requires EPA to submit annual
reports to Congress on several other activities: (1)
research on and development of treatment
technologies; (2) minority firm participation in
Superfund contracting; and (3) progress in
reducing the number of sites where contamination
remains after remedial action is completed.
Progress in these areas is described in detail in this
chapter.
4.1 Use and Development of
Treatment Technologies
During FY90, the Agency's Office of
Exploratory Research (OER) awarded nine grants
for Superfund-related research and development.
Other research and development grants were
solicited by OER's Small Business Innovation
Research Program (SBIR), under which nine
grants were awarded. Additionally, the Office of
Research and Development's (ORD) Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program
completed four new technology demonstrations
during FY90. The SITE program also accepted 17
and 6 technologies, respectively, into its Emerging
Technologies and Demonstration Programs.
During FY90, ORD focused on implementing 90-
Day Study recommendations regarding bringing
technology to bear on the problems at Superfund
sites.
4.1.1 The Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation Program
CERCLA requires that EPA give pref-
erence to remedies that protect human health and
the environment, that maintain protection over
time, and that minimize untreated waste.
Treatment technologies that reduce the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of wastes are generally
effective in meeting this standard. Thus, in 1986,
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) and ORD created the SITE
Program. The goal of the program is the
development, demonstration, and subsequent
application of new and innovative treatment
technologies in the cleanup of Superfund sites
across the country. SITE emphasizes the
development of a variety of technologies which
differ in the treatment techniques they employ.
Technologies employing techniques such as
biological treatment, physical and chemical
treatment, and thermal treatment have all been
shown to be effective remedies in certain
situations, and have therefore, been accepted into
the SITE Program. Now in its fifth year, the SITE
Program is an integral component of the Agency's
research into alternative clean-up technologies.
The SITE Program operates through
cooperative agreements between the Agency and
technology developers. These cooperative
agreements allow for the bench and pilot-scale
testing, and the subsequent refinement and larger-
scale demonstration of the innovative remediation
technologies. The SITE Program is also
responsible for the collection and evaluation of
performance data on various technologies, and for
the recommendation of technology applications.
The Agency's Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL) is responsible for planning
and managing EPA's research, development, and
demonstration programs, including the SITE
program. The success of RREL and the SITE
program can be measured by the approximately 90
records of decision in the past two years that have
47
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Acronyms Introduced in Chapter 4
ATTIC - Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Clearinghouse
BOAT - Best Demonstrated Available
Technology
ETEC - Environmental Testing and Evaluation
Center
FAR - Federal Acquisition Regulations
MBE - Minority Business Enterprise
NAMC - National Association of Minority
Contractors
OIG - Office of Inspector General
OSDBU - Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization
OER - Office of Exploratory Research
ORD - Office of Research and Development
RFP - Request for Proposal
RREL - Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
SBIR - Small Business Innovation Research
Program
SITE - Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation
START - Superfund Technical Assistance
Response Team
TSB - Technical Support Branch
VOCs - Volatile Organic Compounds
WBE - Women's Business Enterprise
specified innovative treatment technologies as part
of the selected remedy.
The SITE program is divided into four
operational areas: Emerging Technologies, the
Demonstration Program, Monitoring/Measurement,
and Technology Transfer. Two of these areas, the
Emerging Technologies Program and the
Demonstration Program, deserve special attention.
The Emerging Technologies Program provides a
framework to encourage the bench- and pilot-scale
testing and evaluation of technologies that have
already been proven at the conceptual stage.
Technologies are solicited in annual requests for
proposals, and accepted technology developers
enter into either a one or two year cooperative
agreement with EPA The intent of this program
is that technologies will subsequently advance to
the more rigorous testing of the Demonstration
Program. Three technologies from ORD's first
Emerging Technologies Program solicitation
(November 1987) have been invited to participate
in the Demonstration Program. In response to the
FY89 solicitation, 17 new technologies were
accepted into the Emerging Technologies Program
in FY90. Exhibit 4.1-1 provides a percentage
breakdown by treatment technique of the
technologies currently participating in the
Emerging Technologies Program.
Technologies participating in the
Demonstration Program are the pool from which
technologies are eventually "brought to bear" on
our nation's hazardous waste sites. Under the
SITE Demonstration Program, engineering
performance and cost data are generated from a
real-life simulation for specific innovative,
alternative technologies, so that the technology's
applicability for specific waste sites may be
evaluated by prospective users. Technologies are
selected for the SITE Demonstration Program
through annual requests for proposals (RFPs).
ORD issued RFPs for the Demonstration Program
in January of 1990, and subsequently accepted six
technologies into the SITE Program for future
demonstration. The program currently has 42
participating developers working on 45 technology
projects. Exhibit 4.1-2 provides a percentage
breakdown by treatment technique of the
technologies currently participating in the
Demonstration Program.
Four developers completed project
demonstrations in FY90, bringing the total number
of demonstrations that have been conducted over
the past four years under the SITE Demonstration
Program to 18. The demonstrations completed in
FY90 are summarized below.
AWD Technologies, Inc. has developed an
integrated vapor extraction and steam vacuum
stripping technology, called the Aquadetox/SVE
system, that simultaneously treats ground water
and oil contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). This on-site technology
removes VOCs and chlorinated hydrocarbons from
ground water and soil. The technology has been
demonstrated and is currently in use at the
Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company in
Burbank, California. The demonstration testing
occurred in September 1990, and the results are
currently being prepared for publication in 1991.
E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company
and Oberlin Filter Company have developed a
microfiltration system designed to remove solid
particles from liquid waste. This mobile, trailer-
mounted unit requires little maintenance during
normal operation and, operating as an enclosed
48
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SOURCE: SITE: Technology Profiles, EPA, ORD, RREL, November 1990.
SOURCE: SITE: Technology Profiles, EPA. ORD. RREL. November 1990.
49
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
unit, is believed to be capable of treating liquid
wastes containing VOCs. The demonstration was
conducted between April and May 1990 at the
Palmerton Zinc Superfund site in Palmerton,
Pennsylvania. The Agency published a bulletin
summarizing the demonstration results in August
1990 and is currently finalizing the associated
reports.
EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory, the Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory, and EPA Region 9 have
jointly produced a series of excavation techniques
and foam suppression methods. The purpose of
this project was to evaluate control technologies
during excavation operations. The excavation of
VOC-contaminated soil is known to result in
fugitive air emissions. To control these emissions,
containment and treatment technologies were
combined during this demonstration that took
place at a Superfund site in Fullerton, California
in July 1990.
EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory developed a debris washing system, that
was demonstrated in FY90, and will be
commercialized by PEI Associates, Inc. Results
from a series of pilot-tests are currently being
assembled.
4.1.2 Superfund Research Grants
EPA funds projects involving research
relevant to the Superfund program through a
variety of sources. Two significant sources of such
funding are programs in ORD's Office of
Exploratory Research (OER): The Research
Grants Program and the Small Business Innovation
Research Program (SBIR).
The Research Grants Program provides
funding for research projects in environmental
health, environmental engineering, environmental
physics and chemistry (with separate categories for
air and water), environmental biology, and
Superfund. Researchers submit applications in
response to an annual solicitation. In FY90, OER
received 612 applications and awarded 156 grants
valued at $16.1 million. OER awarded nine of the
FY90 grants to universities, medical institutions,
and a state health department for research
specifically dedicated to the Superfund program.
Projects include novel bioremediation strategies,
the use of in-situ vapor stripping, and the
remediation of heavy metals from contaminated
water. OER awarded these grants for either two-
or three-year periods, at an average funding level
of $218,563 per grant.
SBIR funds high-risk research that EPA
anticipates will result in public benefit. The
program operates in two phases: Phase I projects
are funded up to $50,000 for six months to
determine whether the proposed research concept
appears technically feasible; Phase II projects
involve a more substantive research effort and a
higher cost commitment for the most promising
projects to emerge from Phase I. During FY90,
SBIR received 434 Phase I proposals and awarded
32 grants. Additionally, SBIR received 24 Phase II
proposals and awarded 11 grants.
Of the 32 FY90 Phase I awards, OER
awarded nine grants for research related to
Superfund. OER classifies the grants according to
the following topic areas: Solid and Hazardous
Waste Disposal, Mitigation of Environmental
Pollution Problems at Superfund Sites, and Air
Pollution Control. OER awarded two Phase II
grants for research related to Superfund in the
area of Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal.
4.13 90-Day Study Objectives
"Bringing innovative technologies to bear"
on pollution at Superfund sites is an important
focus of the 90-Day Study. The Superfund
program cannot protect human health and the
environment without employing cost-effective
treatment technologies. Balancing health and
environmental protection with cost efficiency is
often difficult because many treatment technologies
are in the early stages of development and lack
cost and performance data. The 90-Day Study,
therefore, recommended "an aggressive, broad
based technology development initiative" to
overcome this problem, and to ensure that the
SARA requirement that EPA encourages the use
of technologies that reduce the toxicity, mobility,
and volume of waste is met.
EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) manages a program that
encompasses all phases of technology development,
from initial concept-testing to full-scale demon-
50
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
stratum at sites, and eventually, to product
commercialization. ORD's efforts concerning
technology development in FY90 focused largely
on responses to recommendations of the 90-Day
study. Recommendations for the development of
this "aggressive, broad based technology initiative"
fall into the following three categories:
• Reducing non-technical barriers to the use
of treatment technologies;
• Providing technical assistance, expert
advice, and information transfer; and
• Aggressively supporting the research,
development, demonstration, and eval-
uation of new technologies.
Reduce Non-technical Barriers to Use of Treatment
Technologies
Examples of "non-technical barriers" to the
use of treatment technologies that were specifically
targeted in the 90-Day Study include inadequate
guidance, restrictive regulations and policies, and
the lack of management oversight and coordination
among EPA's technology development personnel.
Existing guidance has not adequately
assisted RPMs in applying EPA policies
concerning the use of treatment technologies. The
90-Day Study also found that the available
guidances failed to both express clear policy
preferences for treatment technologies, and to
provide specific implementation guidance basis for
RPMs. Although the lack of information on
relatively new treatment technologies has limited
the scope of existing guidance, the Study indicated
the need for RPMs to better understand the
flexibility they have in selecting these technologies
for use at sites.
Another barrier to the use of treatment
technologies is posed by RCRA land-ban
regulations. CERCLA mandates that remedial
actions that address contaminated soil and debris
comply with RCRA standards. Because the RCRA
standards ban the disposal of waste unless the
waste meets "best demonstrated available
technology (BOAT)" standards, the 90-Day Study
Task Force expressed the concern that these
regulations may have the unanticipated effect of
precluding the use of technologies such as
solidification/stabilizationandbiological treatment,
even in cases where such technologies would
otherwise meet Superfund goals.
The Federal Acquisition Regulations
(FAR) also have impeded the use of innovative
treatment technologies. These regulations allow
contractors to either prepare plans and
specifications, or to implement construction;
contractors are prohibited from pursuing both
activities on the same project Problems arise in
cases where treatability testing is needed during
the remedy selection and design phase in order to
assess the parameters of the technology.
Furthermore, many developers are unwilling to
perform treatability tests and other technology
development activities when the conduct of these
activities precludes them from bidding on a related
construction contract.
The Agency policy that restricts a
contractor from working for the Agency and a PRP
at the same site also represents an impediment to
the use of treatment technologies. Although the
purpose of this policy is to avoid potential conflicts
of interest, the effect can be to deny the
responsible parties working at a site the expertise
of a contractor that has been, or is, of assistance to
EPA
The 90-Day Study also stressed the need to
coordinate the wide-range of technology
development activities at EPA, and the efforts to
remove barriers to the use of treatment
technologies. The Study emphasized the
requirement for a "clear senior management focus"
to ensure the .cooperative success of these
technology development efforts. The Study also
indicated the need for consistency across Regions
in the implementation of remedy selection
procedures.
ORD has directly responded to the 90-Day
Study recommendation concerning the publication
of guidance to assist RPMs in the selection of
treatment technologies. For example, EPA
published guidance in April 1990 to clarify
program expectations with respect to the use of
treatment technologies and the selection of remedy
process. This guidance also will serve as a
consistent set of remedy selection procedures to be
used by RPMs.
EPA has addressed the concern over the
RCRA land-ban restrictions in the following ways:
• By clarifying the RCRA land-ban
regulations and their relation to
51
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Superfund in a short-sheet that is being
widely used by EPA personnel;
• By publishing a guidance and a
memorandum on the effectiveness of
treatment technologies on soil and debris;
and
• By circulating a memo summarizing the
ability of treatment technologies to meet
BDAT on soil and debris.
This information has been useful in assessing the
effectiveness of treatment technologies and in
identifying technologies that are not precluded by
the land-ban rules.
The Agency took two specific actions to
mitigate the impediments posed by FAR to the
procurement of innovative treatment technologies.
One of these actions involved the initiation of a
contracting vehicle, which, by fixing certain basic
procurement conditions, will facilitate the
execution of ordering agreements between EPA
and technology vendors. EPA also established a
workgroup to consider the conflict of interest
issues involved with performing treatability studies.
The workgroup subsequently amended the EPA
Acquisition Regulations to clarify that the
prohibitive conditions of FAR are not applicable
to vendors of innovative treatment technologies
who are performing treatability studies as
subcontractors on remedial contracts.
Pursuant to the recommendation that EPA
designate a "Technologies Czar," EPA, in March
1990, created the Technology Innovation Office
under OSWER and named Dr. Walt Kovalick the
director. His role as the "Technologies Czar"
includes acting as an advocate for the increased use
of innovative treatment technologies. The
Technology Innovation Office's mandate is to work
closely with technology developers and EPA
officials to remove non-technical impediments to
the use of innovative treatment technologies in the
cleanup of contaminated soils and ground water at
Superfund, RCRA corrective action, and
underground storage tank sites.
Provide Extensive Technical Assistance, Expert
Advice, and Information Transfer
Many of the treatment technologies for
Superfund sites are new and complex, and
information concerning the performance capability,
cost, and availability of these technologies is
limited. This lack of available information stems
in part from the fact that many of these
technologies have not been tested on a pilot-scale
with actual wastes. Such testing, the dissemination
of test results, and the sharing of technology-
related information will increase the visibility of
innovative treatment technologies, thus providing
RPMs with an additional and valuable screening
tool in the remedy selection process.
The 90-Day Study also indicated the need
for EPA to provide technical support to the
Regions. The management demands on RPMs
allow them little time to study the available
information on treatment technologies. The result
is that the consideration of certain potentially
applicable technologies for use at sites is often
precluded. To provide greater technical assistance
to the Regions for the evaluation of treatment
technologies, ORD initiated two specific
organizational changes:
• ORD's Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL) formed the Technical
Support Branch (TSB) for the purpose of
coordinating technical support activities.
The TSB works closely with designated
technology teams in providing site-specific
technical guidance. Such guidance was
offered at over 75 Superfund sites in
FY90.
• RREL has established under TSB a
Superfund Technical Assistance Response
Team (START), now fully operational, to
provide technical support to RPMs
throughout the remedial process at sites
with particularly complex problems.
Also, ORD has established a treatability
assistance program to perform and oversee
treatability studies on treatment technologies, and
to perform treatability study support activities
including protocol development, managing a
treatability study database, and providing lists of
vendors capable of perfofming various treatability
tests.
Finally, ORD has been involved
throughout FY90 in numerous information
transfer activities. The Alternative Treatment
Technology Information Clearinghouse (ATTIC)
52
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
integrates hazardous waste data in a centralized,
searchable source that may be accessed by all
members of the federal, state, and public sectors.
A sample of ATTIC's capabilities include
performing data base searches, providing expert
contact lists, providing cost models, and generating
underground storage tank case-histories.
Other information transfer activities that
ORD undertook in FY90 include:
• Publication of an information document
entitled, Guide to Conducting Treatabttity
Studies Under CERCLA, and five
technology-specific treatability study
guides;
• Publication of a list entitled, Inventory of
Treatability Study Vendors;
• Publication of technical guidance
documents on the cleanup of lead battery
and wood preserver sites;
• Presentation of seminars on the issues of
explosive wastes and lead-contaminated
soils; and
• Circulation of a number of bulletins on
site remediation technologies on an
electronic bulletin board, designed for the
exchange of treatment technology
information.
Aggressively Support Research, Development,
Demonstration and Evaluation of New Technologies
The 90-Day Study states that the success
of the Superfund program depends on the
availability of a "broad range" of proven, cost-
effective treatment technologies for use at
Superfund sites. Creating this menu of available
technologies involves two distinct efforts: the pool
of proven, innovative treatment technologies needs
to be expanded, and institutional barriers to the
commercialization and availability of proven,
technically-sound technologies must be eliminated.
In response to these recommendations, in
FY90 the SITE program completed 4 new
demonstrations, accepted 17 new technologies into
the Emerging Technologies Program, published
results of technology demonstrations, and selected
several SITE technologies for use in actual
Superfund cleanups. In response to specific
recommendations ORD has:
• Selected sites and developed protocols for
the evaluation of cost and performance
data for the innovative treatment
technologies that currently are being used
at Superfund sites.
• Initiated a cooperative funding effort with
the Department of Energy to increase the
number of innovative technology
developers participating in the emerging
and demonstration programs.
• Convened a research advisory group to
review, critique, and make recommend-
ations to ORD.
The SITE Program also is anticipating use
of RREL's proposed Environmental Testing and
Evaluation Center (ETEC), a fully-licensed facility
for rapid, complete demonstration and evaluation
of new technologies. The final Environmental
Impact Statement for this facility was published in
July 1990. When consensus is reached on siting
the facility, public hearings will be held.
The Agency's effort to reduce institutional
barriers to the commercialization of innovative
treatment technologies is directed by the NETAC,
a partnership of personnel from government,
industry, and academia, specifically charged with
facilitating the commercialization of environmental
technologies. Also, NETAC personnel met with
SITE Program management in September of 1990.
These meetings have resulted in a proposal by
NETAC to conduct a series of "commercialization
workshops" to assist emerging technology
developers in their efforts to enter applicable
markets.
4.2 Minority Firm Participation in
Superfund Contracting
Section 105(f) of CERCLA requires EPA
to consider the availability of minority contractors
when awarding contracts for Superfund work.
Contracts, as defined by EPA, include both direct
procurements awarded by the Agency and contracts
resulting from Superfund financial assistance
53
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
awards, i.e., contracts and subcontracts emanating
from cooperative agreements awarded to states.
EPA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization (OSDBU) is responsible for
ensuring that the Agency complies with section
105(f) of CERCLA and has prepared this section
of the FY90 Report. EPA satisfies section 105(f)
through direct procurement via contracts and
subcontracts, including the Small Business
Administration's Section 8(a) procurements to
minority contractors, or when a state or Indian
tribe is involved through cooperative agreements
with procurement subagreements. Additionally,
other federal agencies with which EPA has
negotiated Interagency Agreements (lAGs) may
award contracts and subcontracts to minority firms
with funds transferred to the agencies from
Superfund through lAGs.
During FY90, contracts worth $49,149,797
were awarded to minority contractors to perform
Superfund work. (This represents 6.38 percent of
the total dollars obligated to finance Superfund
work.) As Exhibit 4.2-1 illustrates, EPA awarded
the largest sum of funds to minority contractors
($41,700,000) through direct procurement. Other
federal agencies awarded $5,117,508 worth of
contracts and subcontracts to minority firms with
funds transferred from the Superfund program
through lAGs. Contracts and subcontracts worth
an additional $2,332,289 were awarded as a result
of cooperative agreements. (This total does not
include a $300,000 grant that EPA awarded to the
National Association of Minority Contractors, a
non-profit organization for Superfund training.)
Exhibit 4.2-2 illustrates the history of
minority firm participation in Superfund
contracting through FY90. The Superfund
program awarded contracts worth $38,000,000 to
minority contractors during FY87, $39,000,000
during FY88, $53,699,428 during FY89, and
$49,149,797 during FY90.
Minority firms provide three types of
services to the Superfund program: professional,
field support, and construction. Exhibit 4.2-3
illustrates examples of tasks performed under each
category.
As illustrated by Exhibit 4.2-4, most
minority firms awarded contracts fall into the
category of Small Business Administration 8(a)
contractors. Superfund's second largest amount
going to minority contractors was in the area of
subcontracts awarded by major prime contractors,
and the remainder were awards made to minority
contractors as direct awards.
4.2.1 EPA Efforts to Identify Qualified
Minority Firms
OSDBU conducted a number of activities
during the fiscal year to identify qualified minority
firms and to inform them of opportunities
available in the Superfund program.
• In cooperation with the National
Association of Minority Contractors
(NAMC), OSDBU conducted training
sessions designed to make minority
contractors eligible to compete for
Superfund contracts. One hundred thirty-
seven people participated in the training.
» EPA hosted the Superfund Marketing
Trade Fair in April 1990 to provide
minority firms the opportunity to meet
one-on-one with both Superfund prime
contractors and state officials responsible
for Superfund cleanups; 46 participants
from FY89 training sessions attended the
fair.
• OSDBU, in cooperation with Illinois and
Louisiana, hosted minority business
enterprise (MBE) and women's business
enterprise (WBE) workshops that were
designed to better familiarize minority and
women .business owners with the
opportunities available in Superfund and
other EPA programs; a total of 300
people attended the workshops. The
Illinois workshop was designed to cover all
states in Region V.
• OSDBU hosted its annual MBE/WBE
workshop in March 1990, and during the
workshop, emphasized the need for
improving minority contractor utilization
in the Superfund program to ensure use
whenever possible.
• The EPA Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) developed special guidance to all
federal agencies receiving Superfund
54
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Total Dollars
Obligated
Minority Contractor
Participation
Percentage
of Total
Type of Activity
Direct Procurement
Cooperative Agreements
Interagency Agreements
$625,600,000
98,733,479
45,954,705
$41,700,000
2,332,289
5,117408
6.67%
2.36
11.14
$770.288,184
SOURCE: Prepared for this Report
SOURCES: Reports on Progress Toward Implementing Superfund (Fiscal Years 1987, 1988,
1989,1990); OERR, April 1989, April 1990, October 1990; EPA's Office of Small and
Disadvantages! Business Utilization.
55
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Field Support
Construction
Professional
Drilling/Well Installing
Laboratory Analysis
Site Cleanup
Excavations
Waste Hauling and Drilling
Security
Site Support
Facilities
Health Assessments
Community Relations
Feasibility Studies
Data Management Security
Geophysical Surveys
Remedial Investigations
Expert Witness
Editing
Air Quality Monitoring
SOURCE: U.S. EPA Office of Small and Disadvantage*! Business Utilization
Total Dollars
Type of Contract (in millions)
Small Business
Administration 8 (a)
Contracts
Minority Prime
Contracts
Minority Subcontracts
SOURCE: Prepared for this Report
monies for the respective OIGs to assure
timely reporting on minority contractors
and to include as an audit condition
minority contractor utilization.
4.2.2 Efforts to Encourage Other
Federal Agencies and
Departments to Use Minority
Contractors
OSDBU, in cooperation with Superfund
program officials and Grants Administration
officials, developed special conditions to be
included in each interagency agreement between
EPA and any agency or department receiving
Superfund monies. The special conditions ensure
that agencies or departments receiving Superfund
money are aware of and act on the requirements of
CERCLA section 105(f). Previously, EPA had
incorporated a special condition in each
memorandum of understanding to advise federal
agencies of the requirements of CERCLA section
105(f). OSDBU, however, developed the special
conditions because the agency believed that a more
formalized and uniform measure was needed to
56
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
inform all recipients of Superfund monies of the
section 105(f) requirements. One of these special
conditions requires that departments or agencies
undertaking Superfund work submit an annual
report to EPA on minority contractor utilization.
43
Report on Facilities Subject to
Review Under CERCIA Section
Certain selected remedial actions permit
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
to remain on site when they do not threaten
human health or the environment. CERCLA
section 121(c) directs EPA to monitor these sites
over the long-term to ensure that their remedies
are fully protective of human health and the
environment The review must take place at least
every five years after the initiation of remedial
action. CERCLA section 121(c) also requires that
a report be submitted to Congress that lists the
facilities for which periodic reviews are required,
the results of all of the reviews, and any action
taken as a result of the reviews.
43.1 90-Day Study Recommendations
In response to 90-Day Study
recommendations, EPA issued a Superfund
Management Review workplan stating that EPA
will conduct five-year reviews at all sites where
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remain above levels that allow for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure following completion of
all remedial activities. EPA also will maintain the
effectiveness of the remedy over the long-term by
promptly correcting any additional problems that
may arise at sites where monitoring indicates that
further response actions are necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
On October 30, 1989, as a first step in
implementing the 90-Day Study recommendations
for five-year reviews, EPA issued a memorandum
on the applicability of such reviews to sites deleted
from the National Priorities List (NPL) prior to
the enactment of SARA This memorandum
establishes EPA policy on the relationship of five-
year reviews to the deletion of sites from the NPL,
Although SARA provides that CERCLA section
121 applies only to actions resulting from records
of decision (RODs) signed after the enactment of
SARA, EPA will examine sites previously deleted
from the NPL to determine the appropriateness of
conducting five-year reviews at any sites that were
not cleaned up to levels that allow for unlimited
use and unrestricted exposure. EPA generally will
not delete a site that requires a five-year review
until the Agency conducts one review at the site
after completion of all remedial activities specified
in the ROD. If, upon completion of the review,
the site is deleted from the NPL, EPA will
continue to ensure that reviews are conducted at
least once every five years, as required under
CERCLA section 121(c).
On December 31,1989, EPA completed a
concept paper describing both the substance and
logistics of future reviews. In FY91, EPA plans to
issue a guidance document to aid Regional offices
in conducting the five-year reviews. The Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response will define
the elements of a five-year review, determine the
criteria of sites eligible for review, describe the
responsibilities of federal and state agencies in
conducting reviews, and identify available
mechanisms to accomplish reviews.
43.2 Progress Toward Minimizing
Waste and Facilities Subject to
Review
CERCLA section 301(h)(l)(E) requires
EPA to report annually on progress made in
reducing the number of facilities subject to review
under CERCLA section 121(c). EPA did not
review any facilities in FY90 because the first site
with a post-SARA ROD will not be ready for
review until 1991. EPA currently is developing
criteria to determine which sites are eligible for the
five-year review. A list of sites eligible for the five-
year review will be developed after EPA finalizes
the criteria.
57
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CHAPTER
5
Program Implementation
and Other
Support Activities
The Agency's progress in implementing the
Superfund program is increased by the participation of
states, Indian tribes, and other federal agencies and
departments. Community groups, too, are playing a
greater role in the clean-up process. The 90-Day Study
recommended more emphasis on community
participation and a more clearly defined role for states
and Indian tribes in the Superfund process. This
chapter presents Agency progress in carrying out these
recommendations. Additionally, this chapter reports
on steps taken during FY90 to improve efficiency of
the program, particularly activities to assist Remedial
Project Managers, On-Scene Coordinators, and
Regional Coordinators in managing clean-up activities
efficiently and effectively.
5.1 Community Relations and Public
Information
EPA emphasized community relations during
FY90. This emphasis came about in response to
recommendations by the 90-Day Study task group and
at the urging of Congress, environmental groups, and
private citizens. These groups recognize that EPA
must increase community relations efforts in order to
meet the information needs of the public. During
FY90, EPA developed detailed policy guidance to
implement the recommendations and accomplish the
goals of the 90-Day Study. Furthermore, EPA is
expanding the Superfund program's scope to include a
variety of community relations activities at all stages of
the clean-up process, rather than limiting it to
statutorily mandated activities.
The 90-Day Study placed new emphasis on the
role of community relations and community involve-
ment in the Superfund program by providing EPA
with a blueprint for citizens more fully into the Super-
fund decision-making process. The Study emphasized
EPA's need to accept the public as a legitimate
partner in site clean up and to increase the role of
citizens by involving them at each stage of the clean-
up process. Specifically, the Study recommended that
EPA listen to citizens' concerns, change Agency
actions when appropriate, discuss site findings as they
develop, and make documents available to the public
early in the process. The Study also urged EPA to
provide the public with clear explanations of Agency
decisions and to develop innovative methods to
involve citizens.
5.1.1 Community Relations Regulations
Revisions to the National Contingency Plan
(NCP) (55 FR 8666; March 8,1990) reflect the new
emphasis on community relations and incorporate
many of the 90-Day Study recommendations. The
revised NCP incorporates many requirements of
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, as well as several
additional requirements based on program experience
and public comment. Other ideas discussed in the
Study are highlighted in the preamble to the final rule
as further examples of good program practice that
encourage public involvement.
The revised NCP discusses the community
relations requirements in conjunction with the
relevant regulations for removal and remedial actions.
This new format is distinct from that of the previous
NCP, which explained the community relations
requirements in a single section. EPA purposely
changed the placement of community relations
requirements to ensure a clearer and more orderly
integration of community relations into each phase of
the Superfund process.
59
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Acronyms Introduced in Chapter S
ARCS - Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
CA - Cooperative Agreement
CERI Center for Environmental Research
Information
CPCA - Core Program Cooperative Agreement
CRP - Community Relations Plan
FIT - Field Investigation Team
FOIA - Freedom of Information Act
IFR - Interim Final Rule
MOLT - Memorandum of Understanding
NTIS - National Technical Information System
OPM - Office of Personnel Management
SACA - Support Agency Cooperative Agreement
SMOA - Superfund Memorandum of Agreement
SSC - Superfund State Contract
STEP - Structured Training and Evaluation Program
TAG - Technical Assistance Grant
TAT - Technical Assistance Team
Removal Actions
The revised NCP defines a "lead agency" as the
agency that provides the OSC/RPM to plan and
implement response actions under the NCP. The NCP
revisions require the lead agency for a removal action
to designate a spokesperson who will inform the
community of the actions taken at the site, respond to
public inquiries, and provide information concerning
the release. At a minimum, the spokesperson must
provide updates on the progress of the removal action
to immediately affected citizens and state and local
officials. The revisions to the NCP also require the
lead agency to publish a notice of availability of the
administrative record supporting the removal action
and provide the public with an opportunity to
comment on the record and supporting documents.
The spokesperson must establish at least one local
information repository containing items available for
public review at or near the location of the response
action.
The previous NCP required a minimum 21-day
public comment period. In contrast, the revised rule
requires a minimum comment period of 30 days from
the time the notice of availability of the administrative
record is published. Recognizing that the public may
need more time to review complex documents, EPA
has sought to clarify that, for non-time-critical removal
actions, the lead agency is required to extend the
comment period 15 days, upon timely request. For
emergency and time-critical removal actions, the lead
agency has discretion to extend the public comment
period, upon timely request. As highlighted in the
preamble, members of the public are provided an
opportunity and are encouraged to review the
documents both prior to and during the comment
period.
In addition, the revised NCP requires the
spokesperson to prepare a community relations plan
(CRP) when a removal action will last longer than
120 days. The CRP discusses citizen concerns about
the site and specifies the community relations
activities that the lead agency expects to undertake
during the response. The information for the CRP is
gathered through interviews with community
residents, local officials, and other interested groups.
Remedial Actions
The previous NCP addressed community
relations in general, but did not include community
relations requirements during the remedial
design/remedial action (RD/RA) stage of a remedial
response. The revised NCP requires the lead agency
for a remedial action to prepare a CRP containing
information on citizen concerns and future
communication activities. The lead agency must
review, and, if necessary, revise the CRP prior to the
initiation of the remedial design. The lead agency
must also establish a local information repository and
inform the community of the availability of technical
assistance grants. Furthermore, as required by
CERCLA, the lead agency must publish a notice and
brief analysis of the proposed plan for a remedial
action, followed by a public comment period. The 90-
Day Study recommended extending the public
comment period upon timely request. The revised
NCP explicitly provides that the lead agency must
extend the public comment period for a remedial
action, upon timely request, by a minimum of 30
additional days, resulting in a 60-day minimum
comment period. The final plan must also be
published, along with a discussion of any significant
changes in the proposed plan. After the completion
of the final engineering design, the lead agency is
required to issue a fact sheet and provide, as
appropriate, a public briefing prior to the start of
remedial action. If a change in remedial approach is
sufficiently significant to require a record of decision
(ROD) amendment, the lead agency must provide a
period for public comment.
60
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
5.1.2 Technical Assistance Grants Under
CERCIA Section 117(e)
CERCLA section 117(e), added by SARA,
authorizes EPA. to award technical .assistance grants
(TAGs) to local groups affected by sites proposed for
or listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) and
where preliminary site work has begun. Groups are to
use the grants to employ technical advisors to help
them understand information developed during the
Superfund clean-up process. The TAG program was
designed to help citizens become knowledgeable about
the technical and scientific aspects of a Superfund site
and, thus, better prepared to participate effectively in
the clean-up process.
In FY90, EPA awarded 14 TAGs to citizens'
groups in seven regions, bringing the total number of
TAGs awarded to 40. In FY89, 16 TAGs were
awarded, and 10 were awarded in FY88. These
numbers revise those included in the FY89 Report on
the basis of more complete information. There are
currently 20 TAG program personnel, and this level
will be sustained through FY91.
The maximum grant that can be awarded to
any group is $50,000 per site. To ensure that all
eligible groups have equal access to technical assistance
and an equal opportunity to compete for a single
available grant, EPA has established a formal process
for evaluating applications. Under the current
program, the community "matches" or contributes 20
percent of the total cost of the TAG project EPA will
waive the matching fund requirement only if the
applicant demonstrates financial need. PRPs and
certain other groups and organizations (for example,
groups promoting a single interest to the exclusion of
other interests) are not eligible to receive these grants.
EPA has in place an Interim Final Rule (IFR)
for the TAG program (53 FR 9736; March 24, 1988)
and an amended IFR (54 FR 49848; December 1,
1989) under which the day-to-day TAG program
operations are conducted. The IFR enables EPA to
process applications and award grants without delay,
while simultaneously developing a final rule.
As a result of the 90-Day Study, the Agency
instituted several changes to the TAG program in an
effort to promote greater public participation:
• The 35 percent citizen match of the TAG
program costs was reduced to 20 percent;
The 15 percent cap on administrative costs
was eliminated;
The Superfund TAG Handbook was re-
written;
The procurement procedures were
streamlined; and
Criteria for a waiver of the $50,000 TAG
limit were issued.
5.13 Additional Community Relations
Activities
In addition to the community relations
revisions in the NCP and the changes to the TAG
program, the Agency developed detailed policy
documents addressing the recommendations of the 90-
Day Study, including:
• Regional planning for sufficient community
relations activities;
• Improving responsiveness summaries so that
they more accurately reflect local
communities' concerns;
• Using senior environmental employees (that
is, retirees hired by a senior citizen
organization to work for EPA) in the
Superfund program;
• Evaluating the effectiveness of EPA's
Superfund Community Involvement program;
and
• Increasing communications with the public by
involving state and local officials.
Shortly after the end of the fiscal year, EPA
developed several guidance documents addressing
additional 90-Day Study recommendations, including:
• Making Superfund documents available to
the public throughout the clean-up process,
and discussing site findings and decisions as
they develop;
61
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
• Innovative techniques for increasing public
involvement in Superfund Community
Relations;
• Minimizing community relations problems
caused by frequent turnover of EPA Superfund
staff; and
• Incorporating citizen concerns into Superfund
site decision-making.
In addition, in response to Regional questions,
EPA issued guidance on the role of community
interviews in the development of a community relations
program for remedial response, as required by the
NCP.
5.1.4 A Coordinated Approach to Public
Information
FY90 marked the third year of EPA's five-year
program to standardize and manage the extensive
Superfund bibliography and incorporate it into public
information and outreach activities. Chief
accomplishments during the fiscal year include:
• Development of production standards to
ensure consistency in content and appearance;
• Entry of the entire current Superfund
bibliography into the National Technical
Information System (NTTS);
• Establishment of a "Superfund Standing Order
Service" at NTIS, which will allow regular
users of Superfund documents to subscribe and
receive current documents as they are issued;
and
• Issuance of an expanded and improved Catalog
of Superfund Program Publications.
While EPA will continue to provide limited
numbers of single copies of Superfund documents at no
cost if stock is available, the Agency is encouraging the
use of the NTIS standing order system for regular
users. In addition, Superfund uses the services
provided by the following programs:
The Superfund Docket
The Superfund Docket provides public access
to regulatory support materials for proposed and final
rules and receives and compiles public comments
during the rulemaking process. In compliance with
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the public
is allowed access to docket materials after approval of
the Office of General Counsel and announcement in
the Federal Register. The Docket also maintains
viewing copies of the records of decision and a
limited stock of Federal Registers containing
Superfund rulemaking information.
The National Technical Information Service
The National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) is an arm of the U.S. Department of
Commerce, which serves as a permanent archive and
source of publications and documents for many
federal agencies. During FY90, EPA concluded an
agreement with NTIS which placed the entire current
Superfund bibliography, as well as portions of its
archives, in the NTIS system. The 1991 Catalog of
Superfund Program Publications lists NTIS ordering
information. EPA expects that many regular users of
Superfund documents will choose to use the efficient
and timely services provided by NTIS' new marketing
system.
NTIS will, when appropriate, carry pre-
publication versions of important documents which
may be purchased by individuals needing immediate
access to such documents prior to completion of
formal printing and distribution. In addition, the
Agency is referring individuals requesting Superfund
public documents under FOIA to NTIS.
The RCEAISuperfund Hotline
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline provides
information to EPA personnel and the public with
respect to hazardous waste regulations and policies.
The Hotline is a good source of general information
about ongoing issues in the Superfund program.
The Hazardous Waste Data Collection
EPA maintains the Hazardous Waste Data
Collection in the Headquarters and regional libraries.
The collection is an excellent source of reference
62
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
information about all aspects of hazardous waste
management and associated technologies. Resident
librarians in all locations provide literature search
information, as well as general reference assistance to
users. The public may view current and superseded
program documents archived in these collections.
Public Information Center
The Public Information Center is located in
EPA Headquarters and distributes a broad spectrum of
non-technical documents to the public on all of the
Agency programs, including Superfund.
Center for Environmental Research Information
The Center for Environmental Research
Information (CERI), located in Cincinnati, Ohio, is an
arm of EPA's Office of Research and Development
that produces and distributes technical publications for
most of the environmental programs within EPA A
Publications Office located within CERI maintains a
distribution and inventory management network for
these documents. Many of Superfund's technical,
policy, and guidance documents are published through
CERI and identified by a specific series number,
"EPA/540." These Superfund documents, however, are
also archived in NTIS.
Hazardous Waste Ombudsman Program
The 10 Regions and EPA headquarters have
Ombudsman Offices that serve as an additional,
impartial source of public information. The purpose of
the Ombudsman Offices is to assist private citizens and
members of the regulated community who have been
unable to resolve hazardous waste issues through other
channels. The program assists environmental and
citizens' groups and trains Regional representatives to
serve as local ombudsmen. The program is intended to
supplement existing channels of problem resolution,
not to replace them.
5.2 EPA Partnership with States and
Indian Tribes
The 90-Day Study recommended that the
Agency "resolve the fundamental policy question of
what States' long-term role in the Superfund program
will be" and that the Agency and states "jointly
develop short- and long-term strategies to enhance
State program capability, improve State performance
at State-lead Superfund sites, and foster State
remedial activity at sites not on EPA's National
Priorities List."
Policy Forums
In response to these recommendations of the
90-Day Study, the Agency initiated a series of policy
forums for EPA and state officials, designed to foster
better understanding and coordination of state and
federal response efforts. The Agency hopes that these
forums will facilitate more effective cleanup and
minimize duplication of effort. The policy forum
convened in November 1989, and six subgroups held
meetings between December 1989 and June 1990.
The subgroups focused on selection of remedy,
operation and maintenance, enforcement, state
capabilities, the removal program, and site
assessment.
On July 31,1990, Superfund program officials
met in Denver, Colorado to discuss issues pertaining
to the development and implementation of state
Superfund programs. This conference was one of a
number of initiatives undertaken to promote and
maintain the state/federal partnership necessary to
ensure an effective clean-up program under
CERCLA The conference provided a unique forum
for state Superfund program officials to share
Superfund-related information among themselves and
with EPA administrators.
The above activities and other program
initiatives have already helped EPA move toward
successfully meeting the recommendations of the 90-
Day Study, as indicated in part by the improved level
of state participation in FY90 activities at NPL sites.
Exhibit 5.2-1 provides a graphic presentation of the
history of state involvement as the lead agency in
these response activities.
5.2.1 Regulations Affecting the
Partnership
Subpart F of the NCP (40 CFR Part 300),
and the Administrative regulation for Cooperative
Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for
Superfund Response Actions (40 CFR Part 35 Subpart
O) complement each other in meeting CERCLA's
63
-------
'-. v^"'s s^'V'
NOTE: State-lead activities include all state-lead, fund financed (S), state-lead and financed (SN), state enforcement-lead (SE), and
state-ordered (SR) sites.
SOURCE: CERCLIS,HSCD.
o
2.
f
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
mandate to promote and facilitate the involvement of
states and Indian tribes in the Superfund program.
The National Contingency Plan
The NCP is the roadmap to Superfund
implementation, providing a framework for all aspects
of Superfund response. FY90 revisions to the NCP
include the following two changes that may alter the
nature of the Agency's relationship with states and
Indian tribes.
• Selection of Remedy. The preamble of the
revised NCP states that EPA "should retain
primary responsibility for the federal
Superfund program" (55 FR 8783). For this
reason, and to further the goal of national
consistency among remedies implemented at
sites, EPA believes that it would be
inappropriate to yield authority for remedy
selection to states. In certain cases, however,
where the state is the lead agency on a
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS),
for example, the state may generally
recommend a remedy to EPA for concurrence.
In addition, at non-Fund-financed state
enforcement sites, where EPA has given the
state the lead, the state may select a remedy
without EPA concurrence. Dollar transfers
from EPA to states for response actions at
Superfund sites, however, are always
contingent upon EPA concurrence with state
RODs. These revisions will afford states a
meaningful role in the clean-up process while
concurrently assuring that EPA retains
appropriate authority.
• Superfund Memoranda of 'Agreement. EPA has
decided that a Superfund Memoranda of
Agreement (SMOA), a voluntary, non-legally
binding agreement between a state and EPA,
will not be required in order for states to
recommend remedies for EPA concurrence at
Fund-financed sites nor for states to be
designated as the lead agency for non-Fund-
financed actions at NPL sites. SMOAs are
management tools useful in documenting the
specific nature of lead and support agency
activities, and in clarifying the roles and
responsibilities of parties involved in
Superfund activities. Prior to the NCP
revisions, SMOAs were required in all state-
lead clean-up situations. Although SMOAs
contribute to consistency in national program
implementation and can lead to a more
effective EPA/state partnership, EPA believes
that SMOAs should not be a limiting
condition on state involvement. Moreover,
SMOAs are not the appropriate mechanism
for state remedy selection, and lead agency
designations should be based upon a state's
level of interest and ability rather than on
the existence of a SMOA
SubpartO
The promulgation of 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart
O, in June of 1990, is an additional regulatory
development that effects EPA's partnership with
states and Indian tribes. Whereas the NCP is the
general framework for Superfund response, Subpart
O is the implementing document, providing the
mechanics of joint response under Superfund.
Subpart O describes EPA's authority to transfer funds
and responsibilities to states and Indian tribes so that
they may undertake response actions in accordance
with the NCP.
Prior to the promulgation of the revised NCP
and Subpart O, the Agency's state involvement
initiatives were limited. Interpretations of Agency
guidance published on the draft regulations were the
states' only benchmark for appropriate Superfund
response activity. Subpart O fulfills the Agency's long
recognized need for a consistent approach for
involving states and Indian tribes in the response
process.
5.2.2 Response Agreements and the Core
Program
Response agreements fall into two categories:
Superfund State Contracts (SSCs), and Cooperative
Agreements (CAs). .Both types of agreements serve
as the contractual tools through which states and/or
Indian tribes work with EPA in Superfund response
activities.
Certain prerequisites are common to all
response agreements. States and Indian tribes must
demonstrate the ability to track costs in accordance
with EPA financial and administrative standards.
States must also provide the Agency with assurances
such as the responsibility for operation and
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
maintenance, a cost-sharing match, 20-year waste
capacity, off-site disposal, and the acceptance of
interest in real property (only this last applies to
Indian tribes).
Superfund State Contracts are required when
EPA assumes the lead for a response action and
authorize the Agency to collect payments from states
and/or political subdivisions as described in CERCLA
section 104. SSCs between EPA, the state, and the
political subdivision are also required when political
subdivisions assume the lead for a response action.
The SSC must be in place before CA funds are
transferred to the political subdivision. SSCs also serve
as appropriate documents in which states can provide
EPA with the pre-award assurances discussed above.
Support Agency Cooperative Agreements
(SACAs) help facilitate the implementation of the
NCP by allowing states, Indian tribes, and political
subdivisions that may not have the capabilities required
to assume lead agency responsibilities, to actively
participate in response activities at sites under their
jurisdiction. As a support agency, the state, Indian
tribe, or political subdivision may assist the lead agency
through the sharing of information and expertise, while
concurrently benefitting from the experience of
participating in a Superfund response action.
Enforcement CA funds may be used by the state
to undertake PRP searches, issue notice letters for
negotiation activities, undertake administrative and
judicial enforcement actions, and oversee PRPs at EPA
or state enforcement response actions.
To be eligible for Enforcement CA funding
under the final Subpart O, states must submit the
following to EPA:
• A letter from the state Attorney General
certifying that the state has the capabilities to
pursue enforcement actions;
• A copy of the applicable state statute; and
• Any further documentation required by the
Agency to establish the capability to undertake
the enforcement response.
Indian tribes must satisfy similar requirements.
The Core Program
Another significant FY90 development in
programs affecting the relationship between EPA,
states, and Indian tribes is the expansion of the Core
Program. The legislative history of SARA section
104(d) clearly indicates the intent of Congress to
increase the scope of CAs to include activities
associated with the overall improvement of a state's
response capabilities. During the initial years of the
federal Superfund program, before the formal
establishment of a Core Program, CA funds to
minimize the costs of state involvement were tied to
specific activities at specific sites. Funding to enhance
state program capabilities was awarded over a one-
year budget period, with a general funding limit of
$250,000. The scope of today's Core Program is
significantly more comprehensive.
The Core Program was formally initiated as
a pilot program in FY87, with awards to three states
in three different EPA Regions. These initial Core
Program Cooperative Agreements (CPCAs) each had
a single budget and scope of work, targeted at the
enhancement of state program activities. Feedback
from state Superfund managers concerning these
initial CPCAs helped to refine the Core Program
concept and prepare it for nationwide implementation
inFY88.
EPA awarded 36 CPCAs in FY88, and 43
during FY89. Forty-five CPCAs were awarded in
FY90, at a total funding level of $21,575,674, clearly
reflecting the Agency's increased emphasis on
developing state program capabilities. Exhibit 5.2-2
provides a graphic presentation of the number and
value of CPCAs since the program's inception.
Activities typically funded under CPCAs awarded this
fiscal year include:
• The development of procedures for
emergency response actions and longer-term
remediation of environmental and health
risks at hazardous waste sites (including
generic health and safety plans and
community relations plans);
• The establishment and maintenance of legal
authorities and enforcement programs
required for the proper administration of a
state program and for efforts to compel PRPs
to conduct and pay for studies and/or
remediation; and
• The development of programs to hire and
train staff to manage publicly-funded
cleanups, oversee PRP cleanups, and provide
clerical support.
66
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SOURCE: Hazardous Site Control Division/State and Local Coordination Branch.
jj^gi^vgWj^jjigyji^^
Once the state establishes these fundamental program
components, EPA may award the state Core funds for
additional state-specific activities, such as the
maintenance of central files for site-specific response to
support cost-recovery, the coordination of interagency
agreements with other state agencies, and the
development of multi-year strategies to support long-
range planning.
The Core Program offers states the
opportunity to develop comprehensive, self-sufficient
state Superfund programs. Budget requests and scopes
of work may extend for longer than a single year.
Awards, no longer dollar limited, are now determined
by the development needs of a state's program, the
demonstrated progress of a state in meeting previous
Core objectives, and the availability of funds. States
are required to provide a 10 percent cost share for
Core Program awards. The Core Program, therefore,
is helping to lay the groundwork for the
implementation of the integrated EPA-state/tribe
approach for meeting Superfund goals.
5.23 Other Program Developments
During FY90, the Agency has been involved
in a number of additional activities, some of which
directly respond to recommendations in the 90-Day
Study.
Conference of State Superfund Programs
The Agency co-sponsored with the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials a conference on state
Superfund programs. A major goal of this conference
was to initiate an exchange of information among
states about state Superfund programs. The
conference included panel discussions on state
program issues, a computer demonstration of training
tools for state programs, and workgroup sessions on
six topics relating to state Superfund programs:
67
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
establishing and enhancing state programs, state
statutes and regulatory authorities, state program
resources, clean-up technologies, state management
issues, and state clean-up policies.
Fifty-State Study
In January 1990, EPA published the "Fifty-
State Study" a comprehensive compilation of
descriptive data on the Superfund program of every
state. The first such compilation, the Fifty-State Study
described every aspect of the states' programs,
including the sources, uses, and amounts of their
funding; staffing levels; and principal relevant state
laws and regulations. EPA is revising and updating the
Fifty-State Study in FY91.
Publication of a Hazardous Site Control Division History
In April 1990, the Hazardous Site Control
Division published a history entitled, Status of State
Involvement in the Superfund Program - FY80 to FY89.
The report provides an overview of the Superfund
process and includes a discussion of the role of states
in Superfund response. The report also includes
graphic presentations of state program
accomplishments since the inception of the Superfund
program.
Response Agreement Training
The Agency has continued to offer a Response
Agreements Seminar to provide EPA and state staff
with skills and information they need to administer
CAs and SSCs. The seminar provides information on
CAs and SSCs, their purposes and applications. The
seminar also identifies steps necessary to complete a
response agreement, explains state assurances, assists
state project officers in calculating a state's cost share,
and describes techniques for managing response
agreements.
A pilot seminar took place in FY88 and
included instructors from EPA Headquarters and 21
Regional participants. Subsequent seminars have since
been offered, and the seminar format is currently being
revised for seminars to be offered in FY91.
53 Activities Undertaken to Improve
Program Efficiency
In response to criticisms of slow progress in
the achievement of final Superfund site cleanups, the
Agency has taken a number of specific initiatives to
improve the overall efficiency of the Superfund
program. These initiatives, outlined in the 90-Day
Study, are currently in different stages of
implementation. Many of these initiatives have
already taken effect and have helped to reduce
workload burdens on staff, accelerate the site clean-up
process, and streamline program management and
operations systems.
53.1 Making Action a Priority
In order to promote the primary mission of
the Superfund program - rapid cleanup of the nation's
worst hazardous waste sites - Superfund managers and
employees at all levels have focused greater attention
during FY90 on taking action at sites and meeting
program deadlines. The Agency took a number of
important initiatives to reinforce the importance of
these goals and to keep personnel accountable,
including:
• Issuing an order requiring that all EPA line
managers whose performance affects
Superfund outputs establish basic standards
that relate to those Superfund outputs (For
example, each Regional Administrator is to
identify and eliminate avoidable delays in the
process of decision-making.);
• Reviewing FY90 Performance Agreements of
EPA line managers whose performance
affects Superfund outputs to ensure that
standards relating to Superfund outputs are
included in the agreements; and
• Communicating the importance of
Superfund's primary mission through memo-
68
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
Fiscal Year 1990
raada to the Attorney General and the heads
of other federal agencies involved in the
Superfund program, to secure their personal
commitment to the program's main goals.
Also, the Agency has developed a new strategy
to encourage and reward innovation, risk-taking, and
decisive action by Superfund personnel. The key
components of this strategy include establishing better
communication among personnel, training managers in
decision-making skills, improving performance
management of personnel, and establishing awards to
recognize positive employee contributions to the
program. This strategy was incorporated into
Superfund management systems in mid-FY90, and the
results thus far have been encouraging.
53.2 Assisting Remedial Project Managers
and On-Scene Coordinators
Perhaps the most significant source of delay in
the Superfund response process across all EPA
Regions continues to be the heavy workload facing
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs). Most RPMs and OSCs are
responsible for a number of sites; consequently, RPMs
and OSCs often cannot respond quickly to problems
that arise suddenly at a single site. Also, RPMs and
OSCs have difficulty in managing daily progress in site
clean-up activities while simultaneously adhering to
long-range site plans and associated targets. To help
alleviate this burden on RPMs and OSCs, the Agency
took the following actions during FY90:
• Issued an additional 285 full-time equivalents
(FTEs), to be divided among the 10 EPA
Regions to increase the number of RPMs and
OSCs, in order to reduce the average number
of sites assigned to each official, thus
providing them a more manageable and
appropriate workload; and
• Provided additional technical and
administrative assistance to support RPMs and
OSCs.
These efforts, in part, are directed at retaining
RPMs and OSCs who, over time, develop detailed
knowledge of a site and its history and establish
relationships with state and local officials, citizens,
contractors, and others. When RPM or OSC
turnover occurs, this valuable knowledge and
experience is lost, creating further delays in the
response process.
Providing Technical Support Services
The Agency also greatly expanded the
number and range of technical support services
available to RPMs and OSCs and took steps to
ensure that they are aware of and have easy access to
these services. During FY90, EPA:
• Published a directory of available technical
support services, distributed this directory to
all RPMs and OSCs, and developed plans to
regularly update the directory as new services
become available;
• Provided training for RPMs and OSCs on the
use of automated data bases (e.g.,
CERCLIS) containing information relevant
to their work;
• Delivered software to RPMs and OSCs that
allows them to access key EPA data bases;
• Established four Technical Support Centers
to provide advice about assessment and
remediation of ground-water contamination,
treatment of hazardous waste, sampling and
analysis at hazardous waste sites, and
assessment of ecological risks;
• Created Biological and Technical Assistance
Groups in most EPA Regional Offices to
provide scientific and technical advice on
ecological risk analysis;
• Established Regional forums in the areas of
engineering and treatment and ground-water
fate and transport, to improve
communication among Regional Offices and
to help in routing requests for technical
advice and assistance; and
• Created a Technical Support Services Group
responsible for EPA-wide management of
technical support services to RPMs and
OSCs, including the development and
implementation of a Technical Support
69
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Master Plan for assessing and meeting RPM
and OSC needs.
Providing Technical Training
The Superfund program has made considerable
progress in strengthening its technical training
component during FY90, in an effort to address the
need of key field staff to enhance their technical
knowledge and skills. EPA increased resources
devoted to technical training programs and initiated
three new training programs in FY90, including:
• A new six-week Superfund Academy session
providing training in all phases of the
program, from contracts management to
technical issues;
• A program (through the Superfund Academy)
providing new field staff with a senior field
mentor for on-the-job training for the first six
months of a new employee's tenure; and
• The creation of the Superfund University
Training Institute that provides advanced field
staff an opportunity to learn by analyzing case
studies of actual Superfund sites and
addressing ground-water management,
controlling pollution at the source, and
responding to emergencies.
In addition to these structured training
programs, EPA has taken a number of other initiatives
to ensure the adequate training of all Superfund staff
and personnel, including:
• Establishing an 80-hour annual training
requirement for all OSCs and RPMs,
implementing the mandatory Structured
Training and Evaluation Program (STEP) and
publishing guidance on criteria to establish
four levels of field staff (Basic, Intermediate,
Advanced, and Master) for training and
evaluation; and
• Implementing pilot programs in all Regions
encouraging EPA field staff to perform
RI/FSs, which will improve the ability of front-
line staff to oversee contractors in the field.
Providing Administrative Support
The 90-Day Study recognized that key
Superfund field staff need increased administrative
support and that the roles and relationships of project
managers and support staff need to be better defined.
To provide adequate administrative support to the
Regional Offices, the Agency implemented a format
for assigning certain technical and administrative tasks
to the appropriate management and waste divisions in
the Regions. The assignment of tasks was done
through memoranda of understanding (MOUs)
between directors of various divisions in the Regions.
This action has helped to provide additional support
to field staff in the Regions by reducing their
workload and allowing them to focus on contractor
oversight, community relations, and enforcement
work. It has also promoted strong working
relationships between field staff and Management
Division personnel at Headquarters. During the
latter part of FY90, a Skill Mix Study was conducted
and the results reviewed to determine the need for
any further changes in task assignments.
Providing Access to Management Information Systems
Progress also was made during FY90 to
ensure that all key field staff have immediate access
to personal computers, portable computers for use in
the field, necessary hardware and software, and E-mail
capabilities to access the OSWER Bulletin Board
information system. This system allows Headquarters
to communicate with personnel in the field, and more
importantly, provides a way for OSCs and RPMs to
communicate with one another. Other useful
information systems recently made available to all
Superfund personnel include:
• The record of decision data base, providing
data on remedy selection at sites nationwide;
• The OSWER Directives System, providing
access to Superfund program guidance
documents, special directives, and policy
decisions in an electronic format; and
• WasteLAN, a personal computer-based
information management and tracking system
70
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
used to monitor progress at remedial sites
throughout all Regions.
Finally, the Agency established a training
program in FY90 to assist OSCs and RPMs in learning
the skills and techniques needed to access these on-line
computer systems.
533 Assisting Regional Coordinators
In its efforts to improve program efficiency, the
Agency is focusing on ways to assist and provide
support to Regional Coordinators. The original
function of the Regional Coordinator was to review
past activities and recommend further Headquarters
actions at sites where RODs have been completed.
This job has since greatly expanded to incorporate
many different duties, including answering specific
technical and policy questions, advising Regional Office
staff on proposed plans and RODs, and helping to
gather information from Regional offices.
The 90-Day Study emphasized a need to
strengthen the role and effectiveness of Regional
Coordinators, to assign experienced staff to assist them
in their work, to assure that they have sufficient time
to respond to the various requests received from
Regional Offices, and to increase the total number of
Regional Coordinators retained. The Study also
suggested that EPA publicize the role of Regional
Coordinators and aggressively encourage RPMs to call
them for assistance. To implement these suggestions,
EPA:
• Evaluated Regional needs and defined the
roles and priorities of Regional Coordinators;
• Developed a plan for FY90 to provide for
effective Regional coordination and then to
communicate this plan to all EPA Regions;
• Reclassified appropriate Regional Coordinator
positions and increased the grade structure for
some Regional Coordinators; and
• Developed an organizational plan for the most
effective placement of Regional Coordinators.
53.4 Achieving Efficiency in Internal
Management
During FY90, the Agency began
implementing a process to review Superfund's internal
management measures with an eye toward eliminating
unnecessary or redundant reporting and focusing
more directly on improving performance. To this
end, the 90-Day Study suggested several different
approaches to change the way the Regions are
managed and improve performance, including:
• Supplementing the complex system of
accountability measures with program audit
and oversight teams charged with improving
performance at Headquarters and in the
Regions; and
• Improving the Superfund personnel award
system by creating highly selective awards for
innovative approaches that produce
significant environmental results and that
promote timeliness, community involvement,
and better enforcement
To implement these initiatives, the Agency
first completed its review of existing management
measures in the Headquarters and Regional reporting
systems. EPA collected data base information on all
systems that receive Superfund data (e.g., CERCLIS,
SPMS), conducted Regional interviews, and developed
schematic measures. The Agency subsequently
identified and targeted problem measures, measures
which were missing, and excessive or redundant
measures. Once these issues were resolved, the
Agency turned its attention to the development of the
pilot projects. These actions taken during FY90 form
the basis for a more efficient and soundly-managed
Superfund program for the future.
53.5 Flexible Funding
The Agency has taken steps to ensure that
funds necessary to finance clean-up activities are
71
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
available as soon as a site is ready to enter the
remedial action phase of the clean-up process. To
accomplish this, the Agency has established a "flexible
funding* policy that allows Regional personnel to: (1)
move funds between categories of activities, such as
from remedial design to PRP oversight, and (2) move
funds among sites. A major advantage of this policy is
that a Region has the option to use monies originally
targeted for a Fund-financed response as leverage to
compel additional PRP cleanups or to pay for response
actions at other sites. This increased flexibility in
funding response actions increases PRPs' participation
in settlements and helps to accelerate the clean-up
process.
53.6 Technical and Policy Guidance
Steps were taken during FY90 to facilitate the
Regional Offices' use of and access to Superfund
program guidance. The formulation and distribution of
technical and policy guidance materials to the Regional
Offices is one of the most important responsibilities of
OERR. During early FY90, a single official was
designated in each Region to take responsibility for
overseeing the planning and development of all
technical and policy guidance and for ensuring that
guidance issued by the various offices does not conflict.
To assist RPMs, managers, and staff in interpreting and
understanding guidance, OERR developed and issued
"short sheet" summaries of the key information
contained in lengthier guidance documents. EPA
Headquarters intends these "short sheets" to serve not
only as a way to present and summarize information
more clearly, but to be the basic format for all future
guidance. Also, OERR issued a directive establishing
procedures for updating and distributing program
guidance in a timely manner.
53.7 Attracting and Retaining Field Staff
The Agency has placed a strong emphasis on
new initiatives for hiring and retaining key field staff,
including RPMs, OSCs, and Field Enforcement
Attorneys. Superfund site management jobs are some
of EPA's most challenging positions, requiring superior
technical, administrative, managerial, and
communications skills. Nearly 40 percent of these field
staff hold either masters degrees or doctorates, and
over half hold engineering degrees. During FY90, a
number of important steps were taken to ensure the
retention of these staff who are vital to the success of
the Superfund program. One important initiative was
raising the professional level of both RPMs and OSCs
and developing a new promotion policy for Field
Enforcement Attorneys. Other initiatives pursued
with Congress, the Office of Management and Budget,
and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
include: paying salaries competitive with the private
sector in certain high cost geographic areas;
accelerating the promotion process; designing more
flexible working hour policies; awarding bonuses to
staff who remain with EPA; and offering early
retirement benefits. OPM authorized the higher pay
rates during FY90 under a special salary rate
program.
53.8 Long-Term Contracting Strategy
The 90-Day Study task force identified several
issues that required further investigation and review
beyond the scope of the Study, including the capacity
of contractors to meet Superfund needs. The Study,
therefore, recommended that EPA analyze the long-
term contracting needs of the Superfund program to
determine how to meet future workforce demands
using both technical contractors and in-house
expertise.
To accomplish the recommendations of the
90-Day Study and to support current and future
program goals, an Agency-wide task force developed
the Superfund Long-Term Contracting Strategy,
published August 31,1990. The strategy is designed
to:
Emphasize the integrated "One Superfund"
approach to enforcement and response;
Support project management from site
discovery through remedy construction;
Build in flexibility to respond to changing
program priorities and budgets;
Provide rapid response to immediate risks;
Decentralize contract management, assigning
it to the Regions, as practicable; and
Avoid program disruption.
72
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
The Long-Term Contracting Strategy task force
developed an array of options for meeting Superfund's
long-term contracting needs and criteria to evaluate
these options. In addition, the task force analyzed the
options by program area (e.g., removal, remedial,
enforcement). Based on this analysis, the task force
assembled the beneficial components of each option
into a final alternative. This alternative, which
composes the Superfund Long-Term Contracting
Strategy, balances the needs of each program area with
the evaluation criteria. Furthermore, the task force
redesigned the contracts, combining activities with
similar functions, to provide flexibility to the Regions.
The following describes the principal components of
the Long-Term Contracting Strategy in three of the
program areas - preremedial, removal, and remedial
contract support.
Preremedial and Removal Technical Assistance Contract
Support
The task group recommended that EPA
combine preremedial and removal technical assistance
into one integrated contracting program by merging the
Field Investigation Team (FIT) and Technical
Assistance Team (TAT) contracts. Under the
integrated program, both dedicated teams would
support preremedial activities (e.g., preliminary
assessments, site inspections). The task group also
recommended that EPA decentralize the preremedial
contract program by competing and managing FIT/TAT
contracts on a Regional basis. Furthermore, the task
group recommended using existing Alternative
Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) contracts to
provide preremedial support until phase-in of the
integrated program is complete.
Removal Contract Support
In addition to integrating the FIT and TAT
contracts as described above, the task force
recommended combining time-critical response
activities with rapid remedial response activities.
Furthermore, the task force recommended that EPA
compete and manage time-critical response contracts
on a Regional basis. Non-time-critical removal
actions will be moved to response action contracts.
Remedial Contract Support
The task force recommended that EPA use
decentralized ARCS contracts (RI/FS, RD, and RA)
to support all remedial activities, as well as interim
preremedial activities. The Long-Term Contracting
Strategy also merges enforcement oversight activities
into the remedial action contracts and provides for
non-time-critical removal actions.
In addition to recommending changes to the
response contract program areas, the task force
recommended restructuring site specific, enforcement,
regional management, analytical, and transportation
and disposal contract support. To implement the
Long-Term Contracting Strategy, the Agency has
drafted an implementation plan that will phase in new
contracts as the older contracts expire to avoid
disruption of program activities. Each new contract
component will be supported by a detailed
implementation plan to ensure that all major issues
are thoroughly evaluated.
73
-------
Toward Implementing SUPESFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Appendix
A
Status of Remedial Investigations,
Feasibility Studies, and
Remedial Actions at Sites
On the National Priorities List
In Progress on September 30, 1990
Appendix A satisfies the combined statutory
requirements of CERCLA sections 301(h)(l)(B) and
(F). Accordingly, this appendix reports the status and
estimated completion date of all remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and remedial
action (RA) Title I projects in progress at the end of
FY90. This appendix also provides notice of RI/FSs
and RAs that EPA presently believes will not meet its
previously published schedule for completion, and
includes new estimated dates of completion, as
required by section 301(h)(l)(C). Estimated
completion dates for these projects were previously
published in Appendix A of the FY89 Report entitled
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year
1989. In addition to meeting these statutory
requirements, this appendix lists new remedial projects
that were begun in FY90 and were in process at the
end of FY90. Listed activities may include remedial
projects at several operable units on a single site, as
well as first and subsequent activities at a single
operable unit.
Information in the Appendix is organized
under the following headings:
RG - EPA region in which the site is
located.
ST - State in which the site is located.
Site Name - Name of the site, as listed on
the NPL, Supplementary Lists and Supporting
Materials, October 1989, OERR.
Location ~ Location of the site, as listed on
the NPL.
Operable Unit - Operable unit at which the
corresponding remedial activity is occurring.
Activity - Type of project in progress on
September 30,1990.
Lead - The entity leading the activity, as
follows:
EP: Fund-financed with EPA employees
performing the project, not contractors;
A-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
F: Fund-financed and federal-lead by the
Superfund remedial program;
FE: EPA Enforcement program-lead;
FF: Federal Facility-lead;
MR: Mixed funding; monies from both the
Fund and PRPs;
PRP: PRP-financed and conducted;
PS: PRP-financed work performed by the
PRP under a state order (may include federal
financing or federal oversight under an
enforcement document);
S: State-lead and Fund-financed; and
SE: State enforcement-lead (may include
federal financing).
O (Other), SN (State-lead and -financed, no
Fund money), and SR (State-ordered PRP
response) activities are excluded from this
status report because they do not include
federal financing.
For some activities, the indicated lead is
followed by an asterisk (*). This means that
funding for the activity was taken over by the
indicated lead during FY90.
Funding Start - The date on which funds
were allocated for the activity.
Previous Completion Schedule - For projects
ongoing at the end of FY89 that continued
into FY90, the quarter of the planned
completion date for the activity, as of 9/30/89,
the end of FY89. This column is blank for
projects that were begun in FY90.
Present Completion Schedule -- The quarter of
the planned completion of the activity, as of
9/30/90. CERCLIS compiled this information
on October 19,1990.
Status - Status of the project, as of the end of
FY90, as follows:
On-schedule projects are designated by a
zero (0).
Projects that are behind schedule are
designated by a numeral indicating the
number of quarters that the project is behind
schedule and a minus sign (e.g., -4).
Projects that are ahead of schedule are
designated by a numeral indicating the
number of quarters that the project is ahead
of schedule (e.g., 4).
Projects for which EPA has not estimated a
completion date are designated by an asterisk
(*) in the Present Quarter Estimated
Completion column.
Projects that were begun in FY90 are
described as new in the status column.
Projects described as DNE, for date newly
entered, have funding starts in previous fiscal
years and no date in the Previously Published
Completion Schedule column. These sites,
for numerous reasons, were not entered into
CERCLIS during the fiscal year of the
funding start, or a change in the status of the
site or activity now requires that the activity
be published in the FY90 Report. For
example, several activities with the status of
DNE were state enforcement-lead or state-
lead and financed before FY90 and therefore,
did not fall under the requirements of
CERCLA section 301(h)(l)(B). During
FY90, a lead change resulted in Fund money
being used in the clean-up activities.
Therefore, they are now included in this
appendix.
An initial completion schedule is required to
be put into CERCLIS when an activity is
entered. Plans at this point are based on
little site knowledge. As work continues,
schedules are adjusted to reflect actual site
conditions.
A-2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
SITE NAME
Kellog-Deering Well Field
Linemaster Switch Corp.
Old Southington Landfill
Revere Textile Prints Corp.
Solvents Recovery Service of New England
Yaworski Waste Lagoon
Atlas Tack Corp.
Baird & McGuire
Cannon Engineering Corp.
Charles-George Reclamation Trust Landfill
Groveland Wells
Industri-Plex
(once listed as Mark Phillip Trust)
Iron Horse Park
New Bedford Site
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump
LOCATION
Norwalk
Woodstock
Southington
Sterling
Southington
Canterbury
Fairhaven
Holbrook
Bridgewater
Tyngsborough
Groveland
Woburn
Billerica
New Bedford
Ashland
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
Rl
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
05/16/90
07/10/89
09/29/87
09/18/89
01/07/86
10/29/86
08/12/88
05/30/90
09/18/89
09/05/89
06/26/90
02/08/90
08/19/87
09/28/90
08/18/83
12/08/89
05/30/90
08/08/85
01/31/90
02/15/85
12/31/87
05/21/87
05/21/87
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
2
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
1
2
4
2
1
4
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
90
91
90
90
91
91
91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
1
4
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
4
92
91
92
91
93
93
92
91
92
91
97
91
90
91
91
92
92
91
92
91
92
91
91
STATUS
new
-1
-3
0
-6
-6
-4
new
-4
0
new
new
-1
new
-2
new
new
-4
new
-3
-3
-2
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30. 1990
OPER-
16.
17.
18.
19.
if 20'
*• 21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
NH
NH
NH
NH
SITE NAME
Plymouth Harbor/Cannon Engineering Corp.
(once listed as Plymouth Harbor/Cordage)
PSC Resources
Salem Acres
Shpack Landfill
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Sullivan's Ledge
Wells G&H
Brunswick Naval Air Station
McKin Co.
Pinette's Salvage Yard
Union Chemical Co., Inc.
Winthrop Landfill
Coakley Landfill
Dover Municipal Landfill
Fletcher's Paint Works
Holton Circle Ground Water Contamination
LOCATION
Plymouth
Palmer
Salem
Norton/Attleboro
Lowell
New Bedford
Woburn
Brunswick
Gray
Washburn
South Hope
Winthrop
North Hampton
Dover
Milford
Londonderry
ABLE
UNIT
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
4
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
S
PRP
PRP
FE
F
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
09/04/87 4 89
09/30/87 1 91
06/15/87 4 90
09/24/90
02/27/90
06/29/89 1 91
09/28/90
09/28/90
02/22/88 1 91
02/22/88
06/22/90
02/22/88
06/30/90
07/10/90
09/16/87 3 90
11/19/86 3 92
08/14/90
07/22/88 1 91
07/20/90
09/05/89 2 92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
3
1
4
3
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
3
3~
3
3
2
91
91
91
93
91
91
93
92
92
92
92
92
91
92
91
92
92
91
92
92
STATUS
-5
-2
-3
new
new
-2
new
new
-4
DNE
new
DNE
new
new
-2
0
new
-2
new
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
RG ST SITE NAME
LOCATION
OPER- PREVIOUS
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD START SCHEDULE
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE STATUS
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Wl 40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
1-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl
VT
VT
VT
VT
Keefe Environmental Services
Mottolo Pig Farm
Savage Municipal Water Supply
Somersworth Sanitary Landfill
Tibbets Road
Central Landfill
Davis (GSR) Landfill
Davis Liquid Waste
Peterson/Puritan, Inc.
Picillo Farm
Rose Hill Regional Landfill
Western Sand & Gravel
Darling Hill Dump
Parker Landfill
Pine Street Canal
Tansitor Electronics Inc.
Epping
Raymond
Milford
Somersworth
Barrington
Johnston
Smithfield
Smithfield
Lincoln/Cumberland
Coventry
South Kingstown
Burrillville
Lyndon
Lyndon
Burlington
Bennington
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
07/09/90
05/20/88
08/10/87
04/28/89
08/31/89
04/03/87
09/27/90
04/27/88
05/29/87
11/09/87
09/22/90
09/25/87
06/03/87
09/29/89
08/10/90
06/27/88
09/13/90
1
2
1
4
2
4
1
4
4
2
2
3
90
91
91
91
91
90
91
91
90
90
92
91
4
3
3
3
2
1
3
4
2
3
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
91
91
91
91
92
92
93
91
92
92
93
91
91
92
92
92
93
new
-6
-1
-2
-2
-3
new
-4
-5
-3
new
-1
-4
-1
new
-2
new
2
2
NJ
NJ
A. O. Polymer
Asbestos Dump
Sparta Township
Millington
1
2
RI/FS
RI/FS
S
PRP
09/27/85
12/13/88
1 91
1 91
2
1
91
93
-1
-8
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Bog Creek Farm
Bridgeport Rental & Oil Services
Brook Industrial Park
Burnt Fly Bog
Caldwell Trucking Co.
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines. Inc.
(once listed as Chemical Leaman
Tank Liners, Inc.)
Chemsol, Inc.
Ciba-Geigy Corp.
(once listed as Toms River Chemical)
Combe Fill North Landfill
Combe Fill South Landfill
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
CPS/Madison Industries
Curcio Scrap Metal. Inc.
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
Howell Township
Bridgeport
Bound Brook
Marlboro Township
Fairfield
Edison Township
Bridgeport
Piscataway
Toms River
Mount Olive Townshi
Mount Olive Townshi
Beverly
Old Bridge Township
Saddle Brook Townsh
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
F
F
F
S
S
F
F
F
F
F
F
F'
F
F
S
S
F
PS
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
07/29/88
04/19/88
09/29/88
04/12/89
12/07/83
09/30/88
04/21/89
09/25/90
09/28/90
03/29/85
07/15/85
03/15/90
09/28/90
09/14/89
07/05/89
09/30/88
09/28/90
04/14/88
01/15/83
04/29/88
04/29/88
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
1
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
2
2
91
92
90
91
90
91
90
91
90
90
91
91
91
92
90
91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
3
4
1
3
4
1
3
3
1
4
3
3
1
1
4
2
2
2
1
91
93
93
92
92
92
90
92
91
91
92
92
93
91
92
92
92
92
92
91
92
STATUS
-2
-1
-14
-6
-8
-6
-1
new
new
0
-6
new
-12
-2
-4
-4
new
2
-8
0
ONE
64. 2 NJ Delilah Road
Egg Harbor Township 1
RI/FS
03/30/84
90
91
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
£ »
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.-
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Co.
De Renewal Chemical Co.
Ellis Property
Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center
Florence Land Recontouring Landfill
Fort Dix (Landfill Site)
Fried Industries
Garden State Cleaners Co.
GEMS Landfill
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Helen Kramer Landfill
Hercules, Inc. (Gibbstown Plant)
Higgins Disposal
Higgins Farm
Hopkins Farm
Industrial Latex Corp.
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
Bayville
Kingwood Township
Evesham Township
Atlantic County
Florence Township
Pemberton Township
East Brunswick
Township
Minotola
Gloucester Township
Glen Ridge
Mantua Township
Gibbstown
Kingston
Franklin Township
Plumstead Township
Wallington Borough
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
S
F
S
FF
FF
S
FF
FE
F
PS
F
F
F
PS
PS
F
F
F
PS
F
FUNDING
START
06/26/87
09/26/90
09/26/84
06/01/87
06/01/87
09/29/89
11/15/86
06/28/85
09/20/88
06/05/89
09/15/89
03/30/90
09/23/88
07/02/86
07/02/86
05/17/90
07/17/89
09/29/90
02/03/87
09/20/88
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
3
3
4
2
4
4
3
2
91
91
90
90
92
90
91
91
93
92
92
90
91
91
90
91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
4
4
4
2
1
3
3
4
1
4
3
1
4
1
1
2
1
92
92
92
90
90
92
91
92
91
93
98
93
93
91
93
93
92
91
91
92
STATUS
-7
new
-4
-2
-2
-1
-5
-4
-2
0
-25
new
-4
-5
-5
new
-1
new
-3
-3
-------
00
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Jackson Township Landfill
Kauffman & Minteer, Inc.
Kin-Buc Landfill
Lipari Landfill
Lodi Municipal Well
Lone Pine Landfill
Maywood Chemical Co.
Metaltec/Aerosystems
Monitor Devices/lntercircuits, Inc.
Monroe Township Landfill
Montclair/West Orange Radium Site
Nascolite Corp.
Naval Air Engineering Center
Naval Weapons Station
NL Industries
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
Jackson Township
Jobstown
Edison Township
Pitman
Lodi
Freehold Township
Maywood/Rochelle P
Franklin Borough
Wall Township
Monroe Township
Montclair/West Orang
Millville
Lakehurst
Colts Neck
Pedricktown
x
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
PS
F
PRP
F
F
PRP*
PRP
FF
F
S
PS
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
08/21/88
04/11/89
02/14/89
09/23/88
06/19/87
10/13/89
09/21/87
07/21/90
07/03/89
06/01/86
12/01/86
09/15/89
03/30/90
07/28/88
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/27/90
04/25/86
09/29/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
3
3
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
91
91
91
91
90
91
90
91
92
91
91
91
91
91
92
92
91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
4
4
3
1
4
1
3
2
3
2
4
2
2
2
1
3
93
93
92
92
92
93
92
92
91
92
93
98
93
91
91
91
92
92
92
92
93
92
92
STATUS
ONE
-5
-5
-3
-4
-12
-5
new
-5
-3
DNE
-25
new
0
-1
-2
-3
-5
0
0
new
-4
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
RG
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
!> 102.
ve
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Pohatcong Valley
Ground Water Contamination
Radiation Technology Inc.
Renora, Inc.
Rockaway Borough Well Field
Roebling Steel Co.
Scientific Chemical Processing
Sheild Alloy Corp.
South Jersey Clothing Co.
Swope Oil & Chemical Co.
Syncon Resins
Universal Oil Products
(Chemical Division)
Upper Deerfield Township
Sanitary Landfill
U.S. Radium Corp.
Ventron/Velsicol
WR Grace & Co. Inc./Wayne Interim Storage Site
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
Warren County
Rockaway Township
Edison Township
Rockaway Township
Florence
Carlstadt
Newfield Borough
Minotola
Pennsauken
South Kearny
East Rutherford
Upper Deerfield
Township
Orange
Wood Ridge Borough
Wayne Township
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
PS
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PS
PS
F
PRP
PRP
S
PS
F
F
PS
FF
FUNDING
START
09/30/88
07/24/86
09/06/88
09/07/88
08/09/90
06/19/84
12/19/88
09/05/84
10/05/88
09/20/88
09/07/88
08/18/86
05/23/89
05/28/86
09/30/87
09/28/84
09/26/84
02/21/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
2
1
1
1
4
1
4
1
2
1
2
1
1
91
90
91
91
91
91
91
91
90
91
91
91
91
91
93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE STATUS
2
3
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
3
1
1
4
92
93
91
91
92
91
92
92
92
91
92
91
92
92
91
93
93
93
-2
DNE
-1
0
new
-2
-4
-4
-1
-2
-6
-2
-4
-5
-1
-8
0
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Waldick Aerospace Devices, Inc.
Williams Property
Wilson Farm
Witco Chemical Corp. (Oakland Plant)
Action Anodizing, Plating, & Polishing Corp.
Anchor Chemicals
Applied Environmental Services
Batavia Landfill
BioClinical Laboratories, Inc.
Brewster Well Field
C & J Disposal Leasing Co. Dump
Carrol & Dubies Sewage Disposal
Circuitron Corp.
Claremont Polychemical
Colesville Municipal Landfill
Conklin Dumps
Cortese Landfill
Endicott Village Well Field
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
Wall Township
Swainton
Plumstead Township
Oakland
Copiague
Hicksville
Glenwood Landing
Batavia
Bohemia
Putnam County
Hamilton
Port Jervis
East Farmingdale
Old Bethpage
Town of Colesville
Conklin
Vil. of Narrowsburg
Village of Endicott
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
F
F
PS
PRP
F
PRP
PS
PRP*
F
F
F
FE
PRP*
F
F
PS
PS
PRP*
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
12/31/87
09/28/90
02/03/87
08/25/89
07/17/89
06/02/89
10/13/87
08/09/84
03/31/88
09/23/87
09/26/89
09/30/88
02/08/90
09/27/88
09/25/89
04/13/87
08/15/87
09/28/90
09/21/88
09/19/88
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
4
3
1
1
4
90
90
91
91
91
90
91
90
91
91
91
91
91
90
91
91
91
91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
1
1
91
92
91
92
92
92
93
'92
91
91
92
91
92
91
91
91
91
92
91
92
STATUS
-3
new
-3
-5
-3
-2
DNE
-8
-3
-2
-4
-1
-5
0
0
-3
0
-5
0
-1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
RG
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Facet Enterprises, Inc.
FMC Corp. (Dublin Road Landfill)
Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision
General Motors (Central Foundry Division)
Genzale Plating Co.
Goldisc Recordings, Inc.
Griffiss Air Force Base
Haviland Complex
Hertel Landfill
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer Corp.
Hooker (Hyde Park)
Hooker (South Area)
Hudson River PCBs
LOCATION
Elmira
Town of Shelby
Niagara Falls
Massena
Franklin Square
Holbrook
Rome
Town of Hyde Park
Plattekill
Hicksville
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Hudson River
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
PRP
PS
F
PRP
F
PS
FF
FF "
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
05/22/86 2 91
02/09/88
03/23/90
04/16/85 3 90
03/31/88 2 91
12/20/85 4 90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
09/29/88 2 90
04/28/89 2 91
09/21/88 4 91
08/15/87 1 92
01/10/84 4 91
10/13/89
09/28/90
07/25/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
3
1
3
1
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
4
1
1
3
1
4
1
91
92
91
91
91
92
92
93
93
94
94
95
95
96
90
91
92
93
93
91
92
92
STATUS
-2
DNE
new
-2
-1
-5
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
-2
-2
-1
-4
-7
new
new
new
142. 2 NY (slip Municipal Sanitary Landfill
Islip
RI/FS
PS
11/15/87
91
1 92
-2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Johnstown City Landfill
Katonah Municipal Well
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Liberty Industrial Finishing
Love Canal
Ludlow Sand & Gravel
Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Marathon Battery Corp.
Mattiace Petrochemical Co.. Inc.
Niagara County Refuse
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
(Saratoga Springs Plant)
North Sea Municipal Landfill
Old Bethpage Landfill
Olean Well Field
Pasley Solvents & Chemicals. Inc.
Pollution Abatement Services
Preferred Plating Corp.
LOCATION
Town of Johnstown
Bedford
Horseheads
Farmingdale
Niagara Falls
Clayville
Malta
Cold Springs
Glen Cove
Wheatfield
Saratoga Springs
North Sea
Oyster Bay
Olean
Hempstead
Oswego
Farmingdale
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1
1
1
1
1
7
8
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
2
2
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PS
PRP
S
F
F
S
S
PS
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
FE
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
10/03/88
03/14/90
09/30/88
09/28/90
09/30/90
02/09/87
06/26/87
11/12/89
i
11/10/89
08/30/89
09/29/88
03/30/89
09/27/89
07/27/89
01/03/90
01/27/88
09/23/87
08/19/88
09/28/90
04/18/90
09/07/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 91
2 90
3 92
2 91
2 92
1 91
2 91
2 91
4 91
1 90
2 91
2 91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
4
1
2
3
2
1
1
4
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
4
1
1
93
92
90
92
93
92
91
93
93
91
91
92
92
92
91
91
92
91
92
92
92
STATUS
-5
new
-2
new
new
0
0
new
new
2
-2
-4
-4
-2
new
-4
-3
0
new
new
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
1 167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
PR
SITE NAME
Radium Chemical
Ramapo Landfill
Richardson Hill Road Landfll/Pond
Roblntech, Inc./National Pipe Co.
Rowe Industries
Ground Water Contamination
Rosen Brothers Scrap Yard/Dump
Seneca Army Depot
Sidney Landfill
Sinclair Refinery
SMS Instruments, Inc.
Tri-Cities Barrel Co., Inc.
Tronic Plating Co., Inc.
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1
Volney Municipal Landfill
Warwick Landfill
Wide Beach Development
Barceloneta Landfill
LOCATION UNIT
New York City 1
Ramapo 1
Sidney Center 1
Town of Vestal 1
Noyack/Sag Harbor 1
Cortland 1
Romulus 1
Sidney 1
Wellsville 1
1
2
Deer Park 2
Port Crane 1
Farmingdale 1
Vestal 1
Town of Volney 2
Warwick 1
Brant 1
Florida Afuera 1
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
F
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
PRP*
F
F
PRP*
START SCHEDULE
06/29/90
04/11/88 1 92
07/22/87 3 91
10/08/87 2 91
09/30/88 2 91
01/04/90
09/28/90
09/19/89 1 92
02/21/90
09/26/90
07/28/88 3 90
04/26/90
03/30/90
06/07/88 4 91
09/30/87 3 90
09/28/90 1 91
04/19/88 2 91
01/17/89 1 91
09/28/90 3 91
SCHEDULE
3
1
1
4
4
2
4
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
4
4
1
92
92
92
91
91
92
92
93
91
93
91
92
93
93
90
93
91
91
93
STATUS
new
0
-2
-2
-2
new
new
-4
new
new
-2
new
new
-5
-1
-8
-2
-3
-6
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
SITE NAME
Fibers Public Supply Wells
Frontera Creek
Juncos Landfill
RCA Del Caribe
Upjohn Facility
Vega Alta Public Supply Wells
Army Creek Landfill (once listed as
Deleware Sand & Gravel-Llangollen
Army Creek Landfills)
Chem-Solv, Inc.
Delaware City PVC Plant
(once listed as Stauffer Chemical Co.)
Delaware Sand & Gravel Landfill
(once listed as Delaware Sand & Gravel-Llangollen
Army Creek Landfills)
Dover Air Force Base
LOCATION
Jobos
Rio Abajo
Juncos
Barceloneta
Barceloneta
Vega Alta
New Castle County
Cheswold
Delaware City
New Castle County
Dover
UNIT
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
START
12/27/85
10/03/86
10/09/84
03/31/88
04/19/89
09/20/88
09/28/90
09/27/88
03/31/88
09/29/89
06/30/89
06/29/89
06/29/90
06/29/90
SCHEDULE
1
2
1
3
4
3
2
2
1
3
4
91
91
91
92
91
91
91
90
91
90
90
SCHEDULE
2
4
4
3
4
1
1
1
2
4
4
4
3
1
91
91
91
92
92
91
93
92
91
90
91
90
91
92
STATUS
-1
-2
-3
0
-4
2
new
-3
-4
1
-5
0
new
new
188. 3 DE Dover Gas Light Co.
189. 3 DE E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.
(Newport Pigment Plant Landfill)
190. 3 DE Halby Chemical Co.
Dover
Newport
New Castle
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
07/06/90
08/12/88
03/06/87
91
90
3
1
92
92
91
new
-3
-------
cn
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
OPER-
ABLE
RG
191. 3
192. 3
193. 3
194. 3
195. 3
196. 3
197. 3
198. 3
199. 3
200. 3
201. 3
202. 3
ST
DE
DE
DE
DE
MD
MD
MD
MD
MO
MD
MD
MD
SITE NAME
NCR Corp. (Millsboro Plant)
Sealand Limited
Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc.
Wildcat Landfill
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood Area)
,
Aberdeen Proving Grounds
(Michaelsville Landfill)
Annearundel County Landfill
Bush Valley Landfill
Kane & Lombard Street Drums
Limestone Road
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc.
Sand. Gravel & Stone
LOCATION
Millsboro
Mount Pleasant
Delaware City
Dover
Edgewood
Aberdeen
Glen Burnie
Ablngdon
Baltimore
Cumberland
Hermans
Elkton
UNIT
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS ,
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
PS
PRP
PS
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
S
F
S
PRP •
PRP
PRP
PRP
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
03/10/88 1 91
12/30/88 2 91
11/30/87 2 91
10/16/89
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
09/01/90
06/15/90
09/29/88 3 90
12/28/88 3 91
02/28/90
07/11/86 2 90
03/19/90
01/16/86 4 89
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
2
3
4
4
2
4
4
1
1
4
2
2
3
3
2
4
3
3
3
2
3
1
4
2
4
91
92
93
92
90
92
93
90
90
94
93
92
92
92
93
93
92
93
92
92
92
92
92
93
90
91
90
STATUS
-1
-3
-8
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
-7
-4
new
-2
new
-4
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
MD
MD
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME
Southern Maryland Wood Treating
Woodlawn County Landfill
AIW Frank/Mid-County Mustang
Aladdin Plating, Inc.
AMP. Inc. (Glen Rock Facility)
Avco Lycoming (Williamsport Division)
Berkley Products Co. Dump
Berks Sand Pit
Blosenski Landfill
Boarhead Farms
Bruin Lagoon
Butler Mine Tunnel
Butz Landfill
C & D Recycling
Centre County Kepone
Commodore Semiconductor Group
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
Hollywood 1
Woodlawn 1
Exton 1
Scott Township 1
2
Glen Rock 1
Williamsport 1
Denver 1
Longswamp Townshi 1
West Cain Township 1
Bridgeton Township 1
Bruin Borough 2
Pittston 1
Stroudsburg 1 •
2
Foster Township 1
State College Boro 1
Lower Providence 1
Township
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
EP
F
F
F
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PHP
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
06/30/89 3 90
12/28/88 1 92
09/18/90
09/29/88 3 90
05/16/90
03/01/89 4 92
06/27/88 2 91
03/12/90
09/28/90
03/24/87 4 89
12/05/89
06/28/88 2 91
03/30/87 4 91
12/22/88 2 91
03/25/90
08/31/87 2 90
11/07/88 2 91
07/29/88 3 91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
4
4
1
4
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
90
92
92
91
91
92
91
92
91
91
92
91
92
92
90
91
92
91
STATUS
-1
-2
new
-4
new
0
0
new
new
-5
new
-2
-1
-3
new
-3
-3
-1
219. 3 PA CroydonTCE
Croydon
RA
09/11/89
91
91
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Rscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
RG
220.
221.
222.
223.
224.
225.
226.
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
235.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME
CryoChem, Inc.
Delta Quarries & Disposal, Inc./
Stotler Landfill
Dorney Road Landfill
Douglassville Disposal
Eastern Diversified Metals
Elizabethtown Landfill
Havertown PCP
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard
Heleva Landfill
Hellertown Manufacturing Co.
Hunterstown Road
Industrial Lane
Jack's Creek/Sitkin Smelting and Refining Inc.
Keystone Sanitation Landfill
Lackawanna Refuse
Lansdowne Radiation Site
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
Worman
Antis/Logan
Townships
Upper Macungie
Township
Douglassville
Hometown
Elizabethtown
Haverford
Weisenberg Township
North Whitehall
Hellertown
Straban Township
Williams Township
Maitland
Union Township
Old Forge Borough
Lansdowne
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
PRP
PRP
S
F
PRP
PRP
F
F .
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
03/06/87
10/09/87 2 91
08/17/88 4 90
06/08/89 1 91
10/19/87 3 90
09/28/90
08/03/90
01/16/90
02/15/89 4 90
03/28/88 3 90
02/22/88 2 91
03/10/87 3 91
03/06/87 4 90
08/28/90
06/30/87 4 90
06/02/87 1 91
03/26/87 1 90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
4
4
1
3
3
4
4
3
2
1
1
3
4
4
4
92
91
91
91
91
92
91
91
91
91
91
92
91
93
90
91
90
STATUS
DNE
0
-4
-3
-2
new
new
new
-4
-4
0
-2
-1
new
0
-3
-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
236.
237.
238.
239.
H* 240.
00
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249.
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME
Letterkenny Army Depot (Property Disposal
Office Area)
Letterkenny Army Depot (Southeast Area)
Lindane Dump
Malvern TCE
McAdoo Associates
Mill Creek Dump
Modern Sanitation Landfill
Moyers Landfill
MW Manufacturing
(once listed as Domino Salvage Yard)
Naval Air Development Center
(8 waste centers)
North Penn-Area 1 (once listed as
Gentle Cleaners, Inc./Granite Knitting Mills, Inc.)
North Penn-Area 2 (once listed as
Ametek. Inc. {Hunter Spring Division})
North Penn-Area 5 (once listed as
American Electronics Laboratories)
North Penn-Area 6 (once listed as
LOCATION UNIT
Franklin County
Chambersburg
Lindane
Malvern
McAdoo Borough •
Erie
Lower Windsor Towns
Eagleville
Valley Township
Warminster Township
Souderton
Hatfield
Montgomery Township
Lansdale
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
Rt/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
PRP
F
F
PS
F
F
F
FF
F
F
F
F
START
02/03/89
02/03/89
02/03/89
02/03/89
09/29/87
12/16/88
07/27/90
06/30/89
11/04/87
09/29/88
03/06/87
01/10/90
09/20/90
06/30/88
06/30/88
06/30/88
06/30/88
SCHEDULE
1
3
4
4
4
4
2
4
2
1
3
4
.4
90
91
90
91
91
90
91
91
90
92
91
92
92
SCHEDULE
4
3
4
4
1
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
4
3
3
4
4
90
91
90
91
92
91
91
92
91
92
91
91
91
92
92
92
92
STATUS
-3
0
0
0
DNE
0
new
-6
0
-3
-4
new
new
-2
-4
0
0
J.W. Rex CoVAIIied Paint Manufacturing
Co., Inc./Keystone Hydraulics)
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
RG
250.
251.
252.
253.
254.
255.
256.
257.
258.
259.
260.
261.
262.
263.
264.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME
North Perm-Area 7 (once listed as
Spra-Fin, Inc.)
North Perm-Area 12
Novak Sanitary Landfill
Occidental Chemical Corp ./Firestone Co,
Old City of York Landfill
Osborne Landfill
Palmerton Zinc Pile
Paoli Rail Yard
Publicker Industries Inc.
Raymark
Recticon/Allied Steel Corp.
Resin Disposal
Revere Chemical Co.
River Road Landfill (Waste Management, Inc.)
Route 940 Drum Dump (once listed
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
North Wales 1
1
South Whitehall Twp 1
Lower Pott sg rove Twp. 1
Seven Valleys 1
Grove City 1
Palmerton 1
3
4
Paoli 1
Philadelphia 1
2
Hatboro 1
3
East Coventry Twp. 1
Jefferson Borough 1
Nockamixon Township 1
Hermitage 1
Pocono Summit 1
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FE
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
EP
FUNDING
START
06/30/88
06/26/89
12/30/88
12/28/89
10/21/87
09/29/87
07/31/88
09/24/85
08/12/88
05/27/87
09/26/89
09/21/89
12/29/88
04/06/90
03/29/90
10/26/87
12/16/88
05/05/90
04/21/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
2
4
2
4
4
3
4
4
2
4
2
2
92
92
91
90
90
90
90
91
91
90
91
90
91
91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
4
2
4
4
1
1
1
1
4
3
2
4
1
2
2
1
1
92
92
91
92
91 -
90
95
92
93
92
90
91
91
90
92
91
91
92
92
STATUS
0
0
-2
new
-4
-2
-17
-5
-6
-1
0
-1
-2
new
new
0
0
new
new
as Pocono Summit)
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
265.
266.
267.
268.
269.
270.
271.
272.
273.
274.
275.
276.
277.
278.
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME
Saegerton Industrial Area
Salford Quarry
Shriver's Corner
Stanley Kessler
Strasburg Landfill
Tonolli Corp.
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Tysons Dump
Walsh Landfill
Westinghouse Elevator Co. Plant
Westinghouse Elevator Co. (Sharon Plant)
Whitmoyer Laboratories
William Dick Lagoons
York County Solid Waste and Refuse
Authority Landfill
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
Saegertown
Salford Township
Straban Township
King of Prussia
Newlin Township
Nesquehoning
Toby Hanna
Upper Merion
Township
Honeybrook Township
Gettysburg
Sharon
Jackson Township
West Cain Township
Hopewell Township
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
SilES
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
F
PRP
PS
F
F
F
PRP
PS
He
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
01/31/90
03/22/88 4 90
03/10/87 4 90
09/06/89 3 91
02/15/89 2 91
02/12/90
09/19/89 3 91
09/27/90
06/03/88 4 90
10/01/88 3 91
09/11/89 1 91
09/28/90
05/01/90
03/10/87 4 90
09/20/88 1 92
11/01/87 3 90
01/01/90
01/01/90
09/14/88 3 91
11/30/87
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
2
3
2
4
1
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
1
92
92
92
91
91
90
92
91
92
91
91
92
92
92
92
90
90
90
90
92
STATUS
new
-6
-6
0
0
new
-2
new
-5
0
-1
new
new
-1
0
-1
new
new
3
DNE
279. ~~3VA"Abex Corporation
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
RG
280.
281.
282.
283.
284.
28S.
286.
287.
288.
289.
290.
291.
292.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
SITE NAME
Arrowhead Associates/Scovill Corp.
Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc.
Chisman Creek
Culpeper Wood Preservers, Inc.
Defense General Supply Center
Dixie Caverns County Landfill
First Piedmont Corp. Rock Quarry
(Route 719) (once listed as First Piedmont
Corp. Rock Quarry)
Greenwood Chemical Co.
H & H Inc., Bum Pit
L.A. Clarke & Son
Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Wood
Preserving Divison)
Rinehart Tire Fire Dump
Sattville Waste Disposal Ponds
LOCATION
Montross
Portsmouth
York County
Culpeper
Chesterfield County
Salem
Pittsylvania County
Newtown
Farrington
Spotsylvania
Richmond
Frederick County
Saltville
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
PS
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
07/14/89
07/23/87
01/25/89
09/28/90
08/15/87
09/21/90
09/21/90
08/29/89
12/31/87
11/22/88
06/30/88
09/08/89
08/07/90
09/06/89
12/31/87
09/29/89
09/28/88
09/29/89
09/15/88
09/15/88
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
1
2
3
4
1
4
3
1
3
4
1
3
1
91
91
90
90
91
90
91
90
96
91
91
90
91
91
93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE STATUS
4
2
4
1
4
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
3
1
1
4
3
3
1
1
91
91
90
92
90
91
92
92
90
91
91
90
92
92
92
90
91
91
92
93
-2
-1
-3
new
-2
new
new
-2
0
0
-1
23
new
-4
-2
0
-2
new
-2
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
293.
294.
295.
•>. 296'
& 297.
298.
299.
300.
301.
302.
303.
304.
305.
306.
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
VA
VA
WV
WV
WV
WV
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
FL
SITE NAME
Saunders Supply Co.
Suffolk City Landfill
Fike Chemical
Follansbee Site
Leetown Pesticide
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO)
Olin Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland)
Stautfer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Plant)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (LeMoyne Plant)
Agrico Chemical Co.
LOCATION
Chuckatuck
Suffolk
Nitro
Follansbee
Leetown
Morgantown
Childersburg
Mclntosh
Leeds
Mclntosh
Saraland
Bucks
Axis
Pensacola
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
PS
F
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
»RP
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
08/05/87 4 90
06/30/89 2 92
01/11/89 1 90
05/17/89 3 90
04/12/90
09/27/90
06/03/88 2 91
06/04/90
02/28/86 2 90
03/15/90
06/12/90
09/28/89 3 94
01/02/87 2 90
01/02/87
05/30/86 4 90
09/18/89 2 92
05/08/90
07/02/90
09/27/89 1 93
02/28/90
09/27/89 1 93
02/28/90
09/29/89 3 91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
2
4
4
2
4
2
2
4
4
3
2
4
3
3
1
1
1
4
1
4
1
91
92
91
90
91
92
91
92
90
90
91
93
91
91
91
91
93
93
97
94
97
94
92
STATUS
-1
0
-5
-1
new
new
-2
new
0
new
new
4
-4
ONE
-3
3
new
new
-16
new
-16
new
—2
-------
fe
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF.REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
307.
308.
309.
310.
311.
312.
313.
314.
315.
316.
317.
318.
319.
320.
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
SITE NAME
American Creosote Works, Inc.
(Pensacola Plant)(once listed as
American Creosote Works)
Anodyne, Inc.
B&B Chemical Co., Inc.
Cabot/Koppers
Cecil Field Naval Air Station
Chemform, Inc.-
Florida Steel Corp.
Gold Coast Oil Corp.
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant) (once listed as
Harris Corp./General Development Utilities)
Hipps Road Landfill
Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal
Jacksonville Naval Air Station
Madison County Sanitary Landfill
Miami Drum Services
LOCATION
Pensacola
North Miami Beach
Hialeah
Gainesville
Jacksonville
Pompano Beach
Indiantown
Miami
Palm Bay
Duval County
Fort Lauderdale
Jacksonville
Madison
Miami
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS-
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
F
EP
PRP
F
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
PS
PS
PRP
F
FF
PRP
F
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
09/10/90
11/28/89
03/26/90
09/13/89 3 91
11/17/87 2 90
12/30/89
12/12/89
10/19/89
09/30/88
02/06/89 4 91
01/28/90
06/28/90
02/07/89
05/22/89 1 91
12/10/87 2 91
12/30/89
06/11/90
09/30/88 4 90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
4
3
4
2
1
3
4
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
3
91
91
92
92
90
90
93
92
91
92
92
92
89
91
92
90
92
92
STATUS
new
new
new
-4
-2
new
new
new
ONE
-1
new
new
DNE
0
-3
new
new
-7
321. 4 FL
(once listed as part of Biscayne Aquifer)
Northwest 58th Street Landfill (once
listed as part of Biscayne Aquifer)
Hialeah
RA
PRP 03/22/90
93
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
322.
323.
324.
325.
£ 326.
327.
328.
329.
330.
331.
332.
333.
334.
335.
336.
337.
RG
4
4
4
4
4'
4-
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
SITE NAME
Peak Oil Co./Bay Drum Co.
Pensacola Naval Air Station
Pepper Steel & Alloys, Inc.
Petroleum Products Corp.
Pioneer Sand Co.
Reeves Southeast Galvanizing Corp.
Sapp Battery Salvage
Schuylkill Metal Corp.
Sherwood Medical Industries
Standard Auto Bumper Corp.
Sydney Mine Sludge Ponds
Tower Chemical Co.
Wilson Concepts of Florida, Inc.
Woodbury Chemical Co. (Princeton Plant)
Cedartown Industries, Inc.
Cedartown Municipal Landfill
LOCATION
Tampa
Pensacola
Medley
Pembroke Park
Warrington
Tampa
Cottondale
Plant City
Deland
Hialeah
Brandon
Clermont
Pompano Beach
Princeton
Cedartown
Cedartown
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
FF
PRP
S
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
EP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
EP
PRP
PRP
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
03/01/88 3 91
12/30/89
03/26/87 1 90
04/01/86 3 90
09/15/89
09/15/89
03/23/90
05/17/90
02/18/88 3 91
09/30/90
04/30/89
04/30/87 3 91
11/15/88 4 90
02/28/90
06/01/89 1 92
09/27/90
10/19/89
06/0530
03/08/90
03/30/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
2
4
4
4
3
4
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
4
3
2
4
4
92
90
91
90
90
92
92
91
92
93
90
92
92
92
92
94
92
92
92
92
STATUS
-2
new
-5
-1
DNE
DNE
new
new
-2
new
DNE
-2
-5
new
0
new
new
new
new
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
RG
I
(A
338.
339.
340.
341.
342.
343.
344.
345.
346.
347.
348.
349.
350.
351.
352.
353.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
SITE NAME
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
Hercules 009 Landfill
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Marzone Inc./Chevron Chemical Co.
Mathis Brothers Landfill
(South Marble Top Road)
Monsanto Corp. (Augusta Plant)
Robins Air Force Base (Landfill #41
Sludge Lagoon) (once listed as Robins
Air Force Base)
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc.
Brantley Landfill
Caldwell Lace Leather Co., Inc.
Distler Brickyard
Distler Farm
Fort Hartford Coal Co. Stone Qurry
General Tire & Rubber Co. (Mayfield Landfill)
Green River Disposal. Inc.
LOCATION
.Albany
Brunswick
Albany
Tifton
Kensington
Augusta
Houston County
Albany
Fort Valley
Calvert City
Auburn
West Point
Jefferson County
Olaton
Mayfield
Macco
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
2 RI/FS
3 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RA
1 RA
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
07/09/90
07/15/88 1 91
03/30/90
09/28/90
11/02/88 3 91
04/27/89 2 91
02/14/89 3 90
10/30/89 3 91
09/28/90
07/06/90
04/24/90
01/10/90
03/29/90
09/28/88 2 90
09/28/88 1 90
09/20/89 4 91
12/20/89
05/22/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
2
2
4
2
2
3
1
4
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
1
93
91
90
93
91
91
89
91
92
94
93
92
92
91
91
92
91
93
STATUS
new
-3
new
new
-1
0
5
0
new
new
new
new
new
-4
-5
-1
new
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
OPER-
ABLE
354.
355.
356.
357.
358.
359.
360.
361.
362.
363.
364.
365.
366.
367.
368.
369.
370.
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
KY
KY
KY
KY
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SITE NAME
Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal
Red Penn Sanition Co. Landfill
Smith's Farm
Tri-City Disposal Co.
ABC One Hour Cleaners
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
Benfield Industries, Inc.
Bypass 601 Ground Water Contamination
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation (once
listed as Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base)
Carolina Transformer Co.
Celanese Corp. (Shelby Fiber Operations)
Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum Storage
Chemtronics, Inc.
FCX, Inc. (Washington Plant)
Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen Plant)
JFD Electronics/Channel Master
KoppersCo., Inc (Morrisville Rant)
LOCATION
Hillsboro
Peewee Valley
Brooks
Shepherdsville
Jacksonville
Aberdeen
Hazelwood
Concord
Onslow County
Fayetteville
Shelby
Cordova
Swannanoa
Washington
Aberdeen
Oxford
Morrisville
UNIT
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
F
F
FF
EP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
03/24/87 1 90
08/18/89 3 91
07/17/89 1 92
02/07/89 2 91
09/25/89 1 92
06/30/87 1 91
03/14/90
06/20/90
09/18/90
06/28/90
04/07/88 1 91
10/24/88 4 91
09/24/90
04/13/88 1 91
03/30/90
08/08/90
12/16/88 3 91
09/25/89 1 92
03/14/89 1 92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
1
3
1
2
2
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
2
1
1
1
91
92
92
91
92
91
92
92
92
93
92
99
95
91
99
92
92
92
92
STATUS
-6
-2
0
-1
0
-1
new
new
new
new
-4
-32
new
-3
new
new
-2
0
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Rscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
OPER-
ABLE
RG
371.
372.
373.
374.
375.
376.
377.
378.
379.
380.
381.
382.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SITE NAME
Martin-Marietta, Sodyeco, Inc.
National Starch & Chemical Corp.
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
North Carolina State University
(Lot 86, Farm Unit #1)
Potter's Septic Tank Service Pits
Elmore Waste Disposal
Golden Strip Septic Tank Service
Helena Chemical Co. Landfill
Kalama Specialty Chemicals
Koppers Co., Inc (Florence Plant)
Medley Farm Drum Dump
Palmetto Wood Preserving
LOCATION
Charlotte
Salisbury
Wilmington
Raleigh
Maco
Greer
Simpsonville
Fairfax
Beaufort
Florence
Gaffney
Dixiana
UNIT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
PRP
PRP
F
FE
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
09/25/89
08/30/90
03/16/90
04/18/87
09/16/88
09/25/89
06/30/88
03/31/89
01/13/88
02/29/88
01/29/88
09/08/89
09/25/89
03/23/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
2
99
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
90
90
90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
1
1
3
4
2
3
3
3
2
4
4
1
99
99
92
93
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
90
93
92
STATUS
0
new
new
-7
0
0
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
0
-14
new
383. 4 SC Sangamo Weston. Inc./Twelve-Mile Creek/
Lake Hartwell PCB Contamination
384. 4 SC Savannah River Site (USDOE)
Dixiana
Pickens
Aiken
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
F
F
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
09/08/89 4 90
09/25/89 2 90
03/23/90
06/18/87 3 90
09/24/90
09/25/89 4 91
1 1/06/89
11/06/89
12/29/89
02/28/90
02/28/90
07/06/90
08/06/90
08/06/90
4
4
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
4
4
1
2
2
90
93
92
91
92
90
93
93
93
93
93
94
93
93
0
-14
new
-2
new
4
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
00
RG
385. 4
386. 4
387. 4
388. 4
389. 4
390. 4
391. 4
392. 4
393. 4
ST SITE NAME LOCATION
SC SCRDI Dixiana Cayce
TN American Creosote Works. Inc. (Jackson Plant) Jackson
(once listed as American Creosote Works)
TN Arlington Blending & Packaging Arlington
TN Carrier Air Conditioning Co. Collierville
TN Mallory Capacitor Co. Waynesboro
TN Milan Army Ammunition Plant Milan
TN Murray-Ohio Dump Lawrenceburg
TN Murray-Ohio Manufacturing Co. (Horseshoe Lawrenceburg
Bend Dump)
TN Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) Oak Ridge
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
F
F
EP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
09/29/89 4 92
06/12/89 1 92
12/29/89
04/14/88 3 90
09/29/89 1 92
02/18/88 2 91
10/30/89 3 91
10/01/89
10/30/89
10/30/89
10/30/89
10/30/89
10/30/89
10/30/89
10/30/89
10/30/89
10/30/89
10/30/89
03/06/90
03/30/90
12/29/89
12/29/89
12/29/89
03/31/90
03/31/90
03/31/90
06/05/90
06/05/90
06/05/90
06/05/90
01/03/90
01/03/90
06/09/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
4
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
3
1
94
92
91
91
92
91
92
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
92
92
91
91
91
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
94
STATUS
-8
0
new
-2
0
-2
-3
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
RG
394.
395.
396.
397.
398.
399.
400.
401.
402.
403.
404.
405.
406.
407.
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
ST
TN
TN
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
SITE NAME
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Hardeman County)
Wrigley Charcoal Plant
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc.
Adams County Quincy Landfills 2 & 3
Beloit Corp.
Belvidere Municipal Landfill
Byron Salvage Yard
Central Illinois Public Service Co.
DuPage County Landfill/
Blackwell Forest Preserve
H.O.D. Landfill
llada Energy Co.
Interstate Pollution Control, Inc.
Johns-Manville Corp.
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
LOCATION
-
Toone
Wrigley
Morristown
Quincy
Rockton
Belvidere
Byron
Taylorville
Warren ville
Antioch
East Cape Girardeau
Rockford
Waukegan
Joliet
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
16
17
18
19
21
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS -
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP
F
PS
PRP
EP
PS
PRP
EP
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
FF
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
09/14/90
09/18/90
09/18/90
05/22/90
07/16/90
02/17/89 2 91
02/15/89 2 91
09/26/86 4 90
09/12/90
09/27/90
03/28/90
12/29/89
09/12/90
09/29/89 4 92
08/20/90
06/19/89 2 92
09/27/90
10/21/88 2 91
08/08/90
06/09/89 1 93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
1
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
2
3
2
2
4
94
94
94
93
93
91
91
91
93
93
92
92
92
92
92
92
93
91
91
93
STATUS
new
new
new
new
new
-1
-2
-1
new
new
new
new
new
0
new
0
new
0
new
-3
(Load-Assembly-Packing Area)
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
OPER-
408.
409.
410.
> 411'
w
° 412.
413.
414.
415.
416.
417.
418.
419.
420.
421.
422.
423.
RG
S
S
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
S
S
S
S
S
5
ST
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
SITE NAME
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
(Manufacturing Area)
Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek/West Branch of
DuPage River)
Kerr-McGee (Reed-Keppler Park)
Kerr-McGee (Residential Areas)
Kerr-McGee (Sewage Treat Plant)
V
• LaSalle Electric Utilities
Lenz Oil Service. Inc.-
Outboard Marine Corp.
Pagel's Pit
Parsons Casket Hardware Co.
Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination
Tri-County Landfill Co./Waste Management
of Illinois, Inc.
Woodstock Municipal Landfill
Yeoman Creek Landfill
American Chemical Service, Inc.
Columbus Old Municipal Landfill #1
LOCATION
Joliet
DuPage County
West Chicago
West Chicago/
DuPage County
West Chicago
LaSalle
Lemont
Waukegan
Rockford
Belvidere
Rockford
South Elgin
Woodstock
Waukegan
Griffith
Columbus
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
*' ^i ---^
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FE
FE
FE
FE
S
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
S
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
06/09/89
11/18/83
11/18/83
11/18/83
11/18/83
07/27/87
04/11/89
09/29/89
09/27/90
08/27/86
09/29/88
06/30/89
04/22/88
09/29/89
12/22/89
06/29/88
09/15/87
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
93
91 -
91
91
91
90
93
92
90
91
92
91
92
92
91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
4
3
1
2
3
1
3
3
1
93
92
92
92
92
90
93
92
92
91
92
92
92
93
92
92
92
STATUS
0
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
0
0
new
-4
-3
0
-4
-3
new
0
-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
424.
425.
426.
427.
428.
429.
430.
431.
432.
433.
434.
435.
436.
437.
438.
439.
440.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
SITE NAME
Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart)
Continental Steel Corp.
Douglas Road/Uniroyal, Inc., Landfill .
Fort Wayne Reduction Dump
Galen Meyer's Dump/Drum Salvage
Himco, Inc., Dump
Lake Sandy Jo (M&M Landfill)
(once listed as Lake Sandy Jo)
Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc.
Main Street Well Field
Marion (Bragg) Dump
Neal's Landfill (Bloomington)
Prestolite Battery Division
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
(Indianapolis Plant)
Seymour Recycling Corp.
Southslde Sanitary Landfill
Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
Waste, Inc. Landfill
LOCATION
Elkhart
Kokomo
Mishawaka
Fort Wayne
Osceola
Elkhart
Gary
Claypool
Elkhart
Marion
Bloomington
Vincennes
Indianapolis
Seymour
Indianapolis
Lafayette
Michigan City
UNIT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
S
PS
PRP
S
F
F
F
PRP
F
MR
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
START
09/29/88
05/25/90
08/24/89
09/20/90
03/31/89
09/21/89
09/28/87
08/29/88
03/30/89
09/29/86
08/07/89
07/07/88
12/23/88
03/31/87
08/17/87
09/08/89
09/29/89
03/08/90
03/31/87
SCHEDULE
3
3
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
91
91
91
92
91
90
91
90
91
89
91
91
94
95
92
92
SCHEDULE
3
4
1
4
3
3
1
4
2
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
4
4
2
91
92
93
93
92
92
92
90
93
91
92
89
92
92
94
95
92
92
92
STATUS
0
new
-6
new
-3
0
-3
-3
-6
-3
-6
0
-4
-3
0
0
-2
new
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
441.
442.
443.
444.
445.
446.
447.
448.
449.
450.
451.
452.
453.
454.
455.
456.
457
RG
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
fi
ST
IN
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
SITE NAME
Whiteford Sales & Service/Nationalease
Adam's Plating
American Anodco, Inc.
Auto Iron Chemicals, Inc.
Bendix Corp ./Allied Automotive
Berlin & Farro
Butterworth #2 Landfill
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Carter Industrials, Inc.
Cemetery Dump Site
Chem Central
Duell & Gardner Landfill
Electrovoice
Folkertsma Refuse
Forest Waste Products
G&H Landfill
Grand Traverse Overall Supply Co.
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
South Bend
Lansing
Ionia
Kalamazoo
St. Joseph
Swartz Creek
Grand Rapids
Sault Sainte Marie
Detroit
Rose Center
Wyoming Township
Dalton Township
Buchanan
Grand Rapids
Otisville
Utica
Greilickville
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
EP
S
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
FE
PRP
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
09/29/89
09/28/88
10/23/87
06/01/90
02/13/89
02/27/86
04/22/87
09/27/88
05/31/89
06/19/87
06/30/87
06/30/87
04/08/87
10/08/87
05/16/88
06/28/88
09/29/89
07/27/83
04/09/87
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
2
4
4
3
2
2
2
4
3
92
92
90
92
90
90
91
90
90
90
91
90
90
90
90
91
3
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
4
3
1
1
3
4
1
1
1
92
92
92
92
92
91
92
92
91
90
91
91
92
92
91
90
92
91
92
STATUS
-2
0
-9
new
0
-4
-6
-4
DNE
0
-4
DNE
-5
-2
-5
-2
-7
-1
-2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1980
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
RG
458.
459.
460.
461.
462.
463.
464.
465.
466.
467.
468.
469.
470.
471.
472.
473.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
SITE NAME
Hi-Mill Manufacturing Co.
H. Brown Co., Inc.
J & L Landfill
Kentwood Landfill
Mason County Landfill
Metal Working Shop
Metamora Landfill
Michigan Disposal Service (Cork Street
Landfill)
Motor Wheel, Inc.
North Bronson Industrial Area
Northernaire Plating
Organic Chemicals, Inc.
Ossineke Ground Water Contamination
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.
Packaging Corp. of America
Parsons Chemical Works, Inc.
LOCATION
Highland
Grand Rapids
Rochester Hills
Kentwood
Pere Marquette
Township
Lake Ann
Metamora
Kalamazoo
Lansing
Bronson
Cadillac
Grandville
Ossineke
Dalton Township
Filer City
Grand Ledge
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1 -
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
S
S
PRP
PRP
S
S
F
F
F
F
PRP
S
FUNDING
START
09/23/88
09/12/88
04/24/89
12/13/85
06/29/90
09/28/88
09/30/88
02/17/88
09/29/89
12/03/87
08/07/87
06/24/87
06/23/87
04/22/88
04/22/88
09/21/87
12/14/88
05/02/85
09/29/89
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
2
3
2
2
4
1
1
2
3
2
4
1
4
91
91
91
90
92
91
92
91
91
92
90
91
90
91
91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
4
1
3
2
2
3
1
1
3
4
2
1
92
92
92
91
92
92
94
92
92
91
91
92
91
92
93
91
90
92
93
STATUS
-3
-2
-3
-3
new
0
-12
0
DNE
-2
-1
0
-4
-3
DNE
-3
DNE
-5
-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Supertund: Fiscal Year 1990
•APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
OPER-
474.
475.
476.
477.
478.
479.
480.
481.
482.
483.
484.
485.
486.
487.
488.
489
RG
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
ST
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
MN
MN
SITE NAME
Peerless Plating Co.
Petoskey Municipal Well Field
Rasmussen's Dump
Rockwell International Corp.
(Allegan Plant)
Roto-Finish Co., Inc.
Shiawassee River
South Macomb Disposal Authority
(Landfills #9 and #9a)
Spiegelberg Landfill
Sturgis Municipal Wells
Tar Lake
Thermo-Chem, Inc.
Torch Lake
Verona Well Field
Wash King Laundry
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
Burlinaton Northern (Brainerd/
LOCATION
Muskegon
Petoskey
Green Oak Township
Allegan
Kalamazoo
Howell
Macomb Township
Green Oak Township
Sturgis
Mancelona Township
Muskegon
Houghton County
Battle Creek
Pleasant Plains Twp
Hermantown
Brainerd/Baxter
ABLE
UNIT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
F
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
S
FE
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
S
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
07/16/89
06/08/87
05/30/84
06/07/88
12/18/87
06/19/87
09/24/87
05/30/89
06/24/87
01/29/86
09/21/87
09/28/88
09/29/86
05/30/85
09/10/87
03/26/90
03/31/87
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
3
4
1
4
1
4
3
1
1
92
91
90
91
91
91
91
90
90
91
91
92
91
90
91
92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
1
1
2
1
4
3
3
1
1
1
4
2
2
1
92
91
91
92
92
92
91
90
91
92
92
92
91
91
92
94
STATUS
-2
1
-4
-3
-5
-3
-2
0
-3
-4
-1
0
0
-3
-5
new
-8
Baxter Plant)
490, 5 MN Dakhue Sanitary Landfill
RI/FS
03/29/90
2 92
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
RG
491.
492.
493.
494.
495.
496.
> 497.
ii
cn
498.
499.
500.
501.
502.
503.
504.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
SITE NAME
Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Co.
Koppers Coke
Kummer Sanitary Landfill
Kurt Manufacturing Co.
LaGrand Sanitary Landfill
Lehillier/Mankato Site
MacGillis & Gibbs Co./Bell Lumber & Pole Co.
New Brighton/ Arden Hills
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill
Olmstead County Sanitary Landfill
Perham Arsenic
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
(St. Louis Park Plant)
Ritari Post & Pole
South Andover Site
LOCATION
Brooklyn Center
StPaul
Bemidji
Fridley
LaGrand Township
Lehillier/Mankato
New Brighton
New Brighton
Oak Grove Towsnship
Oronco
Perham
St. Louis Park
Sebeka
Andover
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
Rl
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PS
PRP
S
S
S
PS
S
S
S
F
S
S
F
FF
FF
S
PS
S
PRP
PRP
S
F
FUNDING
START
12/31/88
06/29/87
07/11/85
03/26/90
06/30/89
12/15/86
06/30/87
03/31/88
09/29/87
09/28/90
09/30/88
06/17/83
09/30/87
08/12/87
06/21/89
06/13/85
12/20/89
09/22/89
09/30/87
09/04/86
06/30/87
09/22/89
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE STATUS
3
4
*
4
4
1
1
4
1
1
2
3
*
4
1
2
1
90
90
*
91
91
90
90
90
90
91
90
90
*
99
91
91
91
2
1
3
1
4
4
2
4
2
4
1
2
2
1
4
1
3
1
4
3
1
4
91
92
90
92
90
99
92
99
91
91
91
92
90
91
90
91
92
93
99
91
92
91
DNE
ONE
0
new
0
*
-2
-32
-5
new
-4
-6
-1
0
-2
-2
new
*
0
-2
-3
-3
(once listed as Andover's Sites)
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
505.
506.
507.
508.
W 509.
ON
510.
511.
512.
513.
514.
515.
516.
517.
K1fl
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
K
ST
MN
MM
MN
MN
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
r>n
SITE NAME
St. Louis River Site
University of Minnesota (Rosemount
Research Center)
Waite Park Wells
Washington County Landfill
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke
Alsco Anaconda
Buckeye Reclamation
Feed Materials Production Center (USDOE)
Fields Brook
Fultz Landfill
Industrial Excess Landfill
Laskin/Poplar Oil Co.
(once listed as Poplar Oil Co.)
Mound Plant (USDOE)
Naase Chemical
LOCATION
St. Louis County
Rosemount
Waite Park
Lake Elmo
Ironton
Gnadenhutten
St. Clairsville
Fernald
"
Ashtabula
Jackson Township
Uniontown
Jefferson Township
Miamisburg
Salem
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
2
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
PS
S
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
PREVIOUS
PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
09/30/85
12/12/85
09/20/89
09/20/89
10/24/84 4 99
04/12/84 3 90
08/15/89
10/31/85 2 90
04/09/90
04/09/90
04/09/90
04/09/90
04/09/90
03/22/89 4 91
09/26/89 3 91
09/24/84 1 91
09/14/89 4 90
08/17/89 4 90
07/30/90
08/06/90
01/27/88 2 91
4
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
1
4
2
4
1
4
3
3
95
92
91
92
99
91
92
91
92
90
90
90
90
93
99
91
90
91
92
92
92
STATUS
DNE
DNE
DNE
DNE
0
-2
DNE
-3
new
new
new
new
new
-5
-33
-1
0
-1
new
new
-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
519.
520.
521.
522.
523.
524.
525.
£ 526.
527.
528.
529.
530.
531.
532.
533.
534.
535.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
ST
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
SITE NAME
New Lyme Landfill
Ormet Corp.
Powell Road Landfill
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Dover Plant)
Sanitary Landfill Co. (Industrial
Waste Disposal Co.. Inc.)
Skinner Landfill
South Point Plant
Van Dale Junkyard
Zanesville Well Field
Better Brite Plating Co.
Chrome and Zinc Shops
City Disposal Corp. Landfill
Delavan Municipal Well #4
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field
Fadrowski Drum Disposal
Hagen Farm
Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill
Janesville Ash Beds
LOCATION
New Lyme
Hannibal
Dayton
Dover
Dayton
West Chester
South Point
Marietta
Zanesville
DePere
Dunn
Delavan
Eau Claire
Franklin
Stoughton
Williamstown
Janesville
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1 RA
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RA
1 RI/FS
2 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F*
PRP
S
PRP
PS
S
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
START
04/11/88
03/27/87
11/12/87
03/29/89
12/16/87
12/20/88
03/31/87
08/18/90
08/03/88
09/28/90
05/22/87
09/28/90
09/11/89
05/11/87
07/27/87
09/28/90
09/30/86
SCHEDULE
4
4
3
1
1
3
1
1
4
4
1
1
3
1
90
90
90
91
91
90
91
91
90
91
90
91
91
90
SCHEDULE
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
1
4
2
3
4
3
3
1
2
1
91
92
91
92
92
91
91
92
90
93
92
92
90
91
92
93
90
STATUS
-1
-5
-3
-4
-4
-4
-2
-4
0
new
-3
new
-2
-2
-2
new
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
I
oo
536.
537.
538.
539.
540.
541.
542.
543.
544.
545.
546.
547.
548.
549.
550.
551.
552.
HG
5
S
5
5
5
S
5
S
S
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
5T
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
AR
SITE NAME
Kohler Co. Landfill
Lauer 1 Sanitary Landfill
Lemberger Landfill, Inc. (once
listed as Lemberger Fly Ash Landfill)
Lemberger Transport & Recycling
Master Disposal Service Landfill
Moss-American (Kerr-McGee Oil Co.)
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
National Presto Industries, Inc.
N.W. Mauth Co.. Inc.
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co., Inc.
Onalaska Municpal Landfill
Schmalz Dump
Sheboygan Harbor & River
Spickler Landfill
Stoughton City Landfill
Wausau Ground Water Contamination
Gurley Pit
LOCATION
Kohler
Menomonee Falls
Whitelaw
Franklin Township
Brookfield
Milwaukee
Muskego
Eau Claire
Appleton
Ashippin
Onalaska
Harrison
Sheboygan
Spencer
Stoughton
Wausau
Edmondson
UNIT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
PRP
PS
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
START
09/30/85
08/01/90
06/30/87
06/30/87
06/19/86
09/30/85
08/14/87
06/04/86
05/05/89
09/30/88
04/27/87
04/08/88
09/29/88
04/11/86
07/07/88
04/15/88
03/22/90
03/29/89
SCHEDULE
1
3
3
4
1
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
4
92
90
90
90
91
90
91
91
90
90
90
91
92
91
91
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
1
1
92
93
91
91
90
90
92
91
90
92
90
90
91
92
92
91
91
92
STATUS
0
new
-5
-5
0
1
-S
0
DNE
-5
-2
0
-4
-4
-2
^•2
new
-1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
RG
553.
554.
555.
556.
557.
558.
559.
560.
561.
562.
563.
564.
565.
566.
567.
568.
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
AR
AR
AR
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
NM
NM
NM
SITE NAME
Industrial Waste Control
Midland Products
Vertac, Inc.
Bayou Bonfouca
Bayou Sorrel Site
Combustion, Inc.
D.L. Mud. Inc.
Dutchtown Treatment Plant
Gulf Coast Vaccuum Services
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant
Old Inger Oil Refinery
PAB Oil & Chemical Service. Inc.
Petro-Processors of Louisiana, Inc.
AT&SF(Clovis)
Cal West Metals (USSBA)
Cimarron Mining Corp.
LOCATION
Fort Smith
Ola/Birta
Jacksonville
Slidell
Bayou Sorrel
Denham Springs
Abbeville
Ascension Parish
Abbeville
Doytine
Darrow
Abbeville
Scotlandville
Clovis
Lemitar
Carrizozo
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1
1
3
4
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
RA
RA
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
S
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
S
S
F
PRP
PRP
EP
F
FUNDING
START
07/25/89
06/29/90
07/12/89
04/19/88
07/12/89
06/30/89
07/11/88
10/25/88
06/20/90
08/07/89
06/27/90
01/31/89
01/31/89
04/25/86
04/27/90
06/18/90
06/30/87
08/07/89
08/03/90
06/21/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE STATUS
4
3
1
4
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
4
4
90
91
90
90
92
91
92
91
91
92
94
92
92
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
4
92
96
92
91
91
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
94
91
92
92
92
92
91
-6
new
-3
-5
-3
0
-3
0
new
-4
new
-4
0
0
new
new
0
0
new
new
-------
k
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
RG ST SITE NAME
LOCATION
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE STATUS
569.
570.
571.
572.
573.
574.
575.
576.
577.
578.
579.
580.
581.
582.
583.
584.
585.
586.
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
fi
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
NM
NM
NM
NM
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
Cleveland Mill
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
South Valley
United Nuclear Corp.
Compass Industries (Avery Drive)
(once listed as Compass Industries)
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery
Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill
Oklahoma Refining Co.
Pesses Chemical Co.
Tinker Air Force Base
Air Force Plant #4 (General Dynamics)
Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc.
Brio Refining Co., Inc.
Crystal City Airport
French, Ltd.
Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann Energy
Highlands Acid Pit
Silver City
Prewitt
Albuquerque
. Church Rock
Tulsa
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Cyril
..
Oklahoma City
Fort Worth
Grand Prairie
Friendswood
Crystal City
Crosby
Houston
Highlands
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
3 RA
1 RA
1 RA
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RA
2 RI/FS
1 RI/FS
1 RA
1 RA
1 RA
1 RA
1 RA
1 RA
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
S
S
FF
FF
S
PRP
S
PRP
S
S
03/29/90
07/03/89 3 91
12/28/89
09/12/89 3 92
06/30/89 2 91
12/29/89
12/29/89
07/28/89 1 92
03/31/89 4 91
06/26/90
12/09/88 3 91
08/20/90
05/12/86 4 90
06/29/89 4 95
12/29/88 4 90
06/28/89 2 95
03/31/89 3 91
09/24/84 1 91
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
1
2
4
1
4
2
4
2
2
3
3
92
91
91
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
93
91
92
96
92
95
92
92
new
0
new
0
-4
new
new
0
-2
new
-6
new
-6
-4
-6
0
-4
-e
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Supertund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
587.
588.
589.
590.
591.
592.
593.
594.
595.
596.
597.
598.
599.
600.
601.
602.
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
ST
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
SITE NAME
Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant
Motco. Inc.
Odessa Chromium #1
Odessa Chromium #2 (Andrews Highway)
Retro-Chemical Systems. Inc.
(Turtle Bayou)
Rio Grande Oil Refinery
Sikes Disposal Pits
Tex-Tin Corp.
United Creosoting Co.
Aidex Corp.
Chemplex Co. „
Des Moines TCE (once listed as DICO)
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.. Inc.
(County Road)
Farmers' Mutual Cooperative
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
John Deere (Ottumwa Works Landfill)
LOCATION
Texarkana
La Marque
Odessa
Odessa
Liberty County
Sour Lake
Crosby
Texas City
Conroe
Council Bluffs
Clinton/Camanche
Des Moines
West Point
Hospers
Middletown
Ottumwa
UNIT
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
MR
S
S
S
PRP
S
PRP
S
S
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PS
FF
PRP
START
06/18/90
12/30/88
09/27/89
03/30/90
09/26/88
06/30/89
05/04/89
03/30/90
06/29/88
12/05/88
12/28/89
09/30/87
09/30/87
08/08/89
09/29/88
07/03/89
08/01/89
09/20/90
09/20/89
SCHEDULE
1
4
1
3
2
3
2
1
4
4
1
2
4
94
95
91
91
97
90
90
90
94
91
91
91
90
SCHEDULE
3
1
4
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
4
1
2
1
4
3
2
2
4
91
94
95
96
91
91
97
93
91
91
92
91
91
92
91
91
91
93
91
STATUS
new
0
0
new
-1
2
0
new
-3
-4
new
-4
14
-1
-3
-1
-2
new
DNE
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
603.
604.
605.
606.
607.
608.
609.
610.
611.
612.
613.
614.
615.
616.
617.
618.
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
MO
MO
Lawrence Todtz Farm
Mid-America Tanning Co.
Lehigh Portland Cement Co.
Peoples Natural Gas Co.
Red Oak City Landfill
Shaw Avenue Dump
29th & Mead Ground Water Contamination
Cherokee County (once listed as Tar
Creek, Cherokee County)
Fort Riley
Hydro Flex Inc.
Obee Road
Pester Refinery Co.
Strother Field Industrial Park
29th & Mead Ground Water Contamination
Bee Cee Manufacturing Co.
Conservation Chemical Co.
Camanche
Sergeant Bluff
Mason City
Dubuque
Red Oak
Charles City
Wichita
Cherokee County
Junction City
Topeka
Hutchinson
El Dorado
Cowley County
Wichita
Maiden
Kansas City
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
PRP
PRP
F
PS
PRP
PRP*
PRP
PS
F
PRP*
PRP*
FF
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
S
PRP
09/27/89
10/01/89
03/13/90
06/30/89
04/19/89
12/04/89
05/26/88
09/27/89
07/13/89
05/07/90
05/07/90
08/23/90
09/26/89
03/27/90
04/19/90
03/28/90
09/27/89
01/06/89
05/26/89
4 91
1 91
1 91
1 90
1 91
4 91
2 91
1 92
1 92
4 91
2 91
1 91
1
4
4
1
4
4
3
1
2
3
3
1
1
4
1
4
1
2
4
91
91
91
92
91
92
91
92
92
92
92
93
92
92
92
93
92
92
91
3
new
new
-4
-3
-11
-2
-1
-4
-2
-2
new
DNE
new
new
new
-1
-4
-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
OPER-
ABLE
RG
619.
620.
621.
622.
623.
624.
j^.
C 625.
626.
627.
628.
629.
630.
631.
632.
633.
7
7
7
7
7
7.
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
ST
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
NE
SITE NAME
Findett Corp.
Fulbright Landfill
Kern-Pest Laboratories
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant
(Northwest Lagoon)
Lee Chemical
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek
(once listed as Area 2: Fills 1 and 2)
North-U Drive Well Contamination
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt
Quality Plating
St. Louis Airport/Hazelwood Interim
Storage/Futura Coatings Co.
Times Beach Site
Valley Park TCE
Weldon Spring Quarry (USDOE/Army)
Weldon Springs Ordnance Works
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
LOCATION
St. Charles
Springfield
Cape Girardeau
Independence
Liberty
Imperial
Springfield
Jasper County
Sikeston
St. Louis County
Times Beach
Valley Park
St. Charles County
St. Charles County
Hall County
UNIT
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RI/FS
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
F
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
PS
F
F
S
F
S
FF
F
PS
FF
FF
FF
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
09/19/90
02/14/90
06/15/90
04/04/90
08/01/87 1 91
06/27/90
06/27/90
12/06/88 4 90
06/30/88 1 90
05/10/83 3 89
09/27/85 1 91
04/24/90
12/30/88 2 91
06/26/90
03/14/83 4 90
12/31/87 2 91
08/22/86 3 91
02/16/90
03/15/90
SCHEDULE
3
4
2
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
3
4
4
1
3
4
1
1
91
92
91
91
94
92
92
91
. 91
91
92
93
92
94
91
92
92
93
93
STATUS
new
new
new
new
- -15
new
new
-1
-4
-6
-4
new
-6
new
-1
-5
-5
new
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION
634. 7 NE Hastings Ground Water Contamination Hastings
635. 7 NE Nebraska Ordnance Plant (Former) Mead
636. 7 NE 10th Street Site Columbus
Xh 637. 8 CO Broderick Wood Products Denver
•U.
638. 8 CO California Gulch Leadville
639. 8 CO Central City - Clear Creek Idaho Springs
640. 8 CO Chemical Sales Co. Commerce City
641. 8 CO Denver Radium Site Denver
UNIT
1
2
6
10
12
14
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
6
6
8
9
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
FS
Rl
F
PRP*
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
S
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
FE
F
FUNDING
START
10/15/86
09/26/89
12/29/88
09/26/89
08/31/90
06/15/86
01/15/89
12/08/89
09/25/89
01/16/89
09/07/88
09/04/90
04/07/87
03/29/89
03/27/89
09/01/86
09/29/89
03/30/89
03/16/89
03/17/89
10/13/89
03/17/89
03/17/89
03/31/89
03/31/89
05/23/90
02/29/88
03/30/89
03/17/89
03/30/89
06/24/88
03/22/89
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
2
2
1
3
3
4
4
4
1
3
1
3
4
4
91
91
91
91
91
90
92
90
91
91
91
91
90
90
90
90
90
91
90
90
90
90
90
SCHEDULE
3
3
3
3
4
1
4
4
1
1
4
4
2
4
4
4
3
3
1
2
2
1
4
4
2
2
1
1
4
4
2
4
91
91
93
91
92
93
92
92
91
92
90
93
92
94
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
90
92
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
90
STATUS
-2
-2
-10
-2
new
DNE
DNE
new
DNE
-4
-3
new
0
-18
0
-2
-1
-2
-2
-3
new
-1
0
-8
-1
new
-2
-4
-5
-4
-2
DNE
-------
Ul
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME
642. 8 CO Eagle Mine
643. 8 CO Lowry Landfill
•
644. 8 CO Marshall Landfill
645. 8 CO Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
646. 8 CO Rocky Mountain Arsenal
647. 8 CO Sand Creek Industrial
648. 8 CO Smuggler Mountain
649. 8 MT Anaconda Co. Smelter
LOCATION UNIT
Minturn/Redcliff 1
Arapahoe County 1
1
2
3
6
Boulder County 1
Golden 1
1
2
4
7
9
Adams County 2
3
4
6
7
9
14
24
Commerce City 1
3
6
Pitkin County 1
Anaconda 1 1
14
ACTIVITY
RA
Rl
Rl/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PS
FE
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
09/01/88
04/07/87 4 90
12/07/87 2 92
10/23/89
10/23/89
09/27/89 2 92
09/16/89 1 90
01/15/90
02/06/90
04/12/90
09/29/89
06/08/90
06/08/90
10/27/87 3 90
02/15/85 2 93
02/15/85 4 91
04/05/90
11/06/89
11/13/89
07/10/90
06/05/90
09/25/90
12/29/89
09/27/90
09/28/90
09/28/88 2 91
09/28/88 2 93
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
4
3
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
4
2
94
91
93
94
94
93
91
92
95
95
95
96
96
91
93
92
91
91
91
93
92
92
92
92
91
91
93
STATUS
DNE
-1
-3
new
new
-3
-4
new
new
new
DNE
new
new
-2
0
-3
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
-2
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
OPER-
ABLE
650.
651.
652.
653.
654.
655.
656.
657.
658.
659.
660.
661.
RG
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
ST
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
ND
ND
UT
UT
UT
UT
SITE NAME
East Helena Site
(once listed as East Helena Smelter)
Idaho Pole Co.
Libby Ground Water Contamination
Milltown Reservoir Sediments
Montana Pole and Treating
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
(once listed as Silver Bow Creek)
Arsenic Trioxide Site
Minot Landfill
Hill Air Force Base
Midvale Slag
Monticello Radioactively Contaminated
Properties
Ogden Defense Depot
LOCATION
East Helena
Bozeman
Libby
Milltown
Butte
Silver Bow/
Deer Lodge
Southeastern ND
Minot
Ogden
Midvale
Monticello
Ogden
UNIT
2
3
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
5
8
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
1
3
4
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
Ri
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
PRP*
PRP*
PS*
S
F*
PRP*
S
F
S
S
S
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
06/23/87
06/27/87
09/25/87
10/18/89
02/02/90
02/02/90
04/24/90
09/29/83
01/23/90
05/04/90
05/27/88
02/15/89
08/11/89
03/31/89
03/09/89
09/28/90
02/14/86
08/15/87
02/24/87
11/13/87
03/23/89
08/07/89
09/06/84
09/29/89
09/29/89
09/29/89
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
91
92
91
91
92
92
92
92
92
93
93
90
90
92
91
91
92
92
91
94
SCHEDULE
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
2
4
3
91
93
92
93
94
94
93
94
93.
94
93
96
93
91
91
92
92
91
91
92
92
93
94
92
92
92
STATUS
-1
DNE
-2
new
-11
-11
-a
-7
-3
-9
-3
-14
0
-3
-3
new
0
0
0
0
0
-8
0
DNE
DNE
DNE
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
662.
663.
664.
665.
666.
667.
668.
669.
670.
671.
672.
673.
674.
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
WY
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
SITE NAME
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 & 3)
Richardson Flat Tailings
Sharon Steel Corp. (Midvale Tailings)
(once listed as Sharon Steel Corp.
(Midvale Smelter))
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel Co.
Wasatch Chemical Co.
Baxter/Union Pacific Tie Treating
Apache Powder Co.
Hassayampa Landfill
Indian Bend Wash Area
Luke Air Force Base
Mesa Area Gound Water Contamination
Motorola. Inc. (52nd Street Plant)
Williams Air Force Base
LOCATION
Salt Lake City
Summit County
Midvale
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Laramie
St. David
Hassayampa
Scottsdale/
Tempe/Phoenix
Glendale .
Mesa
Phoenix
Chandler
UNIT
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
4
S
6
7
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PS
PRP
FE
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP*
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
EP
FF
FF
PRP
PS
PS
FF
FF
START
11/21/85
09/29/89
12/31/84
08/10/90
09/28/88
08/17/90
10/05/89
02/19/88
02/22/84
03/14/88
02/22/84
02/22/84
07/08/89
09/26/90
09/27/90
09/27/90
10/01/86
08/15/90
06/20/89
09/21/90
09/21/90
SCHEDULE
1,
1
4
2
4
4
1
4
4
4
1
3
90
90
90
92
91
90
92
90
90
90
90
91
SCHEDULE
2
1
2
4
2
2
2
1
2
4
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
1
4
4
92
94
91
92
91
91
93
92
91
92
91
91
91
92
93
93
91
92
92
93
92
STATUS
-9
DNE
-6
new
-2
new
-4
-1
0
-2
-3
-2
-3
-3
new
new
new
-6
new
-2
new
new
-------
oo
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
675.
676.
677.
678.
679.
680.
681.
682.
683.
684.
685.
686.
687.
688.
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Advanced Micro Devices (Building 915)
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Aerojet General Corp.
Atlas Asbestos Mine
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base
(Nebo Area)
Brown & Bryant, Inc. (An/in Plant)
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base
Castle Air Force Base
Coalinga Asbestos Mine
GTS Printex, Inc.
Del Norte Pesticide Storage
Edwards Air Force Base
El Tore Marine Corps Air Station
Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. (South San Jose
LOCATION
Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale
Rancho Cordova
Fresno County
Barstow
Arvin
San Diego County
Merced
Coalinga
Mountain View
Crescent City
Kern County
El Toro
South San Jose
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1
1
1
1
Z
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
PS
PS
PRP
F
PRP
FF
FF
EP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PS
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
05/17/89 2 91
04/19/89 2 91
09/08/88 4 94
09/21/84 3 90
10/16/89
09/28/90
09/28/90
05/03/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
07/21/89 1 92
07/21/89 1 91
10/16/89
04/19/89 2 91
09/26/89 2 90
09/26/90
09/26/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
03/20/89 1 96
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
1
2
4
4
4
3
4
3
2
3
1
1
2
1
91
91
94
90
90
93
93
93
94
93
93
93
91
90
91
92
92
93
93
93
96
STATUS
0
0
0
-1
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
-7
-2
new
-1
-8
new
new
new
new
0
Plant) (once listed as Fairchild Camera &
Instrument Corp. (San Jose Plant))
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
RG
689.
690.
691.
692.
693.
;> 694.
^ 695.
696.
697.
698.
699.
700.
701.
702.
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Salinas Plant)
FortOrd
Fresno Municipal Sanitary Landfill
George Air Force Base
Hewlett-Packard
Hexcel Corp.
Iron Mountain Mine
Jasco Chemical Corp.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USDOE)
Liquid Gold Oil Corp.
Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.
Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
March Air Force Base
Mather Air Force Base (AC & W Disposal Site)
LOCATION
Salinas
Marina
Fresno
Victorville
Palo Alto
Livermore
Redding
Mountain View
Livermore
Richmond
San Jose
Oroville
Riverside
Sacramento
.
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
Rl
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PS
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
PS
PS
PRP
F
PRP
FF
PS
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE STATUS
04/11/90
07/23/90
07/23/90
07/23/90
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/21/90
09/21/90
03/16/89 1 96
05/16/90
03/29/90
03/28/87 2 93
12/21/88 3 91
11/02/88 3 91
09/20/83 1 91
02/17/88 3 90
02/08/88 3 90
09/27/90
09/27/90
07/21/89 4 92
07/21/89
1
4
1
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
4
4
3
3
4
93
95
92
92
92
95
92
92
91
92
92
93
92
92
•92
92
90
95
92
92
93
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
17
new
new
0
-2
-3
-4
-6
-1
new
new
1
DNE
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
RG ST
703. 9 CA
704. 9 CA
j^.
in 70S. 9 CA
o
706. 9 CA
707. 9 CA
708. 9 CA
709. 9 CA
710. 9 CA
711. 9 CA
712. 9 CA
713. 9 CA
714. 9 CA
SITE NAME
McClellan Air Force Base
(Ground Water Contamination)
McColl
Micro Storage/Intel Magnetics
Moffett Naval Air Station
Monolithic Memories
Montrose Chemical Corp.
National Semiconductor Corp.
Newmark Ground Water Contamination
Norton Air Force Base
Operating Industries, Inc., Landfill
Pacific Coast Pipe Lines
Purity Oil Sales, Inc.
LOCATION
Sacramento
Fullerton
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale
Torrance
Santa Clara
San Bernadino
San Bernardino
Monterey Park
Fillmore
Malaga
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
2
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
F
FE
F
PS
FF
FF
PS
PRP
PS
F
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
07/21/89
07/21/89
07/21/89
07/21/89
06/11/84
02/03/86
01/28/88
09/28/90
05/17/89
08/08/89
02/01/90
04/19/89
10/10/86
04/19/89
06/28/90
06/29/89
06/29/89
09/15/89
05/11/89
11/15/89
08/13/90
08/13/90
06/23/89
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
2
1
2
2
4
3
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
96
91
96
90
90
91
93
91
92
91
95
91
93
94
90
2
2
2
2
4
3
4
4
4
2
1
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
2
1
96
94
96
96
90
91
92
93
91
93
94
91
92
91
92
95
92
93
94
92
91
91
91
STATUS
0
-13
ONE
0
-2
-3
DNE
new
-1
0
new
<
-2
-1
new
0
-4
0
0
new
new
new
-1
715. 9 CA Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant
Riverbank
RI/FS
FF
04/05/90
3 92
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
RG
716. 9
717. 9
718. 9
719. 9
720. 9
721. 9
722. 9
723. 9
724. 9
725. 9
726. 9
727. 9
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Sacramento Army Depot
San Fernando Valley (Area 1)
San Fernando Valley (Area 2)
San Fernando Valley (Area 3)
San Fernando Valley (Area 4)
San Gabriel Valley (Area 1)
San Gabriel Valley (Area 2)
San Gabriel Valley (Area 3)
San Gabriel Valley (Area 4)
Sharpe Army Depot
Sola Optical USA, Inc.
Spectra-Physics, Inc.
LOCATION
Sacramento
Los Angeles
Los Angeles/Glendale
Glendale
Los Angeles
El Monte
Baldwin Park Area
Alhambra
La Puente
Lathrop
Petaluma
Mountain View
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
S
1
1
3
1
2
1
.1
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
Rl/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
S
S
S
S
S
F
S
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
FF
FF
PRP
PS
FUNDING
START
12/16/88
02/16/90
12/16/88
12/16/88
08/16/85
08/06/87
08/16/85
09/06/89
08/16/85
08/16/85
06/13/84
09/30/85
04/01/87
06/13/84
08/01/87
04/01/87
06/13/84
06/13/84
04/01/87
03/16/89
03/16/89
10/03/89
01/18/89
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE STATUS
4
4
4
3
1
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
2
3
4
4
3
2
2
3
91
91
91
93
91
93
93
93
93
93
90
93
91
90
93
93
90
93
92
91
4
4
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
4
4
4
- 3
4
1
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
2
96
99
91
92
93
91
93
92
93
93
93
93
91
93
92
91
93
93
91
93
91
91
91
-20
new
0
-1
-1
0
-1
DNE
-1
-1
0
0
-4
0
-3
-4
0
0
-4
-1
2
new
1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
OPER-
ABLE
728.
729
730.
731.
732.
733.
734.
735.
736.
737.
738.
739.
740.
741.
742.
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
NV
TT
AK
ID
SITE NAME
Stringfellow
Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine
Synertek, Inc. (Building 1)
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. (once
listed as Thompson-Haywood Chemical Co.)
Teledyne Semiconductor
Travis Air Force Base
Treasure Island Naval Station-
Hunter's Point Annex
TRW Microwave, Inc. (Building 825)
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Waste Disposal, Inc.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
(Sunnyvale Plant)
Carson River Mercury Site
Trust Territories PC
Alaska Battery Enterprise
Arrcom (Drexler Enterprises)
LOCATION
Glen Avon Heights
Clear Lake
Santa Clara
Fresno
>
Mountain View
Solano County
San Francisco
Sunnyvale
Turlock
Santa Fe Springs
Sunnyvale
L yon/Churchill County
Fairbanks N Star Bor
Rathdrum
UNIT
1
4
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
S
S
S
EP
PS
PS
PS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
F
EP
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
08/07/84 3 91
04/06/87 3 90
08/07/84 2 90
09/28/90
06/21/89 3 91
02/06/87 2 91
01/19/89 3 91
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
04/19/89 2 91
05/01/90
12/22/87 4 90
08/24/88 2 91
09/28/90
02/22/84
05/04/90
05/01/87 1 91
SCHEDULE
3
4
4
4
3
1
2
1
1
4
4
4
2
3
4
1
1
4
4
92
90
90
92
91
92
91
93
93
93
93
93
91
91
90
92
93
92
91
STATUS
-4
-1
-2
new
0
-3
1
new
new
new
new
new
0
new
0
-3
new
DNE
new
-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
PRESENT
COMPLETION
743.
744.
745.
746.
747.
748.
749.
750.
751.
752.
753.
754.
755.
RG
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
ST
ID
ID
ID
ID
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
WA
WA
WA
SITE NAME
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (Soda
Springs Plant)
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling Co.
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Allied Plating. Inc.
Joseph Forests Products
Martin-Marietta Products
TeledyneWah Chang
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons)
United Chrome Products, Inc.
American Crossarm & Conduit Co.
American Lake Gardens
Bangor Naval Submarine Base
LOCATION
Smelterville
Soda Springs
Pocatello
Pocatello
Portland
Joseph
The Dalles
Albany
Hermiston
Corvallis
Chehalis
Tacoma
Silverdale
UNIT
1
2
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
6
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
S
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
START
01/02/85
05/13/87
01/02/85
09/20/90
09/22/89
06/21/88
09/24/87
09/21/89
05/15/90
05/05/87
01/26/90
09/24/87
07/12/89
09/21/89
02/16/90
02/16/90
06/29/90
07/30/90
09/02/90
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1 92 • 2
2 93 2
2
1
4 91 1
3 90 4
4 91 4
3 92 4
3
4 91 2
3
1 91 1
3 91 4
4 90 3
2
3
3
3
3
91
93
92
94
92
90
91
92
92
92
92
92
92
91
92
92
93
93
93 •
STATUS
3
0
DNE
new
-1
-1
0
-1
new
-2
new
-4
-5
-3
new
new
new
new
new
756. 10 WA Bangor Ordnance Disposal
Bremerton
RI/FS
FF
01/29/90
91
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
RG
757. 10
758. 10
759. 10
760. 10
761. 10
762. 10
763. 10
764. 10
765. 10
766. 10
ST SITE NAME
WA Bonneville Power Administration
Ross Complex
WA Colbert Landfill
WA Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide Flats
WA Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel
WA Fairchild Air Force Base
(4 Waste Areas)
WA Fort Lewis (Landfill No.5)
WA HanfordlOO-Area(USDOE)
WA HanfordlOO-Area(USDOE)
WA Hanford200-Area(USDOE)
WA Hanford 300-Area (USDOE)
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
Vancouver 1
Colbert 1
Pierce County 2
4
5
5
5
7
Tacoma 1
3
Spokane County 1
Tacoma 1
Benton County 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Benton County 1
Benton County 1
Benton County 1
2
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
MR
PRP
F
PS
PS
PS
PRP
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
05/15/90
08/28/89 4 93
09/10/86 4 90
09/27/89 1 91
06/30/89
09/30/89 3 90
01/16/90
09/10/86 3 91
07/19/90
07/20/90
03/27/90
01/29/90 4 90
06/30/89 2 93
06/30/89 2 93
10/27/89
04/09/90
04/09/90
06/05/90
06/05/90
05/15/89 3 92
05/15/89 2 94
05/15/89 1 93
09/27/89
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
1
1
4
1
4
3
1
1
4
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
3
92
93
92
92
95
94
94
91
92
92
92
91
93
93
93
94
95
94
95
92
94
93
94
STATUS
new
0
-5
-4
DNE
-14
new
0
new
new
new
-4
0
0
new
new
new
new
new
0
0
0
DNE
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
RG
767. 10
768. 10
769. 10
ST
WA
WA
WA
SITE NAME
Harbor Island (Lead)
Lakewood Site
McChord Air Force Base
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
Seattle 1
3
Lakewood 1
Tacoma 1
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
F
PRP
F
FF
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
09/07/88 1 92
09/14/90
09/24/87 4 90
09/21/89 4 91
2
1
1
3
92
93
92
92
STATUS
-1
new
-5
-3
(Wash Rack/Treatment Area)
770. 10 WA Naval Air Station. Whidbey Island
(Ault Field)
771. 10 WA Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering
Station (4 Waste Areas)
•^. 772. 10 WA Queen City Farms
i
iJJ 773. 10 WA Western Processing Co.. Inc.
774. 10 WA WycoffCo./Eagle Harbor
775. 10 WA Yakima Plating Co.
Whidbey Island
Keyport
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
08/15/90
07/17/90
4 92
92
new
new
Maple Valley
Kent
Bainbridge Island
Yakima
1
2
1
1
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
F
F
05/06/88
07/06/87
09/03/87
06/07/89
4
4
4
4
91
90
90
91
2
4
1
3
92
90
92
91
-2
0
-5
1
-------
Prognss Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Appendix
B
Remedial Designs in Progress
on September 30, 1990
This appendix lists the remedial designs (RDs)
in progress at the end of FY90 and their estimated
completion schedule. Activities at multiple operable
units, as well as first and subsequent activities, are
listed.
• Region -- EPA region in which the site is located.
• State - State in which the site is located.
• Site Name - Name of the site, as listed on the
NPL, Supplementary Lists and Supporting Materials,
October 1989, OERR.
• Location - Location of the site, as listed on the
NPL.
• Operable Unit -- Operable unit at which the
corresponding remedial activity is occurring.
• Lead - The entity leading the activity, as follows:
EP: Fund-financed with EPA employees
performing the project, not contractors;
F: Fund-financed and federal-lead by the
Superfund remedial program;
FE: EPA Enforcement program-lead;
FF: Federal Facility-lead;
MR: Mixed funding; monies from both the Fund
and PRPs;
PRP: PRP-financed and conducted;
PS: PRP-financed work performed by the PRP
under a state order (may include federal
financing or federal oversight under an
enforcement document);
S: State-lead and Fund-financed; and
SE: State enforcement-lead (may include federal
financing).
O (Other), SN (State-lead and -financed, no
Fund money), and SR (State-ordered PRP
response) activities are excluded from this status
report because they do not include federal
financing.
Funding Start ~ The date on which funds were
allocated for the activity.
Present Quarter Estimated Completion - The
quarter of the planned completion date for the
activity, as of 9/30/90. CERCLIS compiled this
information on October 19,1990.
B-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
RG ST
1 CT
1 CT
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
1 .MA
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
1 ME
1 ME
1 ME
1 NH
1 NH
1 NH
1 NH
SITE NAME
Beacon Heights Landfill
Yaworski Waste Lagoon
Baird & McGuire
Charles-George Reclamation Trust Landfill
Hocomonco Pond
Industri-Plex (once listed as Mark Phillip Trust)
Iron Horse Park
New Bedford Site
Norwood RGBs
Re-Solve, Inc.
Rose Disposal Pit
W.R. Grace & Co., Inc. '
Wells G&H
Pinette's Salvage Yard
Saco Tannery Waste Pits
Winthrop Landfill
Auburn Road Landfill
Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum (once listed as
Ottati & Goss)
South Municipal Water Supply Well
Tinkham Garage
LOCATION
Beacon Falls
Canterbury
Holbrook
Tyngsborough
Westborough
Woburn
Billerica
New Bedford
Norwood
Dartmouth
Lanesboro
Acton
Woburn
Washburn
Saco
Winthrop
Londonderry
Kingston
Peterborough
Londonderry
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
2
1
3
4
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
_
3
2
3
4
1
1
PRESENT
LEAD
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
MR
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
>RP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
07/02/87
09/27/89
03/29/90
09/30/88
08/07/87
09/22/88
09/27/89
06/28/90
09/28/90
03/30/89
08/16/89
05/18/90
04/27/90
09/13/89
09/29/89
08/18/89
09/30/90
09/30/90
03/15/89
09/20/90
09/20/90
09/04/90
09/23/88
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
2
2
1
4
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
2~
2
4
2
2
1
2
91
91
91
92
92
91
91
91
92
91
91
91
93
93
92
91
~92~
92
91
92
92
92
91
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
RG
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
Rl
VT
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Davis Liquid Waste
Old Springfield Landfill
Asbestos Dump
Bog Creek Farm
Burnt Fly Bog
Caldwell Trucking Co.
Chemical Control
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Ciba-Geigy Corp.
(once listed as Toms River Chemical)
Combe Fill South Landfill
D'lmperio Property
DeRenewal Chemical Co.
Diamond Alkali Co.
Ewan Property
Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center
Florence Land Recontouring Landfill
GEMS Landfill
Glen Ridge Radium Site
LOCATION
Smithfield
Springfield
Millington
Howell Township
Marlboro Township
Fairfleld
Elizabeth
Edison Township
Toms River
Chester Township
Hamilton Township
Kingwood Township
Newark
Shamong Township
Atlantic City
Florence Township
Gloucester Township
Glen Ridge
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
F
PRP
S
S
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
S
S
F
F
FUNDING
START
07/11/88
09/29/89
10/20/89
09/05/89
09/29/89
04/22/87
05/31/90
05/11/88
09/30/89
06/01/89
06/26/87
06/26/87
04/10/86
09/30/89
12/14/89
10/13/89
09/28/90
03/31/87
05/22/86
05/25/89
09/26/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
4
1
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
2
4
1
4
3
4
92
91
91
91
92
91
92
92
91
91
91
92
92
92
91
91
91
91
90
92
92
39.
NJ Goose Farm
Plumstead Township
PRP
01/09/88
4 91
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
SO.
51.
52.
S3.
54.
55.
56.
ST.
68.
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Kin-Buc Landfill
Lang Property
Lipari Landfill
Metaltec/Aerosystems
Montclair/West Orange Radium Site
Montgomery Township Housing Development
Nascolite Corp.
Pepe Field
Price Landfill
Reich Farms
Rocky Hill Municipal Well
Sharkey Landfill
Tabernacle Drum Dump
Vmeland Chemical Co., Inc.
Waldick Aerospace Devices. Inc.
Williams Property
American Thermostat Co.
Byron Barrel & Drum
Claromont Polychemical
LOCATION
Edison Township
Pemberton Township
Pitman
Franklin Borough
Montclair/West Orange
Montgomery Township
Millville
Boonton
Pleasantville
Pleasant Plains
Rocky Hill Borough
Parslppany/Troy Hills
Tabernacle Township
Vineland
Wall Township
Swalntown
South Cairo
Byron
Old Bathpage
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
1
1
3
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
LEAD
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
S
F
S
PS
PRP
S
S
PRP
F
F
F
S
:
F
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
09/30/88
03/20/87
09/29/88
01/06/88
05/25/89
09/26/90
03/24/89
08/03/88
03129/90
06/26/87
04/05/90
03/24/89
03/31/87
11/29/89
09/30/89
10/02/89
01/13/88
09/30/88
04/14/88
09/30/90
09/21/90
00(30/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
2
4
3
4
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
3
3~
2
1
1
92
91
91
90
92
92
92
91
92
91
92
92
92
92
92
92
91
92
-gf-
92
93
93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
w
Ul 65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
it
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Clothier Disposal
Haviland Complex
Hooker Chemical (South Area)
Hudson River PCBs
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Love Canal
Ludlow Sand & Gravel
Marathon Battery Corp.
North Sea Municipal Landfill
Old Bethpage Landfill
Port Washington Landfill
Preferred Plating Corp.
Sarney Farm
SMS Instruments, Inc.
Volney Municipal Landfill
York Oil Co.
LOCATION
Town of Granby
Town of Hyde Park
Niagra Falls
Hudson River
Horseheads
Niagra Falls
Clayville
Cold Springs
North Sea
Oyster Bay
Port Washington
Farmingdale
Amenia
Deer Park
Town of Volney
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
5
6
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LEAD
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
F
S
S
PRP
S
F
F
F
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
PS
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
03/28/89
04/29/88
12/01/86
09/21/90
09/28/84
05/18/89
09/27/89
09/28/90
06/28/85
12/31/87
06/01/89
09/30/88
03/31/89
06/26/87
06/26/87
09/30/89
03/26/89
09/30/88
09/30/88
09/26/90
11/15/88
09/28/90
03/28/90
09/30/90
09/30/89
09/28/90
09/29/88
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
4
3
4
1
1
1
4
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
2
3
2
90
91
91
92
90
91
91
91
90
90
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
92
91
93
91
92
91
93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
76.
76.
77.
78.-
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
02.
RG
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PR
PR
PR
DE
DE
DE
DE
Mb
MD
MD
PA-
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME
GE Wiring Devices
Upjohn Facility
Vega Alta Public Supply Wells
Delaware Sand & Gravel Landfill (once listed as
Delaware Sand & Gravel - Llangollen Army
Creek Landfills)
Harvey & Knott Drum, Inc.
Tybouts Corner Landfill
Wildcat Landfill
Limestone Road
Sand, Gravel & Stone
Southern Maryland Wood Treating
Ambler Asbestos Piles
Bendix Flight Systems Division
Berks Sand Pit
Blosenski Landfill
Craig Farm Drum
Croydon TCE
Cryochem, Inc.
Douglassville Disposal
LOCATION
Juan Diaz
Barceloneta
Vega Alta
New Castle County
Kirkwood
Smyrna
Dover
Cumberland
Elkton
Hollywood
Ambler
Brldgewater Township
Longswamp Township
West Cain Township
Parker
Croydon
Worman
Douglassvllle
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
09/30/88
04/23/90
05/09/89
04/27/89
08/26/88
09/14/87
04/19/89
10/11/89
10/11/89
04/13/90
01/05/89
02/03/89
09/22/88
09/12/90
04/19/90
03/30/90
01/03/89
02/14/90
09/26/90
09/20/90
02/22/90
09/27/89
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
2
2
1
1
2
4
4
3
4
4
2
3
1
4
2
4
1
3
3
3
92
92
91
91
92
92
92
90
90
91
92
90
92
91
92
90
91
91
92
91
91
91
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3'
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
WV
WV
SITE NAME
Drake Chemical
Havertown PCP
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard
Heleva Landfill
Henderson Road Site
McAdoo Associates
Mill Creek Dump
Moyers Landfill
MW Manufacturing
Palmerton Zinc Pile
Raymark
Walsh Landfill
Avtex Fibers, Inc.
C&R Battery Co., Inc.
Greenwood Chemical Co.
LA Clarke & Son
Saltville Waste Disposal Ponds
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
West Virginia Ordnance
LOCATION
Lock Haven
Haverford
Weisenberg Township
North Whitehall Twp
Upper Merion Township
McAdoo Borough
Erie
Eagleville
Valley Township
Palmerton
Hatboro
Honeybrook Township
Front Royal
Chesterfield County
, Newton
Spotsylvania County
Saltville
Morgantown
Point Pleasant
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
LEAD
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
S
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FUNDING
START
01/03/89
11/21/89
05/05/89
09/28/88
02/27/89
02/27/89
09/28/90
10/01/88
03/23/87
03/23/87
09/25/90
11/02/88
04/30/88
01/26/89
09/26/90
09/28/90
08/26/89
09/27/90
06/29/90
09/03/89
07/27/88
08/06/90
09/30/88
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
2
2
1
4
1
4
1
4
2
4
4
3
4
2
1
4
3
4
3
3
4
92
90
91
91
92
90
92
90
91
90
92
90
90
91
91
91
92
91
91
90
91
92
90
-------
w
oo
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
RG ST SITE NAME
LOCATION
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
LEAD
FUNDING
START
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
AL
AL
AL
FL"
FL
FL
Fl
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
KY
KY
KY
MS
MS
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Plant)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Clemoyne Plant)
American Creosote Works, Inc. (Pensacola Plant)
(once listed as American Creosote Works)
City Industries, Inc.
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Co.
Dubose Oil Products Co.
Gold Coast Oil Corp.
Hipps Road Landfill
Sapp Battery Salvage
Schuylkill Metal Corp.
Whitehouse Oil Pits
Zellwood Ground Water Contamination
Powersville Site
Airco
B.F. Goodrich
Smith's Farm
' Flowood Site
Newson Brothers/Old Reichhold Chemicals. Inc.
Perdido
Bucks
Axis
Pensacola
Orlando
Whitehouse
Cantonment
Miami
Duval County
Cottondale
Plant City
Whitehouse
Zellwood
Peach County
Calvert City
CalvertCity
Brooks
Flowood
Columbia
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PS
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
£>r*r»
06/20/89
01/05/90
01/05/90
09/25/89
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/29/90
10/14/88
09/21/90
04/30/87
09/28/90
06/26/85
09/30/89
09/28/90
12/02/88
01/05/89
01/05/89
05/04/90
08/22/89
05/12/89
4
1
1
3
4
4
1
3
1
1
3
1
4
4
2
4
4
3
4
4
91
93
93
91
92
91
92
90
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
90
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
S
S
ST
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
•SC
SC
SC
SC
TN
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
SITE NAME
Bypass 601 Ground Water Contamination
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Celanese Corp. (Shelby Fiber Operations)
Chemtronics, Inc.
National Starch & Chemical Corp.
Carolawn, Inc.
Geiger(C&MOil)
Palmetto Wood Preserving
Wamchem, Inc.
Amnicola Dump
A&F Material Reclaiming Inc.
Byron Salvage Yard
Cross Brothers Pail Recycling
Outboard Marine Corp.
Velsicol Chemical (Illinois)
Wauconda Sand and Gravel Co.
Envirochem Corp.
Lake Sandy Jo (M&M Landfill)
MIDCOISite
MIDCO II Site
Neal's Dump (Spencer)
LOCATION
Concord
Fayetteville
Shelby
Swannanoa
Salisbury
Fort Lawn
Rantoules
Dixiana
Burton
Chattanooga
Greenup
Byron
Pembroke Township
Waukegan
Marshall
Wauconda
Zionsville
Gary
Gary
Gary
Spencer
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
LEAD
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
EP
FE
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/27/90
09/08/89
06/19/89
03/23/89
07/27/89
09/28/90
09/13/89
07/31/90
, 02/08/89
01/31/89
09/25/89
10/10/89
09/26/89
03/13/90
04/28/89
01/23/89
02/01/90
09/25/89
07/10/90
09/28/90
06/11/90
08/22/85
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
4
1
3
3
1
4
2
3
3
3
2
4
3
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
91
90
90
91
90
91
91
91
90
90
90
90
91
91
90
91
91
92 *
91
92
92
93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
w
s
162.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
RG
5
S
S
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IN
IN
IN
IN
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
SITE NAME
Ninth Avenue Dump
Northside Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
Seymour Recycling Corp.
Tri-State Plating
Auto Iron Chemicals, Inc.
Bofors Nobel, Inc.
Burrows Sanitation
Clare Water Supply
Cliff/Dow Dump
Forest Waste Products
Hedblum Industries
Ionia City Landfill
Kysor Industrial Corp.
Liquid Disposal, Inc.
Northernaire Plating
Novaco Industries
OTT/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.
Rose Township Dump
U.S. Aviex
Verona Well Field
LOCATION
Gary
Zionsville
Seymour
Columbus
Kalamazoo
Muskegon
Hartford
Clare
Marquette
Otisville '
Oscoda
Ionia
Cadillac
Utica
Cadillac
Temperance
Dalton Township
Rose Township
Howard Township
Battle Creek
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
F
FUNDING
START
01/13/89
09/20/89
07/12/88
08/18/88
09/30/90
08/28/90
09/21/90
10/13/89
09/14/90
09/27/89
06/27/88
03/22/90
09/13/90
05/16/90
08/18/89
05/16/90
03/16/87
06/05/90
07/18/89
09/30/88
09/29/89
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
1
2
2
4
1
2
3
2
1
3
1
3
4
3
4
4
1
1
3
91
93
92
90
91
91
92
92
91
92
92
91
92
92
92
92
92
91
92
91
90
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
1OO
RG
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
S
S
S
s
s
fi
ST
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
SITE NAME
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
Kummer 'Sanitary Landfill
Long Prairie Ground Water Contamination
New Brighton/Arden Hills
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
South Andover Site (once listed as
Andover's Sites)
University of Minnesota
(Rosemount Research Center)
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke
Alsco Anaconda
Arcanum Iron & Metal
Big D Campground
Bowers Landfill
Coshocton Landfill
E.H. Schilling Landfill
Fields Brook
Industrial Excess Landfill
Laskin/Poplar Oil Co. (once listed as
Poplar Oil Co.)
Miami County Incinerator
LOCATION
Hermantown
Bemidji
Long Prairie
New Brighton
Oak Grove Township
St. Louis Park
Andover
Rosemount
Ironton
Gnadenhutten
Drake County
Kingsville
Circleville
Franklin Township
Hamilton Township
Ashtabula
Uniontown
Jefferson Township
Troy
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
1
1
1
2
1
9
1
4
' 1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
LEAD
S
F
PRP
S
S
FF
S
PRP
S
F
PS
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/30/88
10/25/89
03/26/90
12/30/88
09/19/88
02/06/90
12/30/88
09/28/90
08/17/88
OS/23/89
06/29/90
03/09/89
01/13/90
03/20/87
05/02/90
10/04/89
02/23/90
09/28/90
03/22/89
09/29/89
02/26/88
07/27/90
12/18/89
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
4
1
2
1
2
4
4
3
1
4
3
90
91
90
91
93
91 *
91
92
91
91
92
91
92
91
91
91
91
91
92
91
91
92
-------
«
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
RG
5
S
5
S
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
OH
OH
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
NM
OK
OK
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
SITE NAME
Pristine, Inc.
United Scrap Lead Co., Inc.
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field
Mid-State Disposal, Inc. Landfill
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co., Inc.
Schmalz Dump
South Valley
Hardage/Criner
Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex
Bailey Waste Disposal
Brio Refining Co., Inc.
Dixie Oil Processors, Inc.
French, Ltd.
MOTCO, Inc.
North Calvacade Street
Odessa Chromium #1
Odessa Chromium #2 (Andrews Highway)
Sheridan Disposal Service
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
LOCATION
Reading
Troy
Eau Claire
Cleveland Township
Ashippin
Harrison
Albuquerque
Criner
Sand Springs
Bridge City
Friend swood
Friendswood
Crosby
La Marque
Houston
Odessa
Odessa
Hempstead
Houston
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
LEAD
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
MR
PRP
PRP
PRP
MR
S
S
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
07/31/89
04/10/89
09/26/88
09/29/88
08/11/89
08/11/89
09/26/90
01/25/88
09/01/89
09/01/89
09/09/90
10/03/88
03/31/89
06/29/89
06/30/89
12/09/88
06/11/90
09/22/88
08/30/88
08/30/88
12/29/89
03/29/90
03/31/89
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
3
1
1
3
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
4
4
1
2
4
1
1
4
3
1
92
91 <
89
92
91
92
92
90
91
92
92
95
92
92
92
91
92
91
91
91
92
92
92
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
RG
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
i 217.
B
218.
219.
220.
221.
222.
223.
224.
225.
226.
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
ST
TX
TX
IA
IA
KS
KS
KS
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
NE
NE
CO
CO
CO
SITE NAME
South Cavalcade Street
United Creosoting Co.
Chemplex Co.
Vogel Paint & Wax
Arkansas City Dump
Cherokee County (once listed as
Tar Creek, Cherokee County)
Doepke Disposal (Holliday)
Ellisville Site
Kern-Pest Laboratories
Solid State Circuits, Inc.
Times Beach Site
Weldon Spring Quarry (USDOE/Army)
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
Waverly Groundwater Contamination
Broderick Wood Products
California Gulch
Central City - Clear Creek
LOCATION
Houston
Conroe
Clinton/Camanche
Orange City
Arkansas City
Cherokee County
Johnson County
Ellisville
Cape Girardeau
Republic
Times Beach
St. Charles County
Hastings
Waverly
Denver
Leadville
Idaho Springs
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
2
1
2
1
1
2
5
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
9
3
4
7
1
1
1
1
1
2
LEAD
S
PRP
S
PRP
PS
F
F
F
S
S
F
PS
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
S
F
FUNDING
START
03/31/89
07/30/90
03/30/90
09/28/90
06/29/90
04/28/89
07/30/90
09/28/90
12/28/84
03/31/87
03/27/90
08/10/90
07/20/90
08/09/90
12/14/88
09/27/90
09/28/90
04/04/90
09/26/90
09/29/88
04/25/89
04/25/89
06/15/88
06/27/88
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
3
2
1
4
1
3
2
3
1
4
3
2
1
3
1
1
3
2
2
2
91
92
91
91
92
92
91
91
91
91
92
91
92
92
92
91
91
91
91
92
92
91
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Suparfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30.1990
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.
RG
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
ST
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
MT
MT
MT
UT
UT
WY
AZ
SITE NAME
Denver Radium Site
Eagle Mine
Marshall Landfill
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Smuggler Mountain
Woodbury Chemical Co.
Burlington Northern Railroad
East Helena Site
Libby Ground Water Contamination
Monticello Mill Tailings (USDOE)
Monticello Radioactively Contaminated Properties
Baxter/Union Pacific Tie Treating
Indian Bend Wash Area
LOCATION
Denver
Minturn/Redcliff
Boulder County
Golden
Adams County
•Pitkin County
Commerce City
Somers
East Helena
Libby
Monticello
Monticello
Laramie
Scottsdale/Tmpe/Phnx
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
2
3
1
1
1
S
16
12
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
Z
LEAD
F
F
PS
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
03/17/89
12/15/89
05/20/88
02/06/90
01/15/90
08/03/89
04/04/90
03/17/89
08/10/90
01/09/90
03/05/90
04/04/90
07/05/90
08/21/90
05/29/90
06/06/90
06/30/88
08/24/90
08/24/90
09/24/90
09/11/90
03/27/89
09/26/90
09/26/90
04/15/84
02/15/87
10/03/88
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
4
2
2
2
4
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
2
4
2
1
1
1
3
91
91
94
90
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
92
92
91
92
92
91
93
91
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30,1990
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249.
250.
251.
252.
253.
254.
255.
256.
257.
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Nineteenth Avenue Landfill
Tucson International Airport Area
Applied Materials
Coalinga Asbestos Mine
Coast Word Processing
INTEL Corp.
INTERSIL Inc./Siemans Components
Lorontz Barrel & Drum Co.
MGM Brakes
Operating Industries, Inc., Landfill
Purity Oil Sales. Inc.
San Gabriel Valley (Area 1)
San Gabriel Valley (Area 2)
San Gabriel Valley (Area 4)
Selma Treating Co.
South Bay Asbestos Area (once listed as
Alviso Dumping Area)
Stringfellow
LOCATION
Phoenix
Tucson
Santa Clara
Coalinga
Ukiah
Santa Clara
Cupertino
San Jose
Cloverdale
Monterey Park
Malaga
El Monte
Baldwin Park Area
La Puente
Selma
Alviso
Glen Avon Heights
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
4
1
4
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
5
LEAD
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
PS
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
S
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/28/90
05/22/89
06/27/89
01/07/89
09/28/90
05/02/88
10/15/89
09/20/90
09/27/90
02/02/90
05/18/90
05/11/89
05/11/89
07/19/90
09/14/88
09/14/88
09/14/88
09/14/88
09/14/88
09/14/88
09/21/89
09/26/90
09/14/89
06/30/89
09/30/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
4
2
2
4
1
1
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
4
3
1
92
91
91
92
91
91
92
92
91
91
91
91
91
oT
91
91
91
91
91
91
92
92
92
94
94
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1990
RG ST SITE NAME
258. 9 TT Trust Territories PC
259. 10 ID Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling Co.
260. 10 OR Gould. Inc.
261. 10 WA Colbert Landfill
262. 10 WA Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide Flats
w
1
^H*
ON
263. 10 WA Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel
264. 10 WA Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc.
265. 10 WA Northwest Transformer (South Harkness St.)
266. 10 WA Silver Mountain Mine
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
1
Pocatello 1
Portland 1
Colbert 1
Pierce County 1
3
5
5
5
Tacoma 1
3
3
Vancouver 1
Everson 1
Loomis 1
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
MR
PRP
PRP
PS
PS
PS
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
08/07/82
09/13/88
09/29/88
03/23/89
09/28/90
02/03/89
09/30/89
09/30/89
08/22/90
03/19/85
11/13/89
11/13/89
03/23/88
02/09/90
05/01/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
4
2
1
1
2
3
2
4
4
1
4
4
4
91
90
91
93
92
92
96
92
92
90
90
92
91
91
91
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Appendix
C
Record of Decision Abstracts
This appendix provides detailed descriptions of
FY90 feasibility studies (FSs), as required by CERCLA
section 301(h)(l)(A). These descriptions are based on
Records of Decision (RODs) signed from October 1,
1989 through September sb, 1990. EPA signed 168
RODs in FY90, including 16 federal facilities and 7
ROD Amendments.
Each abstract provides background information
on the Superfund site, including the date on which
EPA signed the ROD, former user of the site, type of
operation, contaminants of concern, and previous
clean-up actions. Each abstract also includes a
description of the remedial alternative selected in the
ROD and provides information on the use of
alternative or resource recovery treatment
technologies and on the performance standards or
goals for the site. All sites abstracted in the appendix
are listed alphabetically according to the site name
and are grouped by EPA Region.
C-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ROD ABSTRACTS
REGION
1
SITE
Baird & McGuire
Beacon Heights Landfill
Coakley Landfill
Kearsarge Metallurgical
New Bedford
Old Springfield Landfill
Stamina Mills
American Thermostat
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines
Cinnaminson Groundwater Contamination
Claremont Polychemical
Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center*
Forest Glen Subdivision
Glen Ridge Radium
Higgins Farm
Hooker - 102nd Street
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer
Imperial Oil/Champion Chemicals
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
King of Prussia
Lone Pine Landfill
M&T DeLisa Landfill
Mannheim Avenue Dump
Mattiace Petrochemical
Metaltec/Aerosystems
Montclair/West Orange Radium
Myers Property
Pomona Oaks Well Contamination
Radium Chemical
Roebling Steel
Sarney Farm
Sayreville Landfill
Scientific Chemical Processing
Sealand Restoration
Solvent Savers
Syosset Landfill
Vestal Water Supply 1-1
Woodland Township Route 72 Dump
Woodland Township Route 532 Dump
STATE
MA
CT
NH
NH
MA
VT
RI
NY
NJ
NJ
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NJ
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Federal Facility ROD
C-2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
Fiscal Year 1990
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ROD ABSTRACTS
(continued)
REGION
3
SITE STATE PAGE
Army Creek Landfill DE 46
Avtex Fibers VA 47
Brown's Battery Breaking PA 49
Butz Landfill PA 50
C&R Battery VA 51
Coker's Sanitation Service Landfills DE 52
Croydon TCE PA 53
Cryo-Chem PA 54
Dover Air Force Base DE 55
East Mt. Zion PA 56
Fike Chemical WV 57
Greenwood Chemical VA 58
Hranica Landfill PA 59
Keystone Sanitation Landfill PA 60
Lord Shope Landfill PA 61
M.W. Manufacturing PA 62
Osborne Landfill PA 63
Raymark PA 65
Sand, Gravel, and Stone MD 66
Tyson Dump #1 PA 67
U.S. Titanium VA 68
Walsh Landfill PA 69
Westline (Amendment) PA 70
62nd Street Dump FL 71
Bypass 601 Ground Water Contamination NC 72
Cabot/Koppers FL 73
City Industries FL 74
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving (Amendment) FL 75
Dubose Oil Products FL 76
Harris/Palm Bay Facility FL 77
Hipps Road Landfill (Amendment) FL 78
Howe Valley Landfill KY 79
Jadco-Hughes NC 80
Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Disposal FL 81
Lewisburg Dump TN 82
Munisport Landfill FL 83
National Starch & Chemical Corp. NC 84
North Hollywood Dump TN 85
Pickettville Road Landfill FL 86
Schuylkill Metal FL 87
SCRDI Bluff Road SC 88
Yellow Water Road FL 89
Zellwood Grbundwater Contamination (Amendment) FL 90
C-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ROD ABSTRACTS
(continued)
REGION
5
SITE
Algoma Municipal Landfill
Anderson Development
Bofors Nobel
Clare Water Supply
Fisher Calo Chem
Hagen Farm
Hunts Disposal
Janesville Ash Beds
Janesville Old Landfill
K&L Landfill
Kummer Sanitary Landfill
Master Disposal Service Landfill
Metamora Landfill
Moss-American Kerr-McGee Oil
National Presto Industries
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant*
NL Industries/Taracorp Lead Smelting
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co., Inc.
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical ,
Pristine (Amendment)
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (St. Louis Park)
Sangamo/Crab Orchard NWR (US DOI)*
Spiegelberg Landfill
Springfield Township Dump
St. Louis River
Tri-State Plating
Union Scrap Iron Metal
University of Minnesota
Wayne Waste Oil
Wheeler Pit
Arkwood
Cimarron Mining
Crystal Chemical
Hardage/Criner (Amendment)
Jacksonville Municipal Landfill
Pagano Salvage
Rogers Road Municipal Landfill
Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard
Texarkana Wood Preserving
STATE
PAGE
WI
MI
MI
MI
IN
WI
WI
WI
WI
MI
MN
WI
MI
WI
WI
MN
IL
WI
WI
MI
OH
MN
IL
MI
MI
MN
IN
MN
MN
IN
WI
AR
NM
TX
OK
AR
NM
AR
OK
TX
91
92
93
94
95
96
98
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
128
129
130
131
132
Federal Facility ROD
C-4
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ROD ABSTRACTS
(continued)
REGION
6 (Continued)
SITE
Tinker AFB (Soldier Creek/Building 3001J*
Vertac
Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant
Hastings Groundwater Contamination (East Industrial
Park)
Hasting Groundwater Contamination (FAR-MAR-CO)
Lindsay Manufacturing
Midwest Manufacturing/North Farm
Missouri Electric Works
Northwestern States Portland Cement
Shenandoah Stables
Waverly Groundwater Contamination
Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits (US DOE)*
Wheeling Disposal Service
White Farm Equipment Dump
East Helena
Martin Marietta, Denver Aerospace
Monticello Mill Tailings (US DOE)*
Mystery Bridge at Highway 20
Ogden Defense Depot (Operable Unit 2)*
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust #2 & #3)
Rocky Rats Plant (US DOE)*
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (Operable Unit 16)*
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (Operable Unit 17)*
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (Operable Unit 18)*
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (Operable Unit 19)*
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (Operable Unit 20)*
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (Operable Unit 22)*
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (Operable Unit 23)*
Sand Creek Industrial
Sharon Steel (Midvale Tailings)
Silver Bow Creek
Whitewood Creek
Applied Materials
Coalinga Asbestos Mine
Intel (Santa Clara III)
Intersil
J.H. Baxter
STATE
PAGE
OK
AR
IA
NE
NE
NE
IA
MO
IA
MO
NE
MO
MO
IA
MT
CO
UT
WY
UT
UT
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
UT
MT
SD
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
166
167
168
169
170
'Federal Facility ROD
C-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ROD ABSTRACTS
(continued)
REGION SITE STATE PAGE
9 (Continued) Louisiana-Pacific CA 171
Operating Industries, Inc., Landfill (Amendment) CA 172
Solvent Service CA 173
Stringfellow CA 174
Watkins-Johnson (Stewart Division) CA 175
10 FMCYakimaPit WA 176
Fort Lewis Logistics Center* WA 177
Silver Mountain Mine WA 178
Teledyne Wah Chang Albany (TWCA) OR 179
Federal Facility ROD
C-6
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
REGION 1
(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont)
BAIRD & MCGUIRE, MA
Third Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 20-acre Baird & McGuire site is a former
chemical manufacturing facility in Holbrook,
Massachusetts. The South Street wellfleld, part of the
municipal water supply for Holbrook, is located within
1,500 feet of the property. Bordering on the east of
the site, the Cochato River, which flows down past a
sluice gate, is the major water supply source for the
towns of Holbrook, Randolph, and Braintree. Products
mixed and stored at the Baird & McGuire site included
herbicides, pesticides, disinfectants, soaps, floor waxes,
and solvents. Waste disposal methods at the site
included direct discharge into the soil, nearby brook,
and wetlands, as well as a former gravel pit (now
covered) in the eastern portion of the site. In 1983,
EPA conducted a removal action after a waste lagoon
overflowed near the Cochato River and spread
contaminants into the river. A second removal action
was initiated in 1985 when dioxin was discovered in site
soils. Between 1985 and 1987, EPA conducted an
interim remedial measure to construct a new water
main to replace the main passing through the site and
to place temporary caps over some of the site. The
1986 and 1989 RODs addressed all of the previous
remedial activities at the site, including pumping and
on-site treatment of ground water (operable unit one)
as well as on-site excavation and incineration of
contaminated soil (operable unit two) and remediation
of the sediment of the Cochato River (operable unit
three). This remedial action addresses the fourth
operable unit, provision of an alternate water supply
to compensate for the loss of the South Street
wellfield and to provide an additional 0.31 million
gallons per day. Because the previous RODs have
addressed all of the site-
related contamination, there are no contaminants of
concern associated with this remedial action.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes reactivation of the Donna Road aquifer by
obtaining federal and local permits to increase the
allowable capacity of water withdrawal; constructing
a new well; performing pre-design tests required to
obtain the permits; filtering and disinfecting ground
water; and piping the water to the current distribution
system. The estimated cost of this remedial action is
$1,188,000, including an annual O&M cost of $23,000
for 20 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-7
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL, CT
First Remedial Action - Final (Supplemental)
September 28,1990
The 34-acre Beacon Heights Landfill site is on
the northwest corner of an 82-acre property in Beacon
Falls, Connecticut. From the 1920s to 1970, a 6-acre
area of the site was used as a dumping and incineration
area. The site was subsequently expanded to a 34-acre
area where waste materials, including industrial liquids
and chemicals, were buried until the state closed the
landfill in 1979. Industrial waste water sludge also was
disposed of on site. Because of a slide of soil and
buried waste in 1972, ground-water and leachate
discharge points were created in the
north/northwestern areas of the landfill. Several of
these discharge points still persist in the slide area. In
1984, sampling of 44 residential wells down-gradient of
the site revealed VOC-contaminated water in two
residential wells. As a result of the sampling, the state
provided bottled drinking water to the affected
residents. A 1985 ROD documen-ted remedial
activities, including consolidation and capping of
contaminated soil at the 6-acre area; installation of a
leachate collection system; and extension of a public
water supply line to area residences. This ROD
supplements the 1985 ROD by resolving those
determinations left open in the 1985 ROD, including
the manner and locations of leachate
treatment/disposal; clean-up levels for soil deemed
impracticable to cap in areas contiguous to the landfill;
and the need for air pollution controls on the landfill
gas vents, i The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, ground water, surface water, and air
are VOCs, including benzene, toluene, and xylenes.
The selected remedial action for this site
supplements the remedial actions documented in the
1985 ROD and includes off-site leachate treatment at
a wastewater treatment facility prior to off-site
discharge of the treated effluent to surface water; off-
site incineration of the sludge generated during
leachate treatment; monitoring of landfill gases; and
providing the criteria for excavation of the
contaminated soils deemed impracticable to cap. Air
pollution controls are not currently necessary;
nevertheless, a cap will be constructed with vents
designed to facilitate the addition of pollution control
devices should continual monitoring reveal levels of
air contaminants exceed federal and state standards.
The cost for this supplemental remedial action is
$2,241,000 with an O&M cost of $951,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
In order to protect the aquifer underlying the
site from further potential contamination, excavation
levels for contaminants of concern in soil deemed
impracticable to cap are based on SDWA MCLs and
MCLGs. In the absence of a chemical-specific
ARAR, clean-up goals will be based on a 10"6 excess
cancer risk level for carcinogens or a hazardous index
equal to 1.0 for noncarcinogens. Soil excavation
levels include benzene 0.08 mg/kg (MCL), TCE 0.01
mg/kg (MCL), toluene 100 mg/kg (MCLG), and
xylenes 500 mg/kg (MCLG). No clean-up levels for
leachate were set because all but negligible amounts
of leachate will be removed and treated off site. The
treatment effluent will meet all NPDES permit
requirements prior to discharge to surface water.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-8
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
COAKLEY LANDFILL, NH
First Remedial Action
June 28, 1990
The 92-acre Coakley Landfill site is in the
towns of Greenland and North Hampton, Rockingham
County, New Hampshire. The site includes a 27-acre
landfill and borders farmland, undeveloped woodlands,
and wetlands to the north and west and commercial
and residential properties to the east and south. A
drainage pipe bounds the southern and western sides of
the landfill, channeling surface-water runoff into
wetlands north of the landfill. From 1968 to 1972,
sand and gravel operations, rock quarrying and landfill
operations were conducted. From 1972 to 1985, the
landfill primarily accepted refuse from Pease Air Force
Base and neighboring municipalities, and later accepted
incinerator residue from the refuse-to-energy plant
operated at Pease Air Force Base. Much of the refuse
disposed of at the landfill was placed in open trenches
created by the rock quarrying and sand and gravel
operations. In 1979, the state received complaints
concerning leachate breakouts in the area, and by 1983
VOC-contamination had been identified in a domestic
drinking water well. Subsequent testing confirmed
VOC-contamination in the ground water, and public
water was extended to area residents and businesses
who had previously received water from private wells.
This ROD, the first of two operable units, addresses
source control and ground-water contamination near
the landfill. A subsequent ROD will address off-site
ground-water contamination should it be determined
that a contaminated plume underlying wetlands to the
north of the site requires remediation. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment,
and ground water below the surface of the landfill are
VOCs, including benzene and PCE; other organics,
including phenols; and metals, including arsenic and
chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating and consolidating approximately
2,000 cubic yards of wetlands sediment and 30,000
cubic yards of solid waste and depositing the material
into the landfill prior to capping; collecting and
treating landfill gases using a thermal destruction
process; ground-water pumping and treatment using
chemical precipitation for metals removal, air
stripping for VOC removal, and biological treatment,
if necessary, prior to recharge into the aquifer or
discharge to on-site surface water; treating air from
the air stripper using incineration or activated carbon
filtration prior to release to the atmosphere;
implementing site access restrictions; and long-term
environmental monitoring, including air and ground-
water monitoring. The estimated cost of the remedial
action is $20,200,000, including an annual O&M cost
of $245,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil clean-up levels were established to
measure contaminant levels in the sediment
remaining in the wetlands following excavation, and
will protect the aquifer from potential soil leachate.
Soil clean-up values are based on the Organic
Leaching Model and incorporate SDWA
MCLs/MCLGs and state standards. Chemical-specific
soil clean-up goals include benzene 0.055 mg/kg,
PCE 0.13 mg/kg, and phenols 2.3 mg/kg. Ground-
water clean-up goals will meet SDWA MCLs/MCLGs,
state standards, and health adviso-ries and include
benzene 5 ug/1 (MCL), PCE 3.5 ug/l (state), arsenic
50 ug/1 (MCL), phenols 280 ug/1 (health advisory),
and chromium 50 ug/l (MCL). In the absence of a
chemical-specific clean-up standard, clean-up levels
will be based on a 10"6 excess cancer risk level and/or
a hazard index equal to 1.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-9
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
KEARSARGE METALLURGICAL, NH
First Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The 9-acre Kearsarge Metallurgical site is an
abandoned foundry in the town of Conway, Carroll
County, New Hampshire. The site is located within the
100-year floodplain of the Saco River. Pequawket
Pond borders the site to the south. The site contains
a drainage pipe with four open-bottomed catch basins,
two waste piles, a septic tank and leach field, and
forested wetlands. The site was originally operated as
a saw mill, however, from 1964 to 1982 was operated
as a foundry. Wastes generated by Kearsarge, the
foundry operator, included solid wastes such as
ceramics and metal grindings, and hazardous
substances, including caustic soda, hydrofluoric acid,
VOCs, and flammable liquids. These were disposed of
in the septic system and waste piles. In 1979, the state
ordered Kearsarge to stop disposing of wastes through
the septic system. Wastes were subsequently placed in
drums and stored on site, however, Kearsarge removed
them in 1982. A hydrologic study in 1982 revealed
contamination of ground water in the upper aquifer
underlying the site, a potential drinking water source.
This ROD addresses source control and management
of migration of the contaminated ground-water plume.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
debris, and ground water are VOCs, including TCE;
and metals, including chromium.
The selected remedial action for the site
includes removing the septic tank and contents,
followed by off-site incineration and ash disposal in
a RCRA hazardous waste landfill; excavating and
dewatering approximately 250 cubic yards of leach
field soil, followed by off-site treatment and disposal;
excavating 4,650 cubic yards of waste pile materials
with off-site disposal of approximately 4,400 cubic
yards in a RCRA solid waste landfill; off-site
treatment and disposal of approximately 250 cubic
yards in a hazardous waste landfill; ground-water
pumping and treatment by precipitating metals; air
stripping to remove VOCs, using a carbon column to
control air emissions from the air stripper, and
discharging treated ground water to a POTW; and
long-term environmental monitoring. The estimated
cost for source control, including O&M, is $3,256,000.
The estimated cost for management of migration is
$4,020,000, including an annual O&M cost of
$170,000. The estimated cost of the remedial action
is $7,276,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up levels include TCE 5
ug/1 (MCL) and chromium 50 ug/1 (National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulation). For the debris,
chromium will be remediated to the level of 1,400
ug/kg, based on a hazard index of 1. Soil clean-up
levels were also provided.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-10
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
NEW BEDFORD, MA
First Remedial Action
April 6, 1990
The New Bedford site is a harbor area in the
port city of New Bedford, Massachusetts, approximately
55 miles south of Boston. Two electrical capacitor
manufacturing facilities, the Aerovox facility and the
Cornell-Dubilier Electronics facility, are located along
the New Bedford Harbor and were major PCB users
from the 1940s to 1978, when EPA banned the use of
PCBs. These manufacturers released
PCB-contaminated wastewater onto shoreline mudflats
and into the harbor. As a result of the widespread
PCB contamination, the state closed three fishing areas
in the harbor in 1979, resulting in the loss of
approximately 18,000 acres of productive lobstering
ground. Between 1982 and 1985, EPA and the Coast
Guard posted warnings notifying the public of fishing
and swimming restrictions. The site has been divided
into three study areas which include the Hot Spot area,
the Acushnet River Estuary, and the Lower Harbor
and Upper Buzzards Bay. This ROD, the first of two
operable units, is an interim remedy and addresses the
5-acre Hot Spot area, located along the western bank
of the Acushnet River Estuary adjacent to the Aerovox
facility. This first interim action operable unit will
remove approximately 48 percent of the total PCB
mass in the sediment from the estuary portion of the
site, which is a continuing source of contamination
throughout the entire site. A subsequent ROD will
address the remediation of the Acushnet River Estuary
and the Lower Harbor and Upper Buzzards Bay. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the sediment
in the New Bedford Harbor are organics, including
PCBs, and metals, including lead.
The selected interim remedial action for the
site includes dredging 10,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediment, dewatering the sediment
using an existing confined disposal facility (CDF) and
incinerating the sediment on site;
solidifying/stabilizing the residual ash to immobilize
metals, if a leaching test indicates it is necessary;
treating effluent from the dewatering process using
the best available control technology prior to
discharge into the harbor; and passing exhaust gases
from the incineration process through air pollution
control devices prior to their release into the
atmosphere. During the remedial action the
solidified/stabilized ash will be temporarily stored on
site, and following the completion of the remedial
action, the ash will be stored and covered in a
secondary cell of the CDF. Ultimate disposition of
the ash will be addressed in the second operable unit.
The estimated total cost for this remedial action is
$14,379,300. No O&M costs were specified.
Performance Standards or Goals
Sediment areas where PCB concentrations
exceed 4,000 mg/kg (based on a cancer risk level of
10"6) will be dredged and incinerated.
Institutional Controls
The Coast Guard and EPA have implemented
fishing restrictions to prevent ingestion of
contaminated aquatic life.
C-ll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
OLD SPRINGFIELD LANDFILL, VT
Second Remedial Action - Final
September 29, 1990
The Old Springfield Landfill site is a 27-acre
inactive municipal/industrial landfill approximately 1
mile from the Springfield city center in Windsor
County, Vermont. Land use within a 1-mile radius of
the site includes commercial activities, low density
housing, light agriculture, and undeveloped forest land.
The landfill was operated by the town of Springfield
between 1947 and 1968, accepting industrial waste and
municipal trash. The site was closed in 1968, and
subsequently sold and developed for use as a mobile
home park. Municipal water lines were extended to
serve the mobile homes. A nearby resident's complaint
about foul-smelling water prompted an investigation of
the site by the state, which revealed VOC
contamination in a nearby spring and the residential
well. Because of the VOC-contaminated water, the
affected home near the mobile home park was
connected to the public water supply. Currently the
mobile home park is unoccupied except for the
property owner who still resides on site. The site has
been divided into two operable units. Operable unit
one is documented in a 1988 ROD which addressed
management of migration of the contaminated seeps
and ground water from the site and required that
additional studies be conducted to determine the
source control remedy for the site. This second
operable unit ROD documents the source control
remedy, which addresses the risks associated with the
inhalation of landfill gases and dermal contact with,
and ingestion of, contaminated soil. In addition, this
ROD also addresses risks associated with the ingestion
of contaminated ground water. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and ground
water are VOCs, including benzene, PCE, TCE,
toluene, and xylenes; and other organics, including
PAHs and PCBs.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes placing a multi-layer cap over approximately
eight acres (120,000 cubic yards of contami-nated soil)
where waste has been disposed of or has come to be
located, or where the soil clean-up levels are
exceeded; collecting ground and surface water in
french drains and extracting ground water with source
control wells using the treatment system developed in
operable unit one or other equivalent treatment
system (not specified) as necessary; stabilizing the side
slopes of the waste mounds; collecting active landfill
gas and venting of passive landfill gas, followed by
treatment using vapor phase carbon adsorption;
operating and maintaining these components; ground-
water and air monitoring; and implementing
institutional controls, including deed restrictions. The
estimated cost of this remedial action is $8,692,800,
including an annual O&M cost of $123,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Goals for soil cleanup (i.e., areas of
contamination to be capped) are based on total
carcinogenic risk levels of 10"5 and include PCBs
6,000 ug/kg (5 x ID"6 level of risk) and PAHs 3,000
ug/kg (5 x 10"6 level of risk). Chemical-specific
ground-water treatment goals are based on SDWA
MCLs and state standards and include benzene 5 ug/1
(MCL), TCE 5 ug/1 (MCL), xylenes 400 ug/1 (state
standard), and PCE 5 ug/1 (proposed
MCLs/quantitative limit). EPA has determined that,
in this circumstance, it is technically impracticable,
from an engineering perspective, to establish a
standard below a practical quantitative level. EPA,
therefore, is invoking a waiver from compliance with
the state standard for PCE.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be imposed on the use
of the land, including restricting excavation that might
compromise the integrity of the cap, french drains, or
other remedial features and on the use of ground
water.
C-12
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
STAMINA MILLS, RI
First Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The 5-acre Stamina Mills site is a former
textile weaving and finishing facility in North
Smithfield, Providence County, Rhode Island. A
portion of the site is within the 100-year floodplain and
wetland area of the Branch River. The facility was
operated from the early 1800s to 1975, and was
subsequently destroyed by a fire. The manufacturing
process used cleaning solvents, acids, bases and dyes for
coloring, pesticides for moth proofing, and plasticizers
to coat fabrics. Mill process wastes were landfilled on
site. TCE was used to remove oil and dirt from newly
woven fabrics. In 1969, an unknown quantity of TCE
was spilled on site and migrated into,soil and the
bedrock aquifer beneath the site, with some runoff to
the Branch River. EPA initiated three removal actions
from 1984 to 1990, including an extension of the
municipal water supply to residents obtaining water
from the affected aquifer, and treatment of two
underground and one above-ground storage tanks,
followed by off-site disposal. Subsequent investigations
have identified a septic tank that may be contaminated
with TCE. This ROD provides a final remedy, and
addresses both source control and management of
contaminated ground-water migration at this site. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
debris, sediment, and ground water are VOCs,
including TCE and PCE; other organics, including
pesticides; and metals, including chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes treating VOC-contaminatedsoil using vacuum
extraction, followed by treatment of the extracted gases
using an activated carbon filter; excavating
approximately 550 cubic yards of landfill wastes and
sediment from the Branch River 100-year floodplain
area; placing these within the landfill are a outside of
the floodplain; capping landfill wastes and installing
a leachate collection system to collect'runoff from the
landfill; testing, removing, and disposing of the septic
tanks and their contents off site; demolishing and
removing partially standing structures with on-site
disposal of all earthen debris and disposing of all
other solid wastes off site; grading and vegetating the
site after remediation; ground-water pumping,
pressure filtration, and treatment using UV/hydrogen
peroxide innovative technology; discharging the
treated ground water to surface water and subsurface
water on site, or existing sewer line contingent upon
pilot test studies; surface water diversion; long-term
monitoring of ground and surface waters; and
implementing institutional controls including deed
restrictions to limit land use. The estimated cost of
this remedial action is $4,316,485, including an annual
O&M cost of $164,400.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil clean-up levels that will ensure
attainment of MCLs in ground water include TCE
195 ug/kg (MCL) and PCE 66 ug/kg (proposed MCL,
PMCL). Soil levels for chromium were not
established since elevated levels were detected only in
landfill wastes that will be consolidated and capped as
part of this remediation. Ground-water clean-up
levels include TCE 5 ug/1 (MCL), PCE 5 ug/1
(PMCL), and chromium 50 ug/1 (National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulation).
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
regulate land use and prevent disturbance of
remediated areas at the site.
C-13
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
REGION 2
(New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands)
AMERICAN THERMOSTAT, NY
Second Remedial Action - Final
June 29,1990
The 8-acre American Thermostat (AT) site is
a former thermostat assembly facility in South Cairo,
Greene County, New York. Surrounding land use is
agricultural and light residential. The site overlies a
shallow, unconsolidated aquifer and a deeper bedrock
aquifer. From 1954 to 1985, thermostats for small
appliances were assembled, using machine oils,
lubricants, and solvents. Waste chemical sludges were
disposed of directly into drains and dumped on site for
dust control. In 1981, after employees were observed
dumping solvents on site, a state investigation was
conducted, revealing a high level of VOC
contamination in the ground water near the site. As a
result, in 1982 AT supplied bottled water to affected
residents and installed carbon filters on affected wells.
In 1983, an interim consent order was signed requiring
AT to clean up the site; however, this was never
implemented before plant operations ceased in 1985.
A1988 ROD provided for a permanent alternate water
supply for approximately 43 affected residents. This
final ROD addresses remediation of all remaining
contaminated media at the site. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment,
sludge, debris, ground water, and surface water are
VOCs, including PCE and TCE; other organics; and
metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating and treating 6,500 cubic yards of
contaminated soil using low temperature enhanced
volatilization; removing 300 cubic yards of
contaminated sediment from a residential pond and
treating it concurrently with the soil; backfilling the
treated soil and sediment and covering the area with
clean soil; pumping and treating ground water using
filtration, air stripping, and carbon adsorption,
followed by reinjecting treated water on site;
decontaminating the AT building; removing 18 waste
oil drums, debris, and less than 5 cubic yards of drain
sludge from the building for off-site treatment and
disposal; disposing of all treatment residuals off site;
and conducting ground-water and air monitoring.
The estimated cost for this remedial action is
$26,102,200, including an annual O&M cost of
$1,304,300 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific goals for soil include PCE
1.0 mg/kg and TCE 0.4 rag/kg. Ground-water
chemical-specific clean-up goals include PCE 5.0 ug/1,
TCE 5.0 ug/1, arsenic 25.0 ug/1, chromium 50 ug/1, and
lead 25 ug/1, all of which are state MCLs.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-14
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, NJ
First Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 31-acre Chemical Leaman Tank Lines site
is a liquid tanker truck terminal and cleaning operation
in Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey.
Surrounding land use is primarily rural residential. An
extensive wetlands area occupies the southern and
eastern portions of the site. An underlying aquifer was
used as a local drinking water supply until the late
1970s when ground-water contaminants, including
solvents, were detected in the aquifer. From 1961 to
1975, wastewater from tanker washing and rinsing
operations was discharged into a network of seven
unlined settling/aeration lagoons, which have been
determined to be the source of the present organic and
inorganic contamination of soil, ground water, and
adjacent wetlands. In 1975, a rinse-water containment
system was installed; lagoons were no longer used in
the wastewater process. In 1977, liquid remaining in
the lagoons was drained to the wetlands, sludge was
removed from settling lagoons, and subsequently the
lagoons were filled with clean soil and construction
debris. Aeration lagoons were filled with perimeter
diking materials and construction debris, however, the
sludge was not removed. In 1982, visible sludge was
removed again from the settling lagoons. From 1980
to 1981, the state documented on-site and off-site
ground-water contamination. Consequently, in 1987 six
homes were connected to a public water supply as part
of a removal action. A current removal action will
connect four more homes to this system. This ROD
addresses remediation of the ground-water contaminant
plume. Subsequent RODs will address source control,
surface water, and sediment contamination. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting ground
water are VOCs, including benzene, PCE, and TCE;
other organics; and metals, including arsenic,.
chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes pumping and treatment of ground water,
using chemical precipitation to remove metals, an air
stripper to remove VOCs, and granular activated
carbon to remove residual organic contaminants;
incinerating fumes from the air stripper unit on site;
discharging treated water to on-site surface water;
ground-water monitoring; and conducting further
studies to more thoroughly characterize the
contamination and the contaminant plume, and to
more thoroughly define the design and operation of
the treatment system. The estimated cost of this
remedial action is $5,420,000, including an estimated
annual O&M cost of $320,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Aquifer clean-up levels will utilize both
federal and state SDWA MCLs, which include
benzene 1 ug/I (state MCL), PCE 1 ug/1 (state MCL),
TCE 1 ug/1 (state MCL), arsenic 50 ug/1 (MCL),
chromium 50 ug/1 (state MCL), and lead 15 ug/1
(proposed MCL).
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-15
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CINNAMINSON GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION, NJ
First Remedial Action
September 28, 1990
The 400-acre Cinnaminson Groundwater
Contamination site is in the townships of Cinnaminson
and Delran, Burlington County, New Jersey, and is
comprised of a landfill, several industrial operations,
and residential properties. The site overlies a deep and
a shallow aquifer, and the latter is a potential source of
drinking water. Furthermore, the site lies within the
Delaware River floodplain. Land use in the vicinity of
the site is residential, agricultural, and industrial. The
on-site landfill was originally used for sand and gravel
mining operations. From 1950 to 1980, municipal solid
waste and other refuse were deposited in the mining
pits, while mining operations continued in other site
areas. In 1970, Sanitary Landfill Inc. (SLI) operated an
on-site sanitary landfill in the same area, which
accepted hazardous industrial waste. In 1980, the state
identified improper waste disposal practices on site,
and ordered SLI to close the landfill. In 1981, as part
of the closure plan, SLI capped the landfill with 18
inches of clay, installed a gas collection and venting
system, and initiated ground-water monitoring.
Subsequent ground-water studies by EPA and SLI
identified on-site ground-water contamination in the
landfill area. Additionally, various on-site industrial
operations and local area septic systems also were
identified as potential sources of ground-water
contamination. This ROD addresses remediation of
on-site contaminated ground water in the shallow and
deep aquifers, and prevention of further migration of
contamination into municipal wells. The adequacy of
the SLI landfill closure will be addressed in a
subsequent ROD. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs,
including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes;
other organics, including PAHs and phenols; and
metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes pumping and treatment of ground water
from the shallow and deep aquifers using chemical
precipitation and biological/granular activated carbon;
reinjecting the treated water on site into the deep
aquifer; ground-water monitoring; and implementing
engineering and institutional controls. The estimated
cost for this remedial action is $20,500,000, including
an annual O&M cost of $751,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on the more stringent of SDWA
MCLs or state standards including benzene 1 ugA
(state), xylenes 44 ug/1 (state), and arsenic 50 ug/1
(state).
Institutional Controls
the site.
Institutional controls will be implemented at
C-16
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CLAREMONT POLYCHEMICAL, NY
Second Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The 9.5-acre Claremont Polychemical site is an
abandoned production facility in Oyster Bay, Nassau
County, New York. Land use in the vicinity of the site
is light industrial and commercial. From 1968 to 1980,
when on-site operations ceased, Claremont
Polychemical manufactured inks and pigments for
plastics, coated metallic flakes, and vinyl stabilizers in
several on-site buildings that had asbestos insulation.
The principal wastes generated were organic solvents,
resins, and mineral spirits wash wastes. In 1979, the
state identified improper storage practices on site,
including stockpiles of over 2,000 uncovered or leaking
drums of wastes and an on-site spill area. Organic
solvents from several spills and discharge incidents may
have contaminated soil and ground water. By 1980,
most of the on-site drums were sorted and removed off
site, reused, or burned on site. Subsequently,
contaminated soil was excavated and placed on a
plastic sterile liner, which has degraded over time.
Ground-water investigations in 1980 revealed ground-
water contamination directly under the site. The
remedial actions for this site have been divided into
two operable units. This ROD focuses on operable
unit two, overall remediation of ground water and
soil/wastes contained on site in drums and holding
basins. The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs, including
PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics; met-
als, including arsenic, chromium, and lead; and
inorganics, including asbestos.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavation and on-site treatment of 1,600
cubic yards of contaminated soil using low
temperature enhanced volatilization, followed by
redeposition of the treated soil in the excavated areas;
decontaminating the building, including removal, off-
site disposal, and treatment of the asbestos insulation;
excavating, treating, and disposing of the underground
tanks, tank contents, associated equipment, liquid
wastes, and contaminated soil off site; backfilling the
excavated area with clean soil; and pumping and
treatment of ground water using air stripping, using
carbon adsorption to control offgasses, followed by
on-site reinjection of the treated ground water. The
estimated cost for this remedial action is $16,800,00,
including an annual O&M cost of $1,100,400 for years
0 to 10 and $701,900 for years 11 to 17.
Performance Standards or Goals
No chemical-specific clean-up levels were
provided.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-17
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TECHNICAL CENTER, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final (Federal Facility)
September 28,1990
The 5,000-acre Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Technical Center site is 8 miles
northwest of Atlantic City, in Atlantic County, New
Jersey. The site is comprised of several installations,
including the Atlantic City International Air Terminal,
the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir, and the facilities of
the FAA Technical Center. Forested land, commercial,
and residential areas are adjacent to the site. A
salvage yard (Area 20A), located southeast of the
Atlantic City International Terminal, has been used for
storing old aircraft parts, automobiles, scrap metal, and
empty 55-gallon drums. Soil contamination of Area
20A by PCBs and VOCs has resulted from leaking and
deteriorating drums that have been stored on site. The
total volume of contaminated soil was estimated to be
930 cubic yards. Additionally, on-site ground water has
been contaminated by VOCs leaching out of the
contaminated soil and into the shallow and
intermediate aquifers. A ground water contaminant
plume, identified during state site investigations in
1983, is limited to the shallow aquifer below the
salvage yard area. This ROD addresses soil and
ground-water contamination. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and ground
water are VOCs, including toluene; other organics,
including PCBs; and metals, including chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating 930 cubic yards of contaminated
soil, temporarily storing the soil on site before
transporting the soil off site for rotary kiln
incineration, followed by off-site disposal of residual
ash; pumping and on-site treatment of contaminated
ground water using air stripping and emissions
controls, if necessary; reinjecting on site the treated
ground water from the upper aquifer (located
upgradient of the contaminated area); discharging the
treated ground water from the intermediate aquifer to
an existing borrow pit area; and continuing site access
restrictions. The estimated cost for this remedial
action is $6,300,000, including an annual O&M cost
of $86,000 for 8 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
levels are based on SDWA MCLs or stricter state
standards, including 1,1,1-TCA 26 ug/1 (state MCL),
PCBs 0.5 ug/1 (state MCL), toluene 2,000 ug/1
(SDWA MCL) and chromium 50 ug/1 (SDWA MCL).
Soil clean-up levels are based on state action levels
including PCBs 5 mg/kg for the 0 to 0.5-foot interval
and 25 mg/kg for soil at greater depths.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-18
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
FOREST GLEN SUBDIVISION, NY
First Remedial Action
December 29,1989
The Forest Glen Subdivision site consists of 21
acres of developed residential properties and
undeveloped land in Niagara Falls, Niagara County,
New York. Land in the area surrounding the Forest
Glen subdivision is used for residential and industrial
purposes, including a mobile home park, small
shopping mall, and the CECOS Landfill. Also,
northwest of the subdivision is the New Road Landfill,
which is currently under investigation by the state.
Chemical companies reportedly disposed of wastes on
site from the early 1950s to the early 1970s. Evidence
of past waste disposal became apparent in 1973 when
utility installation workers encountered resinous and
powder-like wastes, drums, and battery casing parts.
Residents also encountered wastes on their properties
and contacted the county, which responded to
complaints regarding drum tops and resinous materials
in June 1980. Ten truckloads of a yellow, resin-like
material were subsequently excavated and transported
to the CECOS Landfill by the property owner at the
time. Sampling by EPA's Field Investigation Team
revealed the presence of high concentrations of
unknown and tentatively identified compounds (TICs)
in August 1987, and further soil sampling was
conducted to identify the TICs. EPA has executed
interim measures to stabilize site conditions including
collecting, staging, and securing drums in areas north
and east of the subdivision, and temporarily covering
visibly contaminated soil with concrete. This remedial
activity is the first of two planned operable units and
addresses resident relocation only. A subsequent
operable unit will address the remediation of site
contamination once the relocation is completed. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil are
organics, including PAHs; metals, including lead; and
other inorganics.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes permanently relocating all Forest Glen
subdivision residents; sampling and, if necessary,
decontaminating, salvaging, or disposing of mobile
homes remaining on site after completion of resident
relocation; and implementing site access restrictions.
The estimated cost for this remedial action ranges
from $4,710,000 to $6,020,000, depending on the
relocation options selected. No O&M costs are
associated with this first operable unit.
Performance Standards or Goals
This operable unit only addresses the
permanent relocation of the residents. Therefore, no
clean-up standards or goals are applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-19
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
GLEN RIDGE RADIUM, NJ
Second Remedial Action - Final
June 1,1990
The 90-acre Glen Ridge Radium site is a
residential community in the Borough of Glen Ridge,
Essex County, New Jersey. The site is adjacent to
another Superfund site, the Montclair/West Orange
site. The Glen Ridge site includes a community of 274
properties serviced by surface reservoirs in northern
New Jersey. In the early 1900s, a radium processing or
utilization facility was located in the vicinity of the site.
It is suspected that radioactive waste material from the
facility was disposed of in then rural areas within the
community. Some of the radioactive-contaminated soil
is believed to have been moved from the original
disposal location, used as fill material in low-lying
areas, or mixed with Portland cement to make concrete
sidewalks or foundations. Houses were subsequently
constructed on or near the radium waste disposal areas.
EPA investigations in 1981 and 1983 confirmed the
presence of gamma radiation contamination in the
Glen Ridge area and in several adjacent houses.
Subsequently, EPA established a quality air monitoring
program to determine the levels of radon decay
products in the contaminated houses. In 1984, EPA
installed and maintained temporary radon ventilation
systems and gamma radiation shielding in 20
residences. In 1985, the state excavated contaminated
on-site soil from 12 Glen Ridge properties and
disposed of the soil off site. This ROD complements
the previous 1989 ROD for this site and provides a
final remedy. The primary contaminant of concern af-
fecting the soil is radium226. The public drinking
water supply was tested and no contamination was
detected, therefore, a ground-water action was not
implemented at the Glen Ridge site.
The selected interim remedial action for this
site includes excavating and disposing of 323,000 cubic
yards of contaminated soil and other radium-contami-
nated materials from residential and public proper-
ties, followed by disposing of the soil off site; filling
the excavated areas; environmental monitoring; and
continued treatment technology studies, which may
reduce the volume of materials disposed of off site.
The estimated cost for this remedial action ranges
from $252,700,000 to $348,700,000, based on the
selected transportation method. There are no O&M
costs associated with this remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil contaminated with concentrations greater
than radon 5.0 pCi/g of soil to a depth of 6 inches
and radon 15 pCi/g in subsurface soil will be removed
and disposed of off site.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-20
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
HIGGINS FARM, NJ
First Remedial Action
September 24,1990
The 75-acre Higgins Farm site is a cattle farm
in Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey.
The site is primarily pasture land with poor on-site
drainage. Approximately 3,200 residents living within
a 3-mile radius of the site rely on ground water as their
drinking water source. In 1985, after receiving reports
of ground-water contamination near the farm, the state
investigated the area and found a drum burial area. In
1986, the site owner began to remove the drums from
the site, and ten drums were removed, crushed, and
placed in a roll-off container. Later in 1986, another
50 drums were excavated; during the excavation, the
drums were punctured and their contents spilled onto
the ground. Fluids from the pit formed during
excavation activities were subsequently pumped to a
holding tank while excavation continued. In addition
to excavating the drums, visibly contaminated soil was
placed in roll-off containers. In late 1986, state site
inspections revealed ground-water and soil contami-
nation by VOCs, pesticides, metals, and dioxins.
Bottled water was temporarily provided to affected
residents until 1989, when the state installed carbon
filter units on affected wells. In 1987, EPA initiated
stabilization activities at the site, including construction
of a barn to store dioxin-contaminated material such as
overpacked drums and roll-off containers; draining,
lining, and backfilling of the excavation pit; treatment
of the pumped liquids and storage of the treated
liquids in a holding tank; and implementing site access
restrictions. This ROD provides a permanent safe
drinking water supply source for affected residents as
part of an interim remedy. A future ROD will address
remediation of final ground water and all remaining
on-site contamination including soil, sediment, surface
water, and ground water. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs,
including benzene, PCE, TCE, and xylenes; other
organics; and metals, including lead.
The selected interim remedial action for this
site includes developing, designing, and constructing
a water main extension and distribution system;
installing new carbon adsorption units, as necessary;
operating and maintaining existing carbon adsorption
units until construction is completed; conducting
environmental sampling of residential wells; removing
carbon units and private well connections once the
permanent water supply is installed; and implemen-
ting institutional controls including ground-water use
restrictions. Since the proposed remedy would not
restore ground water to beneficial use levels, an
interim ARAR waiver will be invoked as part of this
remedial action. The total cost for this remedial
action is $1,716,000, including a total O&M cost of
$28,200 for 2 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ARARs for drinking water
are based on SDWA MCLs and the more stringent
state standards including benzene 1.0 ug/1 (state
MCL), PCE 1.0 ug/1 (state MCL), and TCE 1.0 ug/1
(state MCL).
Institutional Controls
Ground-water use restrictions will be
implemented to limit new well installation within the
affected area.
C-21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
HOOKER - 102nd STREET, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
September 26,1990
The 22-acre Hooker - 102nd Street site is a
former industrial landfill in the city of Niagara Falls,
Niagara County, New York. The site is adjacent to
and partially within the Niagara River's 100-year
floodplain. Surrounding land use is industrial and
residential. From 1943 to 1970, the site was used by
Occidental Chemical Corporation (formerly Hooker
Chemicals and Plastics Corporation) and Olin
Corporation as a disposal area for at least 159,000 tons
of solid and liquid industrial wastes including benzene,
chlorobenzene, and hexachlorocyclohexanes. In 1970,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ordered landfilling
operations to cease temporarily until a bulkhead
between the landfill and the river could be constructed.
The bulkhead was completed in 1973, but landfill
operations were not resumed. In 1973, a series of
investigations were conducted by EPA to characterize
site subsurface conditions. These studies and the
remedial investigation (RI), initiated in 1984, identified
contamination in ground water, on-site and off-site soil,
rivershore sediment, and within a storm sewer.
Additionally, the presence of a leachate plume of
non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) was discovered
emanating from the landfill area. This ROD is the
final remedy, which addresses all of the contaminated
media. The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil, sediment, and ground water are VOCs,
including benzene, TCE, and toluene; other organics,
including PCBs and phenols; and metals, including
arsenic.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes consolidating off-site soil and lesser
contaminated sediment within the landfill area,
followed by capping the landfill and perimeter soil;
constructing a slurry wall around the site perimeter to
contain the NAPL plume; extracting NAPLs from the
landfill and dredging "hot spot" river sediment, and
transporting sediment and leachate off site for
incineration; dredging and dewatering remaining
sediment and consolidating it within the landfill area;
recovering ground water with an interception drain,
followed by on-site discharge to the Niagara River or
off-site treatment and discharge to a city sewer;
cleaning the storm sewer, and placing a plastic
slipliner within the sewer; extracting and incinerating
off-site NAPLs within consolidated river or sewer
sediment; long-term ground-water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls including deed
and land use restrictions, and site access restrictions
such as fencing. The estimated cost for this remedial
action is 530,080,000, including an annual O&M cost
of $7,209,600.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up goals for ground water will be the
more stringent of federal MCLs or state regulated
levels. Chemical-specific ground-water goals include
benzene to detection limits (state), TCE 5.0 ug/1
(state), PCBs 0.1 ug/1 (state), phenols 1 ug/1 (state),
and arsenic 25.0 ug/l (state). Sediment remedial
levels will be the solid phase concentrations necessary
to potentially exceed state ambient water quality
standards in the liquid phase. Chemical-specific
clean-up levels for sediment include benzene 40 ug/kg,
TCE 111 ug/kg, and PCBs 42.4 ug/kg.
Institutional Controls
Deed and land use restrictions will be
implemented at the site.
C-22
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
HOOKER CHEMICAL/RUCO POLYMER, NY
First Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 14-acre Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer
site is an active polymer production facility in
Hicksville, Nassau County, New York. Surrounding
land use is primarily industrial and commercial, and a
residential area is located near the site. Since 1946,
the facility has produced various plastics, polymers and
resins, including polyvinyl chloride, styrene/butadiene
latex, vinyl chloride/vinyl acetate copolymer, and
polyurethanes. From 1956 to 1975, plant wastewater
containing VOCs and heavy metals was discharged into
six on-site ground-water recharge basins, which has led
to contamination of the on-site ground water. From
1946 to 1978, the on-site plant utilized a heat transfer
fluid that contained PCBs. Since 1984, site
investigations have identified four areas of PCB
contamination. These include a direct spill area where
releases of heat transfer fluid escaped through a relief
valve at the pilot plant, a transport area contaminated
by PCBs spread from the direct spill area by on-site
truck traffic, the recharge basin that was contaminated
by surface runoff, and soil contamination around an
underground fuel storage tank, which was disposed of
off site in 1989. Contaminated soil from the tank
excavation is currently stored on site. This ROD
addresses remediation of operable unit two, the
PCB-contaminated soil at the above locations.
Remediation of remaining site areas, VOC-contami-
nated soil, and ground water will be addressed as
operable unit one in a subsequent ROD. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and debris
are PCBs.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating all soil contaminated with greater
than 10 mg/kg PCBs from the direct spill and
transport areas, and the soil from the recharge basin
to a depth of 10 feet; disposing of approximately
1,100 cubic yards of soil contaminated with 10 to 500
mg/kg PCBs at an oflsite landfill along with the
stockpiled soil from the earlier tank excavation;
treating approximately 36 cubic yards of soil
contaminated with PCB levels greater than 500 mg/kg
off-site using incineration, followed by off site
disposal of the residual ash; and backfilling and
paving all excavated areas, except for the recharge
basin. The estimated cost for this remedial action is
$995,650. There are no O&M costs associated with
this remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
The excavation level, PCBs greater than 10
mg/kg, and treatment level, PCBs greater than 500
mg/kg, are based on the TSCA Spill Cleanup Policy
and EPA's "Guidance on Selecting Remedies for
Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination,"
respectively.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
IMPERIAL OIL/CHAMPION CHEMICALS, NJ
First Remedial Action
September 26, 1990
The 15-acre Imperial Oil/Champion Chemicals
site is an active oil blending facility in Marlboro
Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey.
Surrounding land use is primarily residential, and
several contaminated wetland areas are located to the
north of the site. Since 1912, a variety of operations
have taken place on site, including food processing,
chemical manufacturing, and flavor and essence
production. In 1950, the plant was modified for oil
reclamation during which time used oil was washed and
distilled on site. Residual sludge and oily filter clay
were disposed of on site and washwater was discharged
to an on-site settling lagoon. Washwater and used oil
were also reportedly spread on area roads to control
dust. In 1969, Imperial Oil began on-site oil blending
operations that included mixing and repacking unused
oil. Currently, chemicals are delivered by truck and
transferred to 56 on-site above-ground tanks. The
resulting oil/water separator sludge reportedly has been
disposed of on site near the oily filter clay pile.
Several private and state investigations from 1981 to
1990 revealed contamination in on-site soil and ground
water, as well as contamination by oily sludge in two of
the off-site wetland areas. Probable sources of the
contamination include leaching and erosion of material
from an on-site waste pile, overflowing of oil/water
separators, and improper treatment of separator
effluent for arsenic. This ROD addresses remediation
of the contaminated off-site wetland areas.
Remediation of on-site sources and contaminated
ground water will be addressed in a subsequent ROD.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil
areVOCs, including benzene, toluene, and xylenes;
other organics, including PAHs and PCBs; and
metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating approximately 3,700 cubic yards of
soil from the off-site wetlands area contaminated with
greater than 1 mg/kg PCBs; temporarily storing the
excavated material on site in a dewatering and staging
area before disposing of the material off site in a
hazardous waste landfill; air monitoring and soil
sampling; restoring the wetlands after completion of
excavation; and controlling site access with fencing
until remediation has been completed. A contingency
for soil treatment has been included if teachability
studies determine treatment is necessary to meet land
disposal restrictions. The estimated cost for this
remedial action is $6,889,985, including an annual
O&M cost of $1,700 for 10 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up levels for soil have been based on
state soil clean-up objectives and include lead
250-1,000 mg/kg, PAHs 10 mg/kg, and PCBs 5 mg/kg.
The actual excavation volume of 3,700 cubic yards of
soil has been based on a PCB level of 1 mg/kg, which
is designed to account for all soil contaminated above
soil clean-up objectives for any contaminant of
concern.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-24
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
KENTUCKY AVENUE WELL FIELD, NY
Second Remedial Action
September 28, 1990
The Kentucky Avenue Well Field site is an
inactive municipal water supply in Horseheads,
Chemung County, New York. The site is in a
low-relief area, part of which lies within a 100-year
floodplain. In addition, several wetland areas are on
site. Surrounding land use is mixed residential,
commercial, and industrial. The site overlies the
Newtown Creek Aquifer, a major source of water in
the area. The well field was established in 1962, when
a water supply was needed for a food processing plant.
In 1980, elevated levels of TCE were discovered in
ground water, and the well field was closed.
Subsequent investigations by the state and EPA
identified additional on-site contamination by VOCs
and metals. In 1985 and 1986, a removal action by
EPA required the connection of 56 homes that were
served by the well field to the public water distribution
system as an alternate water supply. A 1986 ROD
documented the selection of ground-water monitoring,
identification of contaminant sources, and the provision
of public water to 46 additional residences as part of
the remedy for this site. The primary source of this
contamination was determined to be from the disposal
of industrial wastes in lagoons or land areas and from
industrial spills, including ones from a nearby
Westinghouse facility. This ROD addresses
management of migration of ground-water
contaminants. A subsequent ROD will address source
and final ground-water clean-up activities. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are
VOCs, including TCE and xylenes; and metals, inclu-
ding arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes restoring the Kentucky Avenue Well Field as
a public drinking water supply well by constructing
two treatment plants, one near the well and one
between the well and the adjacent Westinghouse
facility; pumping and treating ground water using
filtration and air stripping/carbon adsorption or
UV-oxidation to remove organics; disposing of any
treatment residuals off site; discharging the treated
water to the public water supply or surface water, or
reinjecting the treated water on site; ground-water
monitoring; and investigating an additional possible
source of on-site contamination. The estimated cost
for this remedial action is $14,963,900, including an
annual O&M cost of $905,300 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Goals for discharge of treated ground water
were chosen as the most stringent of federal or state
MCLs or MCLGs, or other state ground-water
standards. Chemical-specific goals for ground-water
include TCE 5 ug/1 (MCL), arsenic 25 ug/l (state),
chromium 50 ug/1 (MCL), and lead 25 ug/1 (state).
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-25
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
KING OF PRUSSIA, NJ
First Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 10-acre King of Prussia (KOP) site is an
abandoned waste disposal and recycling facility in
Winslow Township, Camden County, New Jersey. The
nearest residence is 1 mile northeast of the site, and
the nearest surface water body is the Great Egg Harbor
River, which flows 1,000 feet southwest of the site. In
addition, an on-site swale, which directs site runoff
toward the river, has been dammed by two fire roads
resulting in the formation of on-site wetlands. Site
features include three man-made, former lagoons, two
rusting and torn tankers on a concrete pad, and an area
with an undetermined number of buried drums and
containers. The waste recycling facility was operated
from 1970 to 1974 by the KOP Corporation. Past
waste handling and disposal practices at the facility, as
well as suspected illegal dumping of trash and
hazardous materials after the facility closed, have
resulted in organic and inorganic contamination of site
soil, sediment, and ground water. Soil and ground-
water contamination were detected by the state in 1976,
and subsequently confirmed by EPA during site
investigations conducted from 1978 to 1982. As a
result of these investigations, buried plastic containers
and visibly contaminated soil west of the lagoons were
excavated and removed in late 1989 or 1990. Several
additional discrete areas, of contamination have been
identified, however, including: metal-contaminated soil
adjacent to the lagoons, lagoon sludge, swale sediment,
and soil near the tankers; VOC-contaminated soil in
the drum disposal area; organic and metal-contamina-
ted ground water; and possible contamination of the
surface water and sediment in the river. This ROD
addresses the first operable unit for the site, including
the contaminated ground water, soil, sediment, sludges,
drums, and tankers. A future ROD will address
contaminated soil associated with the buried drum
area. The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil, sediment, sludge, debris, and ground water are
VOCs, including benzene, PCE, and TCE; and metals,
including chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating lagoon sludges, soil adjacent to
the lagoons, and sediment in the swale, treating these
materials using soil washing for metals removal, and
redepositing the residual materials in their original
location on site; excavating and disposing of buried
drums, their contents, and associated visibly
contaminated soil on site; removing tankers for off-
site disposal; ground-water pumping and treatment
using air stripping, followed by reinjection of ground
water and off-site disposal or treatment of residuals;
conducting additional sampling and analysis of surface
waters and sediment of the Great Egg Harbor River
and soil in the buried drums area to determine the
need for further site remediation; and implementing
institutional controls including ground-water use
restrictions. The estimated cost for this remedial
action is $14,889,000, including an estimated annual
O&M cost of $285,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil clean-up objectives are based on a 10"6
cancer risk to human health, a hazardous index less
than 1, or state action levels and include chromium
483 mg/kg (health-based level), copper 3,571 mg/kg
(health-based level), lead 500 mg/kg (state) and nickel
1,935 mg/kg (health-based level). Ground-water
clean-up levels are based on state and federal MCLs,
whichever is more stringent, including PCE 1 ug/1
(state), TCE 1 ug/l (state), chromium 50 ugA (state),
copper 1,000 ug/1 (state), and nickel 210 ugA (state).
Institutional Controls
Ground-water use restrictions will be
implemented until remediation goals are achieved.
C-26
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
LONE PINE LANDFILL, NJ
Second Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The 45-acre Lone Pine Landfill site is an
abandoned, privately-owned waste disposal facility in
Freehold Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey.
The site lies within a semi-wooded wetlands area, and
in the Manasquan River floodplain. Contaminated
ground water underlies the site within the surficial
Water Table Aquifer and the deeper Red Bank
Aquifer. Ground water from-both aquifers discharges
into the Manasquan River downgradient from the site.
From 1959 to 1979, municipal, commercial, and
industrial wastes, including approximately 17,000 drums
containing hazardous waste, tanks containing liquid
chemicals, and containers of chemical sludges, were
disposed of on site. Following a chemical fire in 1977
and an explosion at the site in 1978, the state ordered
the owner to mitigate the potential environmental
damage. In 1979, when the owner failed to comply, the
state ordered the landfill closed, and the site was
abandoned. A1984 ROD addressed operable unit one,
the source control remedy, which included constructing
a landfill containment system; capping the landfill;
installing a slurry wall around the landfill perimeter;
and collecting and treating leachate from within the
slurry wall containment area. This ROD addresses
operable unit two, contaminated ground water outside
of the containment system. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs,
including benzene, PCE, phenols, TCE, toluene, and
xylenes; and metals, including arsenic, chromium, and
lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes pumping and treating ground water after
installation of an interceptor drain parallel to the
Manasquan River that is keyed into the Water Table
Aquifer to capture contaminated ground water;
supplementing the drain with extraction wells
screened within the Red Bank Aquifer; constructing
an on site wastewater treatment plant consisting of an
air stripper to remove VOCs, precipitation/filtration
for removal of metals, and carbon adsorption to treat
recovered ground water; dewatering and testing of
residual solids to determine proper method for off-
site disposal; reinjecting the treated ground water into
the Red Bank Aquifer or discharging into a recharge
trench on site; conducting long-term monitoring of
ground water, surface water, river sediments and
biota; and implementing institutional controls
including deed restrictions and land and ground-water
use limitations. The estimated cost for this remedial
action is $10,267,661, including an annual O&M cost
of $482,600.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals include benzene 1 ug/1 (state MCL), PCE 1 ug/1
(state MCL), phenols 0.0035 ug/1 (state), TCE 1 ug/1
(state MCL), toluene 50 ug/1 (state MCL), xylenes 44
ug/1 (state MCL), arsenic 50 ug/1 (state MCL),
chromium 50 ug/1 (state MCL), and lead 50 ug/1 (state
MCL).
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls including land use,
ground-water use, and deed restrictions will be
implemented at the site.
C-27
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
Fiscal Year 1990
M&T DELISA LANDFILL, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final
September 20,1990
The 132-acre M&T DeLisa Landfill site is
northwest of the city of Asbury Park in Ocean
Township, New Jersey. The 39-acre M&T DeLisa
Landfill was operated with a state permit from 1914
until 1974. After the landfill was closed, a private
company constructed a shopping mall on 30 acres of
the landfill. The developer took control measures to
protect against the generation of landfill gases and
leachate. Although landfill gas is generated at the site
and slightly elevated levels of VOC accumulation were
detected on the northern edge of the mall, sampling
and analysis indicate that the landfill is not the source
of detectable levels of VOCs in the mall. The
developer installed storm drainage from the parking lot
to protect Deal Lake Brook, which is the nearest
surface water and is immediately south of the mall.
On-site surface water and ground water are not used as
sources of potable water. Site investigations and
historical research of on-site activities revealed no
evidence to indicate that the landfill was used for
hazardous waste disposal. There are no contaminants
of concern affecting the site, therefore, this is a no
action ROD.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes a no further action scenario. Although no
significant contamination is present at the site, EPA
recommends that environmental controls be
implemented, including continued surface and
ground-water monitoring, restricting possible future
use of on-site ground water, continued sampling and
monitoring of the leachate collection system,
replacing a gas vent, sealing cracks in building floors
and walls in contact with subsurface soil, improving
detention ponds leading into Deal Lake Brook,
venting of the north corridor area of the mall, and
periodic indoor and outdoor air monitoring. EPA
has determined that such actions will not be
implemented under the authority of the Superfund
program, and responsibility for the site has been
transferred to the state. There are no costs associated
with this no action remedy.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
EPA recommends modifying the property
deed to restrict the possible use of on-site ground
water.
C-28
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
MANNHEIM AVENUE DUMP, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 2-acre Mannheim Avenue Dump site is a
former municipally-owned industrial waste landfill in
Galloway Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey.
Surrounding land use is rural residential, and many
residents and facilities in the area use ground water as
their drinking water supply. The site is adjacent to a
wooded wetland area which overlies a shallow
unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifer and a deeper
aquifer separated from the shallow zone by a
semi-permeable clay layer. Prior to 1964, the site was
used as a sand and gravel quarry. Beginning in 1964,
drummed industrial wastes, including TCE degreasing
sludge, leaded porcelain fragments, and municipal
waste, were buried on site in 35 waste mounds. In
1982, a state survey indicated the presence of many
unburied and leaking drums on site. In 1984, EPA
ordered a removal action that required cleanup of the
drummed waste, including 25,000 pounds of degreasing
sludge. Subsequent sampling from 1985 to 1986,
revealed ground-water contamination on site. In 1989,
35 mounds of contaminated soil were disposed of off
site. This ROD addresses ground-water contamination
at the site. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water are VOCs, including
benzene and TCE.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes ground-water pumping and treatment using air
stripping, with pretreatment for removal of iron, if
necessary, reinjecting the ground water on site with
an evaluation of the feasibility of using infiltration
basins as an alternate means of discharge; covering
the disposal area with clean fill; developing a
contingency plan for the installation of individual
carbon adsorption units on residential wells, which
may become affected by migration of the contaminant
plume; monitoring ground and surface waters;
sampling the sediment; performing a treatability study
to investigate the need for further treatments to
remove toluene, lead, and chromium from ground
water; and determining the need for off-gas controls
on air stripper units. The estimated cost for the
remedial action is $4,217,100, including an annual
O&M cost ranging from $18,600 to $394,100 based on
differences in treatment and monitoring systems over
a period of 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific goals for ground water
include TCE 1 ugA (state MCL) and benzene 1 ug/1
(state MCL).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-29
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL, NY
First Remedial Action
September 27,1990
The 2-acre Mattiace Petrochemical site is an
inactive liquid storage and redistribution facility in
Glen Cove, Nassau County, New York. Surrounding
land use is primarily industrial. The site overlies a
system of three unconsolidated sedimentary aquifers,
which may be affected by on-site contamination. From
the mid-1960s to 1986, organic solvents were stored,
blended, and repackaged on site. On-site features
involved with the operation included a metal Quonset
hut, a concrete fire shed, a leaching pond, a partially
covered concrete loading dock, and 32 underground
and 24 above-ground storage tanks. Drums were
reconditioned on site, and resulting water/solvent
mixtures were discharged to aboveground tanks or to
an on-site leaching pond. A solvent water separator
was used to collect overflow from the above-ground
tanks for discharge to the leaching pond. There is
evidence, however, that overflow from these tanks may
have been discharged directly into the soil. In 1988,
EPA characterized and disposed of 100,000 gallons of
hazardous liquids off site from approximately 24 above-
and 32 below-ground storage tanks. In 1989, a second
investigation identified approximately 25 buried drums
and numerous other containers that were leaking
contaminated material into the surrounding soil and
ground water. This ROD addresses operable unit two
and includes removal of drummed sludges and highly
contaminated soil. A subsequent ROD will address
all remaining sources of contamination including
ground water as operable unit one. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sludge, and
debris are VOCs, including benzene, PCE, TCE,
toluene, and xylenes; other organics, including
phenols; and metals, including arsenic, chromium, and
lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating all drums, containers, and highly
contaminated soil; consolidating the waste and
overpacking drums as necessary; containing
contaminated soil, and transporting the material off
site for treatment (possibly incineration) and disposal.
The estimated cost for this remedial action is
$322,300. There are no O&M costs associated with
this remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-30
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS, NJ
Second Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 15.3-acre Metaltec/Aerosystems site is a
former metal products manufacturing operation in the
Borough of Franklin, Sussex County, New Jersey. A
marshy wetlands area is southeast of the site, and
surrounding land use is primarily semi-rural residential.
The Metaltec plant was operated from 1965 to 1980.
The area surrounding the plant included a process well,
a wastewater lagoon, a drum storage area, soil
saturated with wastewater, and two piles of waste
material. In 1980, the state detected VOCs in the
wastewater lagoon, surrounding soil, and in on-site
ground water. In 1981, the state ordered Metal-
tec/Aerosystems to remove waste material from the
wastewater lagoon. In 1982, the lagoon was partially
excavated and filled. A 1986 ROD addressed the
remediation of soil, provided an alternate water supply
for nearby residents, and required a supplemental
remedial investigation/feasibility study to determine the
extent of the ground-water contamination. This ROD
addresses final ground-water remediation at the site.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
ground water are VOCs, including PCE, TCE, toluene,
and xylenes; and metals, including chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes on-site ground-water pumping and treatment
using precipitation, air stripping, and carbon
adsorption, followed by discharge of the treated water
to on-site surface water; disposing of precipitated
sludge from the ground-water treatment process off
site; regenerating the spent carbon, and disposing of
the residual off site; and ground-water monitoring.
The estimated cost for this remedial action is
$4,348,900, including an annual O&M cost of
$466,300 for 10 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water goals are
based on federal or state MCLs and include PCE 1
ug/1 (state MCL), TCE 1 ug/1 (state MCL), toluene
2,000 ug/1 (MCL), and xylenes 44 ug/1 (state MCL).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-31
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
MONTCLAIR/WEST ORANGE RADIUM, NJ
Second Remedial Action
June 1,1990
The 120-acre Montclair/West Orange Radium
site is comprised of 239 residential properties in the
Town of Montclair and 127 residential properties in
the Town of West Orange, Essex County, New Jersey.
The site is located in proximity to the Glen Ridge
Radium Superfund site. In the early 1900s, a radium
processing or utilization facility was located near the
site. It is suspected that radioactive waste material
from the facility was disposed of in then rural areas
within the community. Some of the radioactively-
contaminated soil is believed to have been moved from
the original disposal location, used as fill materials in
low-lying areas, or mixed with Portland cement to
make concrete sidewalks or foundations. Subsequently,
houses were constructed on or near the radium waste
disposal areas. EPA investigations in 1981 and 1983
confirmed the presence of gamma radiation
contamination in the Glen Ridge area and in several
adjacent houses. Subsequently, EPA established an air
quality monitoring program to determine the levels of
radon decay products in the contaminated houses. In
1984, EPA initiated a remedial investigation/feasibility
study to determine the nature and extent of the
problem and develop remedial alternatives for the site.
Also in 1984, the Agency installed and maintained
temporary radon ventilation systems, and gamma radia-
tion shielding in 20 residences. In 1985, the state
implemented the pilot study, which included excavating
and disposing of contaminated soil off site from 12
Glen Ridge site properties and several properties in
Montclair. A 1989 ROD addressed partial excavation
and off-site disposal of contaminated soil from a
number of residences as the selected remedial action.
This ROD also addresses contaminated on-site soil,
and is a final source control remedy. A separate
ground-water study has been initiated, and will be
addressed in a subsequent ROD, if necessary. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil are
radioactive materials, especially radium226; and
metals, including lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating 323,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil (including Glen Ridge Radium site
soil, which will be remediated concurrently) and
disposing of the soil off site; restoring the excavated
areas; and conducting environmental monitoring. The
estimated cost for this remedial action ranges from
$252,700,000 to $348,700,000 for the Montclair/West
Orange and Glen Ridge Radium sites combined. No
O&M costs are associated with this remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
All material contaminated with
concentrations of radon greater than 5.0 pCi/g of soil
in the first 6 inches, and 15 pCi/g in subsurface soil
will be excavated and removed off site.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-32
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
MYERS PROPERTY, NJ
First Remedial Action
September 28, 1990
The 7-acre Myers Property site is a former
pesticide and industrial chemical manufacturing facility
in Franklin Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey.
The site lies adjacent to, and in the 100-year floodplain
of, the Cakepoulin Creek which flows to the north of
the site. The site is comprised of adjoining private
lands, two acres of wetlands, and five acres of
residential property with on-site residents. The
estimated 250 people who reside within 1 mile of the
site use the underlying sole-source aquifer as their
drinking water supply. From 1928 to 1959, the site was
used intermittently by several companies to
manufacture pesticides and industrial chemicals.
Improper handling by facility owners and operators of
hazardous substances including components used to
manufacture DDT and its by-products (e.g., PCBs), and
asbestos, has resulted in on-site contamination. In
1978, state investigations identified 20 unlabeled drums
of chemicals containing metals, DDT, and other
organic chemicals in a shed, and, 24 cubic yards of
asbestos material in an on-site warehouse. In addition,
surface soil and debris were found to be contaminated
with high levels of DDT, other organics, and metals.
In 1985, EPA performed the first of two removal
actions at the site, which included repackaging the
deteriorating drums, solid DDT, lead compounds,
asbestos, soil, and debris into 55-gallon drums, followed
by off-site disposal at a hazardous waste landfill. In
1987, the second EPA removal action was performed,
which included implementing site access restrictions by
installing a security fence. This ROD addresses the
first of two operable units, and includes remediation of
the soil, sediment, buildings, and shallow ground-water
aquifer. This ROD also addresses interim remedial
activities for the second operable unit, the ground
water in the bedrock aquifer, which will be fully
addressed in a future ROD. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil, sediment, debris, and
ground water are VOCs, including benzene; other
organics, including PCBs, PAHs, dioxin, and pesticides
such as DDT; and metals, including arsenic and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating 48,700 cubic yards of organic- and
inorganic-contaminated soil and sediment; treating
the soil/sediment using chemical dechlorination to
remove organics, followed by soil washing to remove
dechlorination process reagents, soluble reaction
by-products and metals; on-site backfilling of treated
soil; restoring designated wetlands, if affected by the
remedy; shallow and deep ground-water pumping and
treatment using ion exchange and granular activated
carbon, followed by reinjection to the aquifer, or off-
site discharge to Cakepoulin Creek; conducting an
additional study of deep bedrock ground water to
determine the need for subsequent remedial actions;
performing ground-water and other appropriate
environmental monitoring; and decontaminating on-
site buildings with disposal of contaminated debris off
site. A contingency to this remedial action is the
provision of point-of-use treatment of residential
wells should drinking water supplies become
contaminated. The total cost for this remedial action
is $45,918,000, including a total O&M cost of
$3,053,00 for years 0 to 5 and $441,000 for years 6 to
30.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific clean-up goals for soil
and sediment are based on state soil action levels
and include total DDT 10 mg/kg, total VOCs 1 mg/kg,
total carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic PAHs 10
mg/kg, arsenic 20 mg/kg, cadmium 3 mg/kg, copper
170 mg/kg, and lead 250-1,000 mg/kg. Chemical-
specific ground-water clean-upgoals for discharge are
based on federal and state MCLs and state ground
water quality criteria (GWQC), and include benzene
1 ug/1 (state MCL), DDT 0.001 (state GWQC),
arsenic 50 ug/1 (federal and state MCL), and lead 50
mg/1 (federal and state MCL).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-33
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
POMONA OAKS WELL CONTAMINATION, NJ
First Remedial Action - Final
September 26,1990
The 354-acre Pomona Oaks Well
Contamination site is comprised of a 193-residence
subdivision and an adjacent shopping center in
Galloway Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey. The
site overlies a surficial, unconsolidated sand aquifer.
Home construction at the site began in 1972, and
private wells within the surficial aquifer were initially
used as the water supply. In 1982, on-site residents
complained of foul tasting well water, and subsequent
investigations from 1982 to 1985 confirmed the
presence of on-site ground-water contamination.
Possible contamination sources include two nearby gas
stations, a salvage yard, a dry cleaner, and on-site
residential septic tanks. In 1985, all homes were
hooked to a municipal water supply by the state,
eliminating public exposure to ground-water
contamination. Further sampling conducted from 1986
to 1990 revealed only low-level ground-water
contamination. This ROD provides a final remedy for
the ground water. Because ground-water contaminant
levels no longer exceed health-based or state
standards, there are no contaminants of concern at
the site.
The selected remedial action for this site is
no further action, because on-site investigations
revealed that the source of contamination was a
singular event, and that the contamination dispersed
through natural attenuation and/or biodegradation.
Ground-water monitoring will be continued. No costs
are associated with this no action remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-34
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
RADIUM CHEMICAL, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
June 21,1990
The Radium Chemical site consists of a
one-story brick building in a light industrial/residential
section in Woodside, Queens County, New York. The
Radium Chemical Company (RCC) produced luminous
paint beginning in 1913, and later manufactured,
leased, and sold radium226 to hospitals, medical
centers, and research laboratories. The radium sources
were stored on site in lead containers in a poured
concrete vault. In 1983, the state suspended the RCC
operating license due to disposal and safety infractions
and, in 1987, ordered RCC to remove the radium
sources and decontaminate the building. RCC
abandoned the building without complying, leaving a
large number of radium-containing sealed devices,
some of which were suspected of releasing radium and
radon gas. Also on site were hundreds of containers of
laboratory chemicals. From 1988 to 1989, EPA
undertook a limited emergency removal action to
secure the facility and remove the radioactive sources.
In 1989, a public health advisory was issued for the site
based on the threatened release of radium226. This
ROD supplements the emergency removal action by
addressing the remaining residual radioactive
contamination at the site, including drummed
hazardous waste contaminated with radium. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
debris are radioactive materials, including radium226
and its decay products, including radon gas.
The. selected remedial action for this site
includes partial decontamination and complete
dismantling of the contaminated building, followed by
off-site disposal of debris, as appropriate, based on
acontamination level; excavation and off-site disposal
of contaminated soil and subsurface piping, followed
by replacement of piping and backfilling with clean
soil; and treatment of some radium-contaminated
hazardous waste, followed by off-site disposal of
treated and untreated radium-contaminated hazardous
wastes in approved facilities. The estimated total cost
for this remedial action is $18,699,000. O&M costs
are included in the total cost estimate.
Performance Standards or Goals
All soil that exceeds 5 pCi/g above
background at the surface in the first 6 inches and 15
pCi/g above background at the subsurface (i.e,
subsequent 6-inch layers) will be excavated and
disposed of off site. Building masonry with less than
5 pCVg radium226 will be disposed of in a sanitary
landfill. Masonry exceeding this level, and other
material (e.g., steel) exceeding specific surface
contamination levels, will be disposed of off-site,
along with the soil, at a radioactive waste disposal
facility. Chemical-specific goals for
radium-contaminated hazardous waste were not
specified.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls were not specified as a
component of the selected remedy.
C-3S
-------
Process Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
ROEBLING STEEL, NJ
First Remedial Action
March 29, 1990
The 200-acre Roebling Steel site is a former
steel wire and cable manufacturing facility in the village
of Roebling, Florence Township, Burlington County,
New Jersey. The site abuts the Delaware River to the
north and Crafts Creek to the east, and lies adjacent to
Roebling Park, a public playground. From 1906 to
1982, the facility was operated primarily to produce
steel products, but in recent years, portions of the site
have been used for various other industrial operations
that have resulted in the on-site generation, storage, or
burial of raw materials and wastes. Two removal
actions were performed as a result of these industrial
operations. In 1985, the state removed picric acid and
other explosive chemicals from one on-site laboratory
and detonated the chemicals off site. From 1987 to
1988, EPA performed a second removal action which
included the off-site disposal of lab pack containers and
drums; recycling/reuse of metallic mercury, gas
cylinders, sulfuric acid, and phosphoric acid; and on-
site containment of baghouse dust and exposed
asbestos. This interim operable unit will address those
areas where contaminant sources pose a sufficiently
imminent hazard to require expedited remediation.
These areas include the remaining drums and exterior
tanks, transformers containing PCB-contaminated oils,
a baghouse dust pile, chemical piles, tires, and the soil
under the water tower in Roebling Park. Additional
operable units will address the remaining sources of
contamination and those areas where contaminant
migration has occurred. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and debris are organics
including acids and PCBs; metals, including arsenic,
chromium, and lead; and oils.
The selected interim remedial action for this
site includes off-site incineration and disposal at a
RCRA-permitted facility of the contents of 757
drums; off-site incineration and disposal at a
RCRA-permitted facility of 67,000 gallons of
PCB-contaminated oil found in 183 transformers;
dismantling and decontaminating the transformers
and disposing of the transformer housings at a
RCRA-permitted facility; off-site disposal at a
RCRA-permitted facility of 150,000 gallons of tanked
material; off-site stabilization and disposal at a
RCRA-permitted facility of 530 cubic yards of
baghouse dust; off-site treatment and disposal at a
RCRA-regulated landfill of 40 cubic yards of
metal-contaminated materials from 79 chemical piles;
off-site disposal of 10,000 tires; and excavation of 120
cubic yards of excavated surface soil from Roebling
Park followed by off-site stabilization and disposal at
a RCRA-permitted facility. The estimated total cost
for this remedial action is $5,003,400. No O&M costs
are associated with this operable unit.
Performance Standards or Goals
Surface soil under the water tower at
Roebling Park will be excavated if lead levels exceed
250 mg/kg. Because the remaining components of
the remedy involve removal of contaminant sources to
prevent additional migration, no other specific
performance goals were given.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-36
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SARNEY FARM, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 143-acre Sarney Farm site includes a
former 5-acre landfill in Amenia, Dutchess County,
New York. Land in the area is used as farm land and
includes wetlands. The site overlies a bedrock aquifer,
which is currently used as a drinking water source.
Approximately 2,000 residences are located within one
mile of the site. In 1968, the portion of the site that
included a 5-acre sanitary landfill was purchased by
Harris Haul-A-Way. Investigations later that year
revealed that industrial wastes, including approximately
40 drums of waste solvents, were being disposed of
illegally in several on-site areas. In 1970, the state
ordered the illegal dumping to cease. Site studies by
private parties have identified two trench areas used for
hazardous waste disposal, and acting as localized
sources of on-site soil contamination. In both areas,
soil contaminants have infiltrated into the on-site
ground water, but only in limited amounts.
Approximately 40 drums were crushed or buried on
site in the two disposal areas. In 1987, EPA initiated
a Superfund removal/treatment action for organic
contamination, including installing an in-situ soil
washing system at two areas. One of these areas is
addressed in this ROD. This ROD addresses the
remediation of on-site contaminated soil, debris, and
ground water in two source areas. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, debris, and
ground water are VOCs, including toluene; other
organics, including pesticides; and metals, including
lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes removing waste drums from trench areas 2 and
4 and disposing of these off site at a permitted
facility; treating on site approximately 2,365 cubic
yards of contaminated soil from the areas surrounding
the drum storage area using low temperature thermal
treatment, or if soil contamination is at highly
elevated levels, the surrounding soil may be removed
off site and disposed of with the drums; backfilling
the excavated areas with any on-site-treated soil;
allowing for natural attenuation of ground water;
conducting hydrogeologic studies on site to better
define the hydrologic condition of the site; ground-
water and surface-water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls, including deed
restrictions. The cost for this remedial action is
$907,500, including an annual O&M cost of $15,300
for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific clean-up levels for soil are
based on risk-based levels (10'5) and include TCE 0.2
ug/1, and toluene 3.3 ug/1. These levels are based on
the maximum soil concentrations needed to reach a
99.9% treatment efficiency. Ground-water
contaminant levels are expected to decrease once
source contamination is eliminated. The estimated
time frame for ground-water attenuation to acceptable
levels is 30 years.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent ground-water use at source areas.
C-37
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SAYREVILLE LANDFILL, NJ
First Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 35-acre Sayreville Landfill site is an
inactive municipal and industrial landfill in the
Borough of Sayreville, Middlesex County, New Jersey.
The site overlies several sedimentary aquifers, includes
a tidal wetlands area, and lies within the 500-year
floodplain of the South River, which forms the western
boundary of the site. Surrounding land use is
industrial. Beginning in 1971, the landfill was used to
dispose of municipal and hazardous wastes, including
an estimated SO to 150 drums containing hazardous
wastes. The drums were buried in a 20-acre area of the
site. In 1977, landfill operations ceased, but
subsequent unauthorized dumping of hazardous waste
may have occurred. In 1980, a landfill closure plan was
implemented by the borough, but was not properly
completed. In 1981, the state excavated 30 drums
containing benzene, and pesticide- and acid-
contaminated liquids. Investigations from 1986 to 1990
revealed ground- and surface-water contamination as a
result of migration of on-site landfill contaminants; the
data were used to further characterize contaminant
sources within the landfill. This ROD addresses
remediation of on-site drummed wastes. A subsequent
ROD will address further source remediation
(leachate) and remediation of ground and surface
waters. The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil and debris are VOCs, including benzene,
toluene, and xylenes; other organics, including
pesticides and phenols; acids; and metals, including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating the remaining 50 to 150 drums
buried on site, and thermally treating the drummed
waste off site; disposing of the residual ash off site;
installing a multi-media cap over the landfill;
constructing passive gas collection and surface runoff
control systems at the landfill; monitoring ground and
surface waters, stream sediment, and air to determine
the need for subsequent remedial activities and/or a
leachate collection and treatment system; and
implementing institutional controls including deed
restrictions and site access restrictions, such as
fencing. The estimated cost for this remedial action
is $16,516,600, including a present worth O&M cost
of $746,400 for year one, $431,800 for years 2-5, and
$354,600 for years 6-30.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil clean-up levels will be based on the state
interim soil action levels (ISALs), including arsenic 20
mg/kg, chromium 100 mg/kg, and lead 250-1,000
mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented at the
site to restrict landfill property and ground-water
usage.
C-38
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SCIENTIFIC CHEMICAL PROCESSING, NJ
First Remedial Action
September 14,1990
The 6-acre Scientific Chemical Processing site
is a former chemical handling, treatment, and disposal
facility in Carlstadt, Bergen County, New Jersey. The
site is in a light industrial area adjacent to an exten-
sive salt marsh and wetlands area, and also is consider-
ed to be within the floodplain of tributaries to the
Hackensack River. The site is underlain by a system of
three aquifers, all of which have been contaminated by
the site. The water table aquifer flows into a
Hackensack River tributary; the bedrock aquifer is a
current drinking water source for the vicinity. Prior to
1970, and until its closure in 1980, a wide variety of
industrial and chemical wastes were disposed of at the
site. Many of these wastes were apparently released on
site. In 1985, EPA required the removal of five tanks
of waste containing numerous hazardous materials,
including PCBs; four were removed. At present, one
tank remains on site due to the complex mixture and
high concentrations of wastes present, and the failure
to locate an appropriate treatment and disposal facility
to accept the waste. This ROD outlines an interim
remedy for source control and management of conta-
minant migration while further study is conducted to
find a suitable treatment technology for the on-site
wastes. Future RODs will address final source and
ground-water remedial activities. The primary conta-
minants of concern affecting the soil and ground water
are VOCs, including benzene, PCE, phenols, TCE,
toluene, and xylenes; other organics, including PAHs,
PCBs, and pesticides; metals, including arsenic,
chromium, and lead; and other inorganics.
The selected remedial action for this site is
an interim remedy, which includes installing a slurry
wall around the site perimeter to a depth of 15 to 20
feet (corresponding to the top of a confining clay
layer); installing a temporary infiltration barrier over
the site surface to minimize entry of precipitation;
extracting ground water from within the slurry wall
boundary for the purpose of dewatering on-site soil
and controlling movement of contaminated ground
water away from the site; transporting extracted
ground water off site for pretreatment, treatment, and
disposal; ground-water and surface-water monitoring;
and maintaining a fence around the site. The
estimated cost for this remedial action is $2,933,000,
including an annual O&M cost of $42,000 for 3 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up levels for the contaminants of
concern have not been set due to the interim nature
of this remedy. Chemical-specific ARARs will be met
for final remedies, and will be presented in
subsequent RODs.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-39
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SEALAND RESTORATION, NY
First Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 210-acre Sealand Restoration site is a
former liquid waste disposal and storage facility in the
town of Lisbon, St. Lawrence County, New York. Both
wetland and woodland areas are on site. The site is
underlain by a shallow alluvial aquifer and a deeper
bedrock aquifer, which may be hydraulically connected
to one another in the site area. Approximately 25
private wells and one municipal well are within one
mile of the site. The municipal water system draws
from the bedrock aquifer. In 1979, supposedly
uncontaminated liquid petroleum wastes and mineral
oils were disposed of in several locations, including a
land application/disposal area, a cell disposal area, and
a drum storage area. In 1980, the state found Sealand
to be in non-compliance by accepting contaminated
wastes. Sealand's permits were revoked, and on-site
disposal operations ceased. From 1983 to 1984, the
state conducted a remedial investigation that identified
several on-site areas of concern. The land application
area was contaminated with PCBs as a result of
improper landspreading practices. The cell disposal
area was found to have sediment contaminated with
potentially high levels of a chemical solvent. The drum
storage area contained 200 empty or nearly empty
drums seeping tar-like residue on site, a tanker trailer
containing less than 1,000 gallons of waste oil, and a
storage tank containing 5,000 gallons of waste oil.
From 1987 to 1990, the state removed the contami-
nated soil and debris and documented these as part of
this ROD. The purpose of this ROD is to review the
state action and to determine its appropriateness for
reimbursement of costs under CERCLA. A follow-up
investigation will be conducted to determine the extent
of ground-water and wetlands contamination, as well as
any remaining soil contamination. A subsequent ROD
will address these media, if deemed necessary. The
primary contaminants of concern potentially affecting
the soil and debris are VOCs, including benzene,
TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics, including
PCBs, and pesticides; and metals, including chromium
and lead.
The selected remedial action for the site,
performed by the state, was found to be appropriate
as an interim action. The remedial action included
excavating 1,445 drums and 4,762 cubic yards of
contaminated soil, along with the removal of 375,000
gallons of liquid waste from the cell disposal area,
incinerating these wastes off site, and disposing of
residuals at a RCRA hazardous waste facility; capping
the cell disposal area, with a multi-layer cap; installing
a leachate monitoring system; removing 200 empty or
nearly empty drums, 5,000 gallons of oily waste from
an above-ground storage tank, and 1,000 gallons of
waste oil from the tanker trailer, along with the
excavation and removal of 20 cubic yards of contami-
nated soil-all from the drum storage area; treating
and disposing of these wastes off site in a RCRA-
permitted Subtitle C facility; and backfilling the area
with clean soil. The estimated cost of this remedial
action is $20,000,000. The cost of O&M as well as
the total cost associated with the remedy have not yet
been determined.
Performance Standards or Goals
No contaminant-specific goals were provided.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-40
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SOLVENT SAVERS, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
September 28, 1990
The 13-acre Solvent Savers site is a former
chemical waste recovery facility in Lincklaen, Chenango
County, New York. The site is bordered by Mud
Creek to the east and by an intermittent stream to the
north. Between 1967 and 1974, a variety of wastes,
including solids, liquids, and sludges from a distillation
process used to recover solvents, were disposed of at
the facility. Concurrently, a drum reconditioning
process was operated on site. EPA and state
investigations conducted from 1981 to 1982 revealed
metals, VOCs, and other organic compounds, including
PCBs, in on-site soil, and metals and VOCs in the
ground water. The site has been separated into five
principal source areas, which contain a total of 59,000
cubic yards of contaminated soil, 300 buried and 100
surficial drums, and 578,000,000 gallons of
contaminated ground water. In 1989, EPA required
seven PRPs to conduct an extensive removal action,
which included removing and/or treating all drums and
the associated contaminated soil. To the extent that
the work is not completed by the PRPs in a timely
fashion, or to the extent that any soil contamination
will remain on site following completion of that work,
the remedial action documented in this ROD will be
implemented. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs,
including PCE and TCE; other organics, including
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic PAHs, PCBs, and
phenol; and metals, including arsenic, chromium, and
lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating 300 buried drums, followed by
treating and disposing of the drums and associated
wastes at an off-site RCRA facility; excavating 59,000
cubic yards of contaminated soil from two highly
contaminated source areas, followed by treating soil
highly contaminated with VOCs on-site using low
temperature thermal extraction; treating approximately
1,000 cubic yards of the excavated PCB-contaminated
soil using the same thermal process or by incinerating
the soil off site, based on the results of a treatability
study; treating soil contaminated with low levels of
VOCs using soil flushing and/or vapor extraction
processes, based on the results of a treatability study,
treating any organic vapors from the soil treatment
using an as yet undetermined air pollution control
system; backfilling excavated areas with treatment
residuals and clean fill; ground-water pumping and
treatment on site using chemical precipitation, air
stripping, and carbon adsorption, followed by
reinjection and/or discharge to surface water;
disposing of ground-water treatment residuals off site;
and monitoring air and ground water. The estimated
cost for this remedial action is $29,350,000, including
an estimated annual O&M cost of $523,000 for 20
years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Initial soil clean-up levels are based on an
average of model-derived clean-up levels to prevent
further contamination of ground water, and include
PCE 2.2 mg/kg, TCE 0.8 mg/kg, toluene 1.5 mg/kg
and xylenes 3.1 mg/kg. PCB-contaminated soil will be
treated to attain the level of 1 mg/kg (TSCA PCB
policy). Chemical-specific goals for ground water are
based primarily on the more stringent of SDWA
MCLs or state standards. Clean-up goals for over 50
contaminants are provided in the ROD, including
PCE 5 ug/1 (CLP Quantitation Limit), TCE 5 ug/1
(MCL), arsenic 25 ug/1 (state), noncarcinogenic PAHs
32,340 ug/1 (health-based), and phenols 48,500 ug/1
(health-based).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-41
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SYOSSET LANDFILL, NY
First Remedial Action
September 27,1990
The 35-acre Syosset Landfill site is a closed
municipal landfill in Syosset, Oyster Bay, New York.
Surrounding land use is high-density residential and
industrial. The site overlies a sole-source aquifer, and
eight public supply wells are located within 3 miles of
the site. From 1933 to 1975, commercial, industrial,
residential, demolition, and agricultural wastes, sludge,
and ash were disposed of in the on-site landfill.
Typical wastes included heavy metals, solvents,
organics, oils, sludges, and metal hydroxides. The
county closed the landfill in 1975 because of suspected
ground-water contamination. Subsequent studies have
confirmed ground-water contamination resulting from
landfill leachate beneath and downgradient of the site.
This ROD addresses source control at the site. A
subsequent ROD will address on-site ground-water
contamination. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil are VOCs, including benzene, PCE,
TCE, and toluene; other organics; and metals,
including arsenic.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes placing a geosynthetic membrane cap over
the landfill area; installing a passive gas venting
system, in addition to the venting system installed
during the 1975 landfill closure; maintaining the cap
and venting system; conducting air and ground-water
monitoring; and implementing institutional controls,
including land use restrictions and site access
restrictions, including fencing. The estimated cost for
this remedial action is $26,200,000, including an
annual O&M cost of $222,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls including land use
restrictions will be implemented.
C-42
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
VESTAL WATER SUPPLY 1-1, NY
Second Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The Vestal Water Supply 1-1 site is located in
Vestal, Broom County, New York. The site is on the
south bank of the Susquehanna River, and lies east of
Choconut Creek. The site lies within the floodplain of
the Susquehanna River, and contains several wetland
areas. Well No. 1-1 is one of three production wells
that provide drinking water to several water districts in
the Vestal area. The State Road Industrial Park,
thought to be a source of contamination, is located
1,500 feet southeast of the Vestal Well No. 1-1.
Chlorinated solvents were first detected in Well No.
1-1 in 1978, after a chemical spill at a plant in nearby
Endicott led to the testing of wells in the vicinity for
specific synthetic compounds. Subsequently,
contaminated ground water was pumped from this well
and discharged off site to the Susquehanna River.
Further investigations determined that the chlorinated
solvents present in Well No. 1-1 could not be
attributed to the chemical spill. A 1986 ROD
documented the selection of ground-water treatment
using air stripping to remove VOCs, addressed Well
1-1 contamination, and required additional studies of
four potential source areas in the State Road Industrial
Park. This ROD addresses contaminated soil in the
four source areas and is a final remedy. This ROD
also addresses a contingency remedy for potable water,
if needed. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil are VOCs, including TCE and PCE;
other organics, including PAHs; and metals, including
chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes treating the soil by in-situ vacuum extraction
to remove VOCs in two of the four source areas
within the State Road Industrial Park, followed by
carbon absorption to control air emissions; disposing
of the residual carbon off site; and ground-water
monitoring. This ROD provides a contingency
remedy for ground-water treatment using
precipitation and filtration to remove heavy metals in
addition to the current treatment, as necessary. The
estimated cost for this remedial action is $1,700,000.
There are no annual O&M costs associated with this
selected remedial action. The estimated cost for the
contingency remedy is $17,900,000, including an
estimated annual O&M cost of $925,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific clean-up goals for soil in
the two source areas include TCE 140 ug/kg,
1,1,1-TCA 170 ug/kg, and 1,2-DCE 188 ug/kg (for
Area 2 only).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-43
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP ROUTE 72 DUMP, NJ
First Remedial Action
May 16, 1990
The 12-acre Woodland Route 72 Dump site is
an abandoned hazardous waste dump in Woodland
Township, Burlington County, New Jersey. The site is
being remediated concurrently with another abandoned
dump, the 20-acre Woodland Route 532 Dump site,
located three miles from the Route 72 site. Both sites
are in the Pinelands Preservation Area District of New
Jersey. Several chemical manufacturing firms dumped
chemicals and other wastes into trenches and lagoons
or burned the waste at the sites from the early 1950s to
1962. An estimated total of 54,000 cubic yards (Route
72, 28,000 cubic yards; Route 532, 26,000 cubic yards)
of surface material, including surface soil, stream
sediment, sludge, and debris, are contaminated with
wastes including tarry substances and paint residues.
Furthermore, leaching from surface materials has
resulted in the contamination of 300,000 cubic yards
(Route 72, 130,000 cubic yards; Route 532, 170,000
cubic yards) of subsurface soil and ground water
beneath both sites. This ROD addresses surface
material and ground-water remediation at both sites.
A subsequent ROD will address subsurface soil. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the surface
soil, sediment, sludge, debris, and ground water are
VOCs, including benzene, toluene, TCE, and xylenes;
organics, including PAHs, pesticides, and phenols;
radionuclides (e.g., uranium and thorium series); and
metals, including lead and chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavation, further characterization, and off-
site disposal at a permitted facility of 54,000 cubic
yards (total from both sites) of contaminated surface
soil, sludge, debris and sediment; off-site disposal of
19 cubic yards (total from both sites) of radiologically
contaminated surface materials, including a drum of
radioactive pellets; ground-water pumping and
treatment, with treatment to be determined during
design (but anticipated to include air stripping, metals
removal, biological treatment, and advanced oxidation
or carbon adsorption), and reinjection of treated
ground water; and ground- and surface-water
monitoring. The total estimated cost for the
concurrent remedial actions at the Route 72 and
Route 532 sites is $142,200,000, including an
estimated O&M cost of $114,000,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil clean-up objectives have been based
primarily on state standards and background levels,
including total VOCs 1 mg/kg, total chromium 100
mg/kg, pesticides (DDT and metabolites) 10 mg/kg,
and lead 250-1,000 mg/kg (based on state risk
assessment). Ground-water nondegradation remedial
goals are based on natural background levels for the
Pine Barrens area, including benzene 0.88 ug/1,
pesticides (DDT and metabolites) 0.001 ug/1, toluene
1.2 ug/1, TCE 0.38 ug/1, total xylenes 1.0 ug/1, and
phenols 0.15 ug/1.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-44
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
WOODLAND TOWNSHIP ROUTE 532 DUMP, NJ
First Remedial Action
May 16,1990
The 20-acre Woodland Township Route 532
Dump site is an abandoned hazardous waste dump in
-Woodland Township, Burlington County, New Jersey.
The site is being remediated concurrently with another
abandoned dump, the 12-acre Woodland Route 72
Dump site, located three miles from the Route 532
site. Both sites are in the Pinelands Preservation Area
District of New Jersey. Several chemical manufacturing
firms dumped chemicals and other wastes into trenches
and lagoons or burned the waste at the sites from the
early 1950s to 1962. An estimated total of 54,000 cubic
yards (Route 72,28,000 cubic yards; Route 532,26,000
cubic yards) of surface material, including surface soil,
stream sediment, sludge, and debris, are contaminated
with wastes including tarry substances and paint
residues. Furthermore, leaching from surface materials
has resulted in the contamination of 300,000 cubic
yards (Route 72, 130,000 cubic yards; Route 532,
170,000 cubic yards) of subsurface soil and ground
water beneath both sites. Contaminated ground water
discharges to a cranberry bog and an adjacent bog
reservoir. This ROD addresses surface material and
ground-water remediation at both sites. A subsequent
ROD will address subsurface soil. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the surface soil,
sediment, sludge, debris, and ground water are VOCs,
including benzene, TCE, toluene, andxylenes; organics,
including PAHs, pesticides, and phenols; radionuclides
(e.g., uranium and thorium series); and metals,
including chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavation, further characterization, and off-
site disposal at a permitted facility of 54,000 cubic
yards (total from both sites) of contaminated
surfacesoil, sediment, sludge, and debris; off-site
disposal of 19 cubic yards (total from both sites) of
radiologically contaminated surface materials,
including a drum of radioactive pellets; ground-water
pumping and treatment, with treatment to be
determined during design (but anticipated to include
air stripping, metals removal, biological treatment,
and advanced oxidation or carbon adsorption) and
reinfection of treated ground water; and ground- and
surface-water monitoring. The total estimated cost
for the concurrent remedial actions at the Route 72
and Route 532 sites is $142,200,000, including an
estimated O&M cost of $114,000,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil clean-up objectives have been based
primarily on state standards and background levels,
including total VOCs 1 mg/kg, total chromium 100
mg/kg, pesticides (DDT and metabolites) 10 mg/kg,
and lead 250-1,000 mg/kg (based on state risk
assessment). Ground-water nondegradation remedial
goals are based on natural background levels for the
Pine Barrens area, including benzene 0.88 ug/1,
pesticides (DDT and metabolites) 0.001 ug/1, toluene
1.2 ug/1, TCE 0.38 ug/1, total xylenes 1.0 ug/1, and
phenols 0.15 ug/1.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-45
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
REGION 3
(Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia)
ARMY CREEK LANDFILL, DE
Second Remedial Action - Final
June 29,1990
The Army Creek Landfill site, a former sand
and gravel quarry, is approximately 2 miles southwest
of New Castle, Delaware. The site abuts Army
Creek/Pond and high quality wetlands to the south and
east and lies adjacent to Delaware Sand & Gravel
Landfill, another Superfund site. From 1960 to 1968,
when the landfill reached capacity and closed, the
44-acre municipal landfill accepted approximately 1.9
million cubic yards of municipal and industrial wastes.
Ground-water problems first became apparent in 1971
when a residential well downgradient of the site
developed water quality problems. Since 1972, EPA,
the state, and the county have continued to sample the
ground water and have identified ground-water
contaminants indicative of hazardous waste disposal.
A contaminant plume has also been identified
downgradient of the landfill. In 1973, the county
installed recovery wells to intercept the contaminant
plume and to create a ground-water divide between the
Army Creek Landfill and nearby potable water supply
wells. A 1986 ROD provided for capping of the
landfill and for the continued operation of the recovery
well network to maintain the ground-water divide. The
extracted ground water currently discharges untreated
into Army Creek/Pond. This ROD, the second of two
operable units, addresses the need to treat the reco-
vered ground water prior to on-site discharge into
Army Creek/Pond. The primary contaminant of con-
cern with respect to the impact of discharge to surface
water is iron.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes ground-water pumping using the recovery
well network and treatment using a modified
conventional precipitation water treatment plant
involving aeration, precipitation, sedimentation, and
filtration followed by on-site discharge of the effluent
to Army Creek/Pond; sampling and off-site disposal of
sludge generated during the treatment process; and
monitoring of the sediment, recovered ground water,
surface water, and wetlands. The estimated cost of
this remedial action is $4,900,000, including an annual
O&M cost of $294,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
The recovered ground water will meet state
water quality criteria prior to on-site discharge into
Army Creek/Pond. Chemical-specific goals include
iron 1,000 ug/1.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-46
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
AVTEX FIBERS, VA
Second Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 440-acre Avtex Fibers site is a former
synthetic fibers manufacturing facility in Front Royal,
Warren County, Virginia. The site is bounded by the
South Fork of the Shenandoah River to the west and
northwest, and by residential areas to the south,
northeast, and east. A section of the site lies within
the 100-year Shenandoah River floodplain. The plant
produced rayon (1940-1989), polyester (1970-1977), and
polypropylene fibers (1985-1989). Until 1983, the
by-products, including sodium cellulose xanthate-based
viscose waste and zinc hydroxide sludge, were disposed
of on site in unlined surface impoundments or landfills.
Subsequently, the waste was routed to an on-site
wastewater treatment facility. Fly ash (from incinerator
exhaust air pollution control devices) and boiler house
solids were disposed of in four other surface
impoundments and one fly ash waste pile. In 1982, a
state investigation identified carbon disulfide, a
constituent of viscose waste, in residential wells located
across the river from the plant. In 1983 and 1984, in
response to the result of this investigation, Avtex
implemented interim measures to address this ground-
water contamination by purchasing 23 subdivision
properties in the area with contaminated ground water,
providing an alternate water supply to permanent
residents, and implementing a ground-water pumping
and treatment program. A 1988 ROD addressed
further remediation of ground water and dewatering of
three on-site viscose basin surface impoundments. In
1989, state site investigations identified PCB
contamination in the soil and in Shenandoah River
fish. This contamination may have been the result of
a transformer explosion, general maintenance practices
within the facility's polyester drying area, and
subsequent discharge of PCB-contaminated waste water
from the plant's sewer system to the Shenandoah
River. In October 1989, EPA issued an Administrative
Order to the site owners, Avtex Fibers Inc., requiring
PCB cleanup and identification and, disposal of
drummed wastes present on site. The state revoked
the plant's NPDES permit, and Avtex subsequently
ceased operations. In 1989 EPA initiated a removal
action to stabilize the drummed wastes. In 1990,
EPA issued another Administrative Order, and the
former site owners took over the maintenance of
freeboard in sulfate basins and the continuation of
wastewater treatment on site. This ROD addresses
the removal of PCB-contaminated soil, breakdown of
the acid reclamation facility, and the disposal of
drummed wastes thought to contain oils, bases, acids,
solvents, and PCBs. Also, this ROD addresses site
security, control, maintenance, and health and safety
measures. A subsequent ROD will address possible
remediation of remaining contamination of on-site
structures, surface water, sediment, ground water,
sewer system, and waste disposal areas. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and debris
are organics, including PCBs.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavation and off-site disposal of
approximately 5,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated
with PCB levels exceeding 10 mg/kg, followed by
restoration of excavated areas; identification of drum
contents, treatment, and off-site disposal of drum
contents that are RCRA wastes; decontaminating and
recycling or crushing the empty drums followed by
incineration or disposal in a RCRA landfill;
dismantlement of the unstable acid reclamation
facility with decontamination, as necessary; and
disposing of unusable rubble and machinery on site.
Drums containing nonhazardous substances will
remain on site and available for liquidation by the
corporate trustee upon EPA's approval. The fourth
component of this ROD is site security, maintenance,
control, and health and safety measures. The
estimated capital cost for this remedial action is
$8,708,400. There are no O&M costs associated with
this remedial action.
C-47
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
Performance Standards or Goals soil is PCB 10-25 mg/kg. For this site, all soil in
excess of 10 mg/kg of PCB will be removed.
Clean-up levels for PCB-contaminated soil are
based on EPA published guidance on "Remedial Institutional Controls
Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination."
The recommended action level for industrial land use Not applicable.
C-48
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
BROWN'S BATTERY BREAKING, PA
First Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 14-acre Brown's Battery Breaking site is
an inactive lead-acid battery processing facility in
Tilden Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania. The
area surrounding the site is primarily agricultural with
scattered rural residences. The site is bordered by
Conrail tracks, Mill Creek, and the Schuylkill River.
The site lies within the 100-year fioodplain of the
Schuylkill River. From 1961 to 1971, the facility
recovered lead-bearing materials from automobiles and
truck batteries by breaking the battery casings, draining
the acid, and recovering the lead alloy grids, plates, and
plugs. During this time, the crushed casings were used
as a substitute for road gravel or disposed of on site.
The state conducted on-site and off-site investigations
during the 1980s that identified lead concentrations in
excess of acceptable limits in residents, livestock, soil,
and surface waters. A1983 EPA investigation revealed
extensive lead contamination in on-site soil and
sediment located in the Schuylkill River. As a result of
the investigation, EPA initiated an Immediate Removal
Request to relocate three families, and to excavate and
consolidate 13,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and
battery casings into an on-site containment area that
was covered with a low permeability cap. A second
removal, initiated in 1990, consisted of temporarily
relocating all on-site residents. The clean-up strategy
for the site consists of three operable units: site access;
remediation of on-site soil and battery casings; and
ground-water remediation. This ROD addresses site
access; subsequent actions will address soil and
ground-water remediation. The primary contaminant
of concern affecting the soil and sediment is lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes permanently relocating all on-site residents
and businesses to compatible off-site locations;
decontaminating personal belongings, as appropriate;
and implementing site access restrictions, including
fencing and institutional controls, including deed
restrictions. The cost of this remedial action is
$342,900. There are no O&M costs associated with
this remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
There are no chemical-specific ARARs for
this operable unit. The initial remedy will eliminate
human contact with the soil and sediment. Site use
and access restrictions will reduce the potential for
transport of contaminants off site.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent future residential and industrial use of the
site.
C-49
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
BUTZ LANDFILL, PA
First Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The Butz Landfill site is an inactive landfill in
Jackson Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The
sole-source aquifer underlying the site supplies
drinking water for approximately 3,300 people who live
within 3 miles of the site, and an additional 3,000
people during tourist seasons. Beginning in 1965,
municipal waste, sewage sludge/liquids, and possibly
some industrial wastes were accepted at the landfill.
During the years the landfill was operated, the waste
was disposed of without a state permit. In 1971, on-
site investigations revealed well water contamination
and the presence of leachate seeps. By 1973, the state
ordered the landfill closed and required that corrective
measures be taken, including the development of a
surface-water management plan, ground-water
monitoring, and placement of a cover over the landfill.
Additional on-site investigations in 1986 revealed high
TCE levels in domestic wells to the south of the
landfill, which prompted a request to EPA that the site
be considered for emergency action. In 1986, the state
and EPA initiated emergency response activities,
including additional sampling, installing water coolers,
and supplying bottled water or carbon filters to homes
with contaminated well water. This ROD addresses
the first operable unit, which establishes an alternate
water supply. Subsequent operable units will address
remediation of the contaminated soil, surface water,
and ground water. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs,
including PCE and TCE.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes construction of new water service lines and
placement of pumps, valves, and drinking water
storage tanks; connection of new water supply wells
to approximately 49 residences; and construction of
access roads, as required. The total cost for this
remedial action is $5,910,000, including an annual
O&M cost of $23,000 for 50 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific clean-up goals were not
provided because this remedial alternative will not
address ground-water contamination but, rather, will
mitigate and/or prevent human exposure to currently
used contaminated ground water. The selected
alternative will provide potable water that will meet
SDWA MCLs. Water from the water supply system
will meet state standards.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-50
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
C&R BATTERY, VA
First Remedial Action - Final
March 30,1990
The 11-acre C&R Battery site is a former
battery-sawing and shredding facility in Chesterfield
County, Virginia. Open fields and woods border the
site on the north, south, and west, a small fuel oil
distributor borders the site on the east, and the James
River is approximately 650 feet north of the site. From
the early 1970s to 1985, the facility was used to recycle
discarded batteries. Site operations included draining
battery acids into on-site ponds, recovering and
stockpiling lead and lead compounds from the
batteries, and shredding and stockpiling battery casings
on site. The state began monitoring the site in the late
1970s and detected elevated lead levels in the soil,
surface water, and ground water. An OSHA inspection
revealed indoor air levels of lead to be more than twice
the OSHA standards of 50 ug/m3. Also, facility
employees were found to have elevated lead levels in
their blood. In response to public health concerns,
EPA conducted a removal action in 1986, which
included extracting acidic liquid from on-site lagoons
and raising the pH level of the liquid before
discharging the neutralized liquid into on-site ditches.
Lagoon sludge was neutralized and returned to ihe
lagoon, and surface soil was also neutralized. In
addition, shredded battery casings, soil, and debris
found east of the drainage ditch were consolidated into
two debris piles and remain on site. This remedial
action addresses the former acid pond area, the debris
piles, and a drainage ditch. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil, sediment, debris, and
surface water are metals, including lead and arsenic.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes the demolition of a concrete pad and dis-
mantlement of a storage shed, followed by off-site
disposal of the debris, and off-site treatment, if
necessary, of surface water from the drainage ditch
prior to the excavation of contaminated soil and
sediment; excavation and stabilization of
approximately 36,800 cubic yards of contaminated
soil, sediment, and debris piles, followed by off-site
disposal in a permitted landfill; backfilling of all
excavated areas; soil cover over all areas with lead
contamination above background levels; hybrid
closure (soil cover) for residual contamination of
lead-contaminated soil outside the acid pond area;
clean closure of the acid pond area; off-site treatment
and disposal of 350 batteries; ground- and surface-
water monitoring; and implementation of institutional
controls, including site use restrictions. The
estimated cost of this remedial action is $15,572,000,
including an annual O&M cost of $14,550.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil will be excavated if the soil contaminants
exceed established action levels, which are based on
a 10"6 risk level and include lead 1,000 mg/kg and
arsenic 10 mg/kg. Accidental ingestion route of
exposure will be eliminated. Sediment will be
excavated if sediment contaminants exceed action
levels, which were derived from a Puget Sound
Estuary Program study and include lead 450 mg/kg
and arsenic 57 mg/kg. By remediating the soil and
sediment to these levels, exposure via inhalation of
suspended particulates should also be acceptable.
The soil action levels will remove the threat of
ground-water contamination.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be used to control
future site use.
C-51
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
COKER'S SANITATION SERVICE LANDFILLS, DE
First Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The Coker's Sanitation Service Landfills site is
comprised of two inactive landfills, the 10-acre Landfill
#1 and the 15-acre Landfill #2, located approximately
0.5 miles apart, in Kent County, Delaware. Landfill #1
is bordered to the north by a forested wetland with a
shallow stream known as the Willis Branch of the
Lepisc River. Land use in the area is primarily
agricultural and residential. Each landfill contains
approximately 45,000 cubic yards of latex sludge waste,
in addition to the contaminated soil/waste. From 1969
to 1977, latex rubber waste sludge was disposed of at
Landfill #1 into unlined trenches that were topped off
with local soil when nearly filled with sludge. From
1976 to 1980, latex sludge was also disposed of in lined
trenches at Landfill #1. The landfill operating permit
required a leachate collection and treatment system
and a ground-water monitoring system to be installed.
Subsequently, the latex sludge waste in both landfills
gradually settled and compacted, reducing permeability
and minimizing the amount of leachate from the site.
Excess levels of styrene and ethylbenzene were found
in the waste trenches of both landfills and in the
leachate collection system of Landfill #2. This ROD
addresses contamination in both landfills and in the
leachate collection system at Landfill #2. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and sludge
are VOCs, including benzene, and metals.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes covering the seeps at Landfill #1; backfilling
depressed areas of Landfill #2 and sealing the
Landfill #2 leachate collection system; monitoring
ground and/or surface water; and implementing site
access restrictions and institutional controls, including
deed restrictions on land use. The estimated total
cost for this remedial action is $653,000, with total
O&M costs of $527,257.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific goals are not applicable,
because this remedial action uses no treatment
technologies. The remedial activities will reduce the
cancer risk level to less than 10"6, and the hazard
index to less than 1.0.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions limiting future land use will
be implemented at both landfill properties.
C-52
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CROYDON TCE, PA
Second Remedial Action - Final
June 29,1990
The Croydon TCE site is in Bristol Township,
Bucks County, Pennsylvania. A series of studies
conducted by EPA beginning in 1984 led to the
detection of VOC contamination in the ground water
over a 3.5-square mile area referred to as the study
area. The study area is predominantly residential, with
an estimated 3,000 residents. A small southeastern
portion of the study area containing elevated levels of
VOCs, particularly TCE, and numerous potential
source areas have been identified and are referred to
collectively as the "focused area of investigation." This
smaller area is composed of the Croydon residential
community and several manufacturing and commercial
establishments. The study area is bordered on the
south by the Delaware River. Neshaminy Creek, which
borders the study area to the west, and Hog Run
Creek, which flows through the focused area of
investigation, both discharge to the river. Although the
source of contamination has not been identified, the
contaminant plume appears to be flowing
south-southeast into the East Branch of Hog Run
Creek and probably into the Delaware River. A 1988
ROD documented the provision of a public water
supply to 11 residents within the identified ground-
water contaminant plume area. This 1990 ROD
addresses remediation of the ground-water
contamination at the site. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs,
including TCE and 1,1-DCE.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes ground-water pumping and on-site treatment
using air stripping, followed by carbon adsorption as
an ancillary treatment step before on-site discharge of
the treated ground water; vapor-phased carbon
adsorption treatment of air stripper exhaust, followed
by off-site disposal or treatment of spent carbon;
implementation of institutional controls to prevent
the use of contaminated ground water during
remediation; and ground-water monitoring. The
estimated cost of this remedial action is $1,345,000,
including an estimated annual O&M cost of $46,709
for 45 years (assuming that the state ARARs of
remediating ground-water to background levels are to
be met by extending treatment from 30 to 45 years).
Performance Standards or Goals
The ground-water remedy is designed to
contain further migration of the plume while
attempting to restore ground water to the state
ARAR of background levels, including TCE 1 ugA
and 1,1-DCE 1 ug/1 (assuming no additional release of
contaminants to the aquifer). However, because the
source of ground-water contamination has not been
identified, a permanent solution may not be achieved.
Institutional Controls
State and local authorities will implement
institutional controls, including ground-water use
restrictions, in the affected area to prevent the use of
contaminated ground water during remediation.
C-53
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CRYO-CHEM, PA
Second Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 19-acre Cryo-Chem site is a metal
fabricating facility in Worman, Earl Township, Berks
County, Pennsylvania. A woodland area is located
northeast of the site, and an on-site stream has been
identified west of the contaminant area. Between 1970
and 1982, chemical solvents were used at the facility at
a rate of two to three 55-gallon drums per year.
During this time, a chemical spill occurred at
Cryo-Chem, but cannot be definitely linked to the
source of contamination. Well sampling conducted
during 1985 and 1987 showed ground-water
contamination in monitoring and residential wells
within 1 mile of the site, which led to a removal action
that required the installation of activated-carbon filter
units in 14 affected homes. In 1989, a ROD was signed
for operable unit one, which provided for the
installation of a new water supply well outside of the
contaminant plume and hookups for all affected and
potentially affected residences. This ROD addresses
operable unit two, the treatment of the ground water,
and containment of the contaminant plume. A
subsequent ROD will address remediation of the
source of the contamination on site (operable unit
three). The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the ground water are VOCs, including PCE, TCE,
DCA, DCE, and TCA
The selected remedial action for this site
includes pumping and treating ground water using air
stripping, followed by carbon adsorption if emissions
are above Clean Air Act levels, with on-site discharge
of treated water to surface water; other discharge
options will be considered, as necessary, including off-
site discharge to a downstream wastewater treatment
facility or reinjection at the site, depending on the
discharge rate; and ground-water and surface-water
monitoring. The estimated cost of this remedial
action is $2,065,000, including an annual O&M cost
of $75,200 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground water will be remediated to meet
SD WA MCLs, or to an excess cancer-risk level of 10"6
or less, if no current MCL exists for a particular
contaminant. Specific goals for ground water include
DCE 0.007 mg/1 (MCL), PCE 5 ug/1 (proposed MCL),
TCA 0.2 mg/1 (MCL) and TCE 5 ug/1 (MCL).
Surface water must meet Clean Water Act Federal
Water Quality Criteria (FWQC) including PCE 0.8
ug/1 (FWQC) and TCE 2.7 ug/1 (FWQC) for both
water and fish ingestion.
Institutional Controls
No institutional controls are planned at this
time. However, future need for these restrictions will
be determined at the 5-year review.
C-54
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
DOVER AIR FORCE BASE, DE
First Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 3,734-acre Dover Air Force Base site is an
active military base in Dover, Kent County, Delaware.
Surrounding land use is primarily
agricultural/residential, and wetlands associated with
stream floodplain areas are located on site. Since
1941, the base has operated as a military air field and
has served several different functions, including present
day cargo operations. Hazardous waste has been
generated at the base from industrial operations, fuels
management, fire training, and pesticide use. These
wastes have been handled in various manners since
1941, including disposal in on-site landfills and pits, use
in fire training exercises, and discharge to surface
drainage ditches. A 1.3-acre area referred to as Fire
Training Area #3, located in the northeastern portion
of the site, was used to conduct fire training exercises
and currently contains several waste pits, an oil/water
separator, dumpsters, and an underground storage tank
used during the exercises. From 1962 until 1970,
contaminated waste oils and fuels were placed on an
old aircraft or spread in a pit and ignited for fire
training exercises in Fire Training Area #3.
Approximately 1,000 gallons of waste material were
used per exercise, with two exercises being performed
each week. In 1970, the original pit was filled in, and
a new pit was excavated. Metal dumpsters were placed
in the pit and waste JP-4 fuel was ignited on them
during quarterly training exercises. Drainage from the
pit was collected in an underground oil/water separator,
and was removed from the site by a waste oil recovery
contractor. An underground storage tank, used to
store JP-4 fuel used in the exercises, and underground
pipes also are located near the pit. Fire training
exercises ceased in 1989. Investigations in 1989 by
Dover Air Force Base revealed the presence of
contaminated soil in the pit area. Residual waste
fuel, oil, and sludges still remain in underground
piping, creating a fire and explosion hazard. This
ROD addresses remediation of soil and structures
within Fire Training Area #3. Subsequent RODs will
address other sources of contamination and
contaminated ground water in other site areas. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sludge, and debris are VOCs, including benzene,
toluene, and xylenes; metals, including lead; and oils.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes removing residual liquids, sludges, and solids
from the underground tank, oil/water separator, and
piping, and transporting these materials off site for
disposal; excavating the underground tank, oil/water
separator, dumpsters, and piping, and
decontaminating them using high-temperature steam
cleaning equipment; disposing of the contaminated
steam cleaning solution and excavated debris and
structures off site; backfilling and grading excavated
areas; and placing a revegetated soil cover over the
Fire Training Area #3. The estimated cost of this
remedial action is $100,000, including a total O&M
cost of $5,000 over 20 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific clean-up goals were not
provided.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-55
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
EAST MT. ZION, PA
First Remedial Action - Final
June 29, 1990
The 10-acre East Mt. Zion site is a privately-
owned, inactive landfill in Springettsbury Township,
York County, Pennsylvania. The landfill is on a
forested ridge along with recreational park lands and a
residential subdivision. From 1955 to 1972, domestic,
municipal, and industrial wastes were disposed of on
site. In 1969 and 1971, the landfill was cited for
improper disposal practices and was subsequently
closed by the state in 1972. In 1983 and 1988, state
investigations identified several contaminants in on-site
ground water and leachate. This ROD addresses the
ground-water contamination by inhibiting the mobility
of contaminants from the landfill. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are
VOCs, including vinyl chloride and benzene.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes capping the landfill with an impermeable
multi-layer cap; constructing a passive vent system to
control methane offgasses; installing surface-water
control systems for the cap; allowing natural atten-
uation to reduce ground-water contamination to
background levels; conducting ground-water monitoring
to monitor natural attenuation of contaminants; and
implementing institutional controls, including deed
restrictions, and site access restrictions, such as
fencing. The estimated cost of this remedial action is
$2,230,000, including an annual O&M cost for
ground-water monitoring.
Performance Standards or Goals
Based on ground-water velocity and the
elimination of the source, ground-water
concentrations are expected to meet background
levels within 5 years through natural attenuation.
Chemical-specific goals for ground water include
benzene 5 ug/1 (MCL), and vinyl chloride 2 ug/1
(MCL).
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
limit site usage.
C-56
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
FIKE CHEMICAL, WV
Second Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The 11.9-acre Fike Chemical site is an
abandoned chemical manufacturing facility in Nitro,
West Virginia. The site is comprised of an 11-acre
chemical plant and a 0.9-acre Cooperative Sewage
Treatment (CST) plant. On-site features include
several chemical production areas, process control
equipment, various on-site structures, drum and waste
burial areas, over 400 storage tanks, and three inactive
waste lagoons. During operating years, the CST facility
treated die sewage and industrial wastewater generated
by the chemical manufacturing processes and on-site
truck terminal operations. The CST facility currently
treats contaminated storm water generated on site.
From 1951 to 1988, Fike Chemical manufactured more
than 60 different chemicals. Hazardous wastes
generated from on-site operations were discharged on
site to the nearby Kanawha River. In 1983, EPA
identified dioxm-contaminated soil. In addition,
asbestos was found in several on-site structures and was
used as insulation for on-site pipes, tanks, and cooling
towers. A 1988 ROD addressed the disposal of bulk
chemicals stored in on-site tanks and drums. In 1989,
an Explanation of Significant Differences modified the
1988 ROD, documenting that drum contents would not
be consolidated prior to disposal. In 1990, a Focused
Feasibility Study (FFS) was completed by EPA to
evaluate remedial alternatives for the tanks, equipment,
and structures. This ROD addresses the tanks,
equipment, and structures evaluated in the 1990 FFS
report. Future RODs will address other on-site areas
of concern, including contaminated soil and sludge.
The primary contaminants of concern contained in
the waste/debris include ojganics and asbestos.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes removing 5.5 tons of asbestos material from
various site areas; dismantling and decontaminating
400 on-site storage tanks, approximately 130 pieces of
equipment, and 39 buildings, and disposing of the
debris off-site; treating and, if necessary, discharging
the decontamination fluids; and implementing site
access restrictions, including fencing. The estimated
cost of this remedial action is $2,830,000, including an
annual O&M cost of $5,200 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Any tanks, equipment, or structure identified
as a safety hazard and health risk and/or an obstacle
to future investigation will be dismantled,
decontaminated, if necessary, and removed to an off-
site facility for disposal or salvaging. Any waste
which cannot be treated on site will be removed to an
off-site facility for treatment.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-57
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
GREENWOOD CHEMICAL, VA
First Remedial Action
December 29, 1989
The 5-acre Greenwood Chemical site is a
former chemical plant in Newton, Virginia. Adjoining
lands to the east, west, and south are used for rural,
residential and agricultural purposes, and the Blue
Ridge Mountain Range bounds the site to the north.
Ground water is used by all persons within a 3-mile
radius for drinking water purposes. The closest
residential well is within 400 feet of the site, and the
closest downgradient well is approximately 2,500 feet
from the site. The chemical plant was used primarily
for the production of industrial, pesticide,
pharmaceutical, and photographic products from 1947
until 1985, and produced waste solvents, including
listed RCRA F002 and F005 wastes. Plant operations
were terminated in April 1985, after a toluene fire
killed four employees. Contaminated areas at the site
include seven lagoons used to store wastewater
generated during plant operations, and a buried drum
area. To mitigate threats due to contamination, EPA
emergency response activities were conducted between
1987 and 1988. These activities included removing
surface drums and other stored chemicals; excavating
lagoon sludge from three lagoons, and stabilizing the
underlying soil before disposing of the treated soil on
site in a lined vault constructed in one of the lagoons;
and capping a lagoon. This operable unit addresses
approximately 1.5 acres of the most contaminated
portions of the site, including the contaminated soil
associated with three of the former lagoons, a
backfilled lagoon now referred to as the backfilled area,
and contained chemicals in the buildings. A second
operable unit will address the remainder of the site,
including additional soil and sediment and ground
water underlying and downgradient of the
contaminated soil. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil are VOCs, including
benzene, PCE, and TCE; other organics, including
PAHs; metals, including arsenic; and other inorganics,
including cyanide.
The selected remedial action for this operable
unit includes excavation and off-site incineration of
approximately 4,500 cubic yards of contaminated soil,
backfilling with clean soil, and revegetating; removal
of chemicals stored in on-site buildings; and surface-
water collection/diversion during remedy
implementation. The estimated cost of this remedial
action is $8,787,900. There are no O&M costs
associated with this remedy for this operable unit.
Performance Standards or Goals
Contaminated soil will be excavated to levels
where leachate contamination will not raise ground-
water levels above the associated MCLs, WQC, or
health-based criteria. For individual contaminants in
the soil, the clean-up goals and associated target
criteria include benzene 0.83 mg/kg, TCE 0.13 mg/kg,
PCE 0.07 mg/kg, and PAH 5,000 mg/kg. The clean-
up level for arsenic was set at 25 mg/kg, based on a
non-lethal excess lifetime cancer risk of 10"5.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-58
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
HRANICA LANDFILL, PA
First Remedial Action
June 29,1990
The 15-acre Hranica Landfill site is an inactive
landfill 21 miles north of Pittsburgh, in Butler County,
Pennsylvania. The site is in a rural agricultural setting
with 4,000 people residing within a 2-mile radius of the
site. Between 1966 and 1974, both municipal and
industrial wastes were accepted on site, including paint
and solvent wastes, plating wastes, metal sludges, and
waste oils. The wastes were incinerated and/or stored
on site in surface impoundments until 1981. Liquid
wastes then were directly discharged into surface
impoundments causing ground, surface, and soil cover
contamination. The surface impoundments were
subsequently abandoned and the wastes were openly
burned. The residual ash from the incineration process
was stored on site in unprotected piles. Numerous
drums of unprocessed wastes also were staged on site
without further treatment. In 1983, removal activities
were performed, including removing and disposing of
more than 19,000 drums and 4,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil; incinerating oil and paint sludges
and consolidating the incinerator ash on site; and
capping the site. Although the removal action reduced
the extent of the contamination, further site studies
revealed elevated levels of contamination in the ash pit
area, the landfill, and the former drum storage areas.
This first operable unit ROD addresses the soil
contamination in the ash pile area and other areas
where the lead concentration exceeds the background
range. The primary contaminant of concern affecting
the soil is lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes repairing the 29,000-square foot ash pile
cover; capping other areas where lead contamination
exceeds 300 mg/kg; monitoring ground water and
surface water; implementing site access restrictions
and institutional controls, including land and ground-
water use and deed restrictions; and performing a
ground-water verification study to determine whether
any ground-water remediation is necessary. The
estimated cost of this remedial action is $1,037,000,
including an annual O&M of $81,450 for year 1 and
$30,550 for years 2 to 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
By repairing the ash cover and capping the
lead-contaminated areas exceeding lead 300 mg/kg,
the remedial action will reduce the hazard index to
below the target of 1.0.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions, including water and land
use restrictions, will be implemented.
C-59
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
KEYSTONE SANITATION LANDFILL, PA
First Remedial Action
September 30,1990
The 40-acre Keystone Sanitation Landfill site,
an inactive, privately-owned landfill, is in Union
Township, Adams County, Pennsylvania. Surrounding
land use is primarily agricultural with scattered
residences. From 1966 to 1990, the unlined landfill
accepted household and municipal wastes and
industrial and construction debris, including
phosphorus-contaminated sand, potato sludge, resin
sludge, incineration ash, and dried latex paint. The
volume of non-homogeneous waste at the site currently
is 1.7 million cubic yards. In 1982, state investigations
revealed on-site ground-water contamination and a
contaminated on-site residential well, attributable to
leachate from the landfill contents. In 1984, EPA
found low-level contamination in nearby residential
wells. As a result of the ground-water contamination,
EPA ordered Keystone to install an on-site spray
irrigation system and a leachate collection system to
prevent migration of contaminants off site. This ROD
addresses operable unit one, the containment of the
on-site source area, and remediation of on-site
contaminated ground water. A subsequent ROD will
address off-site ground-water contamination in
monitoring and residential wells (operable unit two).
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil
and ground water are VOCs, including benzene, PCE,
TCE, and vinyl chloride; other organics, including acids
and phenols; and metals, including chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating approximately 4,150 cubic yards of
contaminated surface soil with consolidation of the soil
in the landfill; placing a capon the landfill and sub-
sequent revegetation; installing an active gas
extraction system to collect gases emitted from the
landfill; pumping and treatment of ground water using
equalization, flocculation/precipitation, filtration, ion
exchange, air stripping, and filter press technologies,
followed by off-site disposal of any sludge produced
by these processes; discharging treated water on site
to a surface stream; monitoring ground water, surface
water, and sediment; installing an in-home water
treatment system for the on-site resident; and
implementing site access restrictions and institutional
controls, including deed, land use, and ground-water
restrictions. The estimated cost of this remedial
action is $9,156,950, including an annual O&M cost
of $217,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
No chemical-specific clean-up goals were
stated in the ROD. For carcinogenic compounds,
clean-up goals were established to reduce the excess
lifetime cancer risk to 10"4 to 10"6. For
non-carcinogenic compounds, the goal is a hazard
index equal to 1.0 or less. Individual ground-water
remediation standards are based on the more
stringent of SDWA MCLs or non-zero MCLGs, or
state background levels. If these levels cannot be
met, the ROD will be amended.
Institutional Controls
Deed, land use, and ground-water use
restrictions will be implemented.
C-60
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
LORD SHOPE LANDFILL, PA
First Remedial Action - Final
June 29,1990
The 25-acre Lord Shope Landfill site is an
inactive hazardous waste landfill in Girard Township,
Erie County, northwestern Pennsylvania. The site
consists of a 4-acre landfill and adjacent areas of
contaminated soil, surface water, and ground water.
The surrounding area is primarily agricultural and
residential, with two unnamed tributaries of Elk Creek
bordering the site to the north and west. From the
mid-1950s to 1979, industrial wastes, including spent
adhesives, degreasing solvents, acids, caustics, and some
drummed wastes were disposed of on site from nearby
facilities. During 1982 and 1983, responsible parties,
under an agreement with the state, implemented a
remedial alternative, which included removing 81
exposed drums, capping the landfill, and installing a
low permeability ground-water cutoff wall to reduce
leachate production from the landfill and to divert
ground-water flow around the site. Landfill leachate
has, however, resulted in VOC and inorganic ground-
water contamination both beneath and to the north of
the landfill, with a contaminant plume migrating
towards the north. Surface soil around the landfill also
has been found to contain elevated levels of VOCs.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
landfill material, surrounding soil, and ground water
are VOCs, including benzene, PCE, and TCE; and
metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes in-situ vapor stripping using vacuum wells to
volatize and remove VOCs from the landfill material
and the surrounding soil; collection and treatment of
gas emissions generated by the vapor stripping process
using carbon filtration; ground-water pumping and
treatment, including pretreatment for metal removal,
followed by air stripping to halt plume migration, with
final discharge of treated ground water into the
nearby surface tributaries; implementation of site
access restrictions and institutional controls, including
ground-water use restrictions. The estimated cost of
the remedial action is $5,760,000, including an annual
O&M cost of $420,000 for years 0 to 2, and $310,000
for years 3 to 50.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil criteria for the landfill
material and the surrounding soil were not provided,
but will be determined during the remedial design and
will be based on soil contaminant levels that will not
significantly impact the underlying ground water.
Ground-water clean-up goals will meet SDWA MCLs
or proposed MCLs (PMCLs), and a 10^* excess cancer
risk or a hazard index equal to one. Target ground-
water clean-up levels include PCE 5 ug/1 (PMCL),
TCE 5 ug/1 (MCL), benzene 5 ug/1 (MCL), arsenic 20
ugA (based on an excess cancer risk of 10"4),
chromium 50 ug/1 (MCL), and lead 15 ug/1 (risk-based
calculation). Ground-water goals will be revised to
meet background levels in accordance with state
ARARs. Air emissions from the air stripping of the
ground-water treatment system and the gas released
from the in-situ vapor stripping process will be
treated to meet state standards.
Institutional Controls
Ground-water use restrictions will be
implemented to prevent permitting and construction
of ground-water wells in the contaminated plume
area.
C-61
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
M.W. MANUFACTURING, PA
Second Remedial Action
June 29,1990
The 15-acre M.W. Manufacturing site is a
former copper recovery facility in Montour County,
Pennsylvania, 2 miles north of Danville. The
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PennDOT) maintains a storage area immediately
north of the site, and farmlands and wooded lots are
adjacent to the site on the west and south. Mauses
Creek flows in a southerly direction past the site.
Several private residences, motels, gas stations,
restaurants, and a Head Start school are located just
north of the PennDOT storage area and rely on private
ground-water wells for drinking water. From 1966 to
1972, M.W. Manufacturing was engaged in secondary
copper recovery from scrap wire, using both mechanical
and chemical processes. Granular carbon wastes
generated by the chemical process were dumped on
site, and spent solvents and acids were allegedly
disposed of on site. In 1972, M.W. Manufacturing filed
for bankruptcy, and the Philadelphia National Bank
acquired the property. Warehouse 81, Inc. acquired
the site in 1976 and unsuccessfully attempted to
recover copper from the large waste piles of fluff
material (fibrous insulation materials contaminated
with metals and solvents). The initial remedial
investigation revealed several areas posing potential
threats to public health: the carbon waste pile, four
wire-fluff waste piles, a surface impoundment, a buried
lagoon, and contaminated soil, drums, and storage
tanks. A1989 remedial action addressed the concerns
for direct contact with, and migration of contaminants
from, the carbon waste pile by excavating the carbon
waste pile and incinerating the waste off site. This
second remedial action addresses the remaining
principal threats at the site by treating the on-site
waste and contaminated soil. A subsequent remedial
action will address possible remediation of
contaminated ground water and off-site soil, sediment,
and surface-water contamination. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, debris, and
lagoon water are VOCs, including PCE and TCE; other
organics, including PCBs; and metals, including lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavation and on-site incineration of approx-
imately 32,000 cubic yards of fluff waste, followed by
stabilization of the lead-contaminated ash and off-site
disposal of residual ash; excavation and on-site
incineration of approximately 13,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil, followed by on-site stabilization, as
necessary, before off-site disposal; backfilling and
capping the soil (landfill closure) under the fluff
waste piles; covering the soil not under the fluff piles
using hybrid closure (topsoil cover and revegetation);
on-site treatment of approximately 86,000 gallons of
lagoon water using carbon adsorption and metal
removal, followed by on-site discharge to surface
water; and on-site incineration of approximately 40
cubic yards of waste contained in tanks and drums,
followed by stabilization of the ash and off-site
disposal; and ground-water monitoring. The
estimated cost of this remedial action is $35,950,000,
including an estimated annual O&M cost of $39,000
and an additional estimated $20,000 every 5 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Action levels have been established for
soil/waste based on a W6 cancer risk level or hazard
index of 1.0, where technically feasible. If soil cannot
feasibly be cleaned to the 10"6 risk level (e.g.,
excessive volume of contaminated soil in one
particular area on site), cleanup will reduce the
additional incremental risk to the ground water to
10"4 levels or to MCLs, whichever are more stringent
Chemical-specific clean-up levels for soil, fluff waste,
and drummed and tanked wastes were provided for
eight indicator contaminants, including PCE, TCE,
PCBs, and lead.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-62
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
OSBORNE LANDFILL, PA
First Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 15-acre Osborne Landfill site is an
inactive abandoned coal strip mine in Pine Township,
Mercer County, Pennsylvania. The site is in a
semi-rural area with a large natural pond, woodlands,
and wetlands bordering the site to the west. The
shallow Clarion aquifer is present east of the strip
mine highwall. The portion of the aquifer that
formerly overlaid the site was excavated during
stripping activities. After the mine was abandoned, the
strip mine pit filled with ground water. From the late
1950s to 1978, contaminated spent foundry sand and
other industrial and municipal wastes were disposed of
into the pit Other wastes, including trash and drums
containing solvents, waste water, and coolants, were
disposed of on site, gradually filling the strip mine and
displacing the water. The site holds an estimated
233,000 cubic yards of fill material. In 1983, Cooper
Industries, an operator of the site, removed
approximately 600 drums of waste and 45 cubic yards
of soil from the site and installed a fence to restrict site
access. EPA has divided the remedial action into five
operable units. Operable unit two (OU2), which
addresses contaminated wetland sediment, and OU5,
which addresses the contaminated Homewood aquifer,
will be implemented in a subsequent ROD. This ROD
addresses the remaining three operable units. OU1
addresses solid waste fill material, including foundry
sand and other on-site pond sediments; OU3 addresses
leachate associated with the on-site water table, and
OU4 addresses the Clarion aquifer. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting sediment and ground
water are VOCs, including benzene and TCE; other
organics, including PCBs and PAHs; and metals,
including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site is
comprised of three operable units. The primary rem-
edy for OU1 includes constructing a slurry wall
barrier around the perimeter of the fill; constructing
a clay cap over the fill material; ground-water
pumping and treatment using equalization, pH
adjustment, chemical precipitation, clarification, sand
filtration, and carbon adsorption, followed by
injection into the on-site mine pit; off-site disposal of
ground-water treatment residues; ground-water
monitoring; and implementing institutional controls,
including deed restrictions. If performance standards
cannot be met during the pre-design stage of remedy
implementation, a contingency remedy for OU1 will
be implemented, which includes regrading the site and
excavating and placing solid waste in a RCRA
Subtitle C on-site landfill, long-term ground-water
monitoring, and implementing institutional controls.
If the primary remedy for OU1 is implemented, no
additional action other than the primary remedy of
ground-water monitoring is necessary for OU3. If the
contingency remedy for OU1 is implemented, the
contingency remedy for OU3 also must be
implemented. The contingency remedy for OU3
includes dewatering the site during excavation;
isolating the fill area from the on-site mine pools;
treating the ground water using equalization,
clarification, and sand filtration for solids removal,
and carbon adsorption for organics removal, followed
by on-site discharge; and ground-water monitoring.
The selected remedy for OU4 includes pumping and
treatment of ground water in the Clarion Formation,
using air stripping, on-site air emissions treatment,
on-site injection of treated ground water, and ground-
water monitoring. The estimated cost of the primary
remedies is $18,681,000 with an annual O&M cost of
$904,000 for 30 years. If the contingency remedies
are implemented, the estimated cost is $17,811,000
with an annual O&M cost of $940,000 for 30 years.
C-63
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
Performance Standards or Goals senic 22 ug/1. If any ground-water contaminants
exceed SDWA MCLs or MCLGs, the remedy will
The selected source remedy will not reduce the continue until these goals are met.
current level of contamination in the fill area, but will
maintain an average PCB concentration level of 23 Institutional Controls
mg/kg. EPA's PCB Spill Cleanup Policy for a reduced
access area is met by this alternative. Ground-water Deed restrictions will be implemented to
contaminants will be remediated to the following reduce exposure to the site. The state has required
background levels: TCE 0.2 ug/1, benzene 0.2 ug/1, that mining within a 0.5 mile of the site be restricted.
PCBs 1 ug/1, chromium 50 ug/1, lead 15 ugA, and ar-
C-64
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
RAYMARK,PA
First Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 7-acre Raymark site is an active metal
manufacturing and electroplating plant in the Borough
of Hatboro, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The
site is in an industrial area and is approximately 100
feet from the nearest residence. The closest surface
water is Pennypack Creek, which flows 4,000 feet
southwest of the site. As part of the rivet
manufacturing process at the plant, VOCs, including 30
to 40 gallons of TCE, were used daily at the site to
clean and degrease metal parts. In 1979, when EPA
discovered TCE in the Hatboro public water supply
wells, the Hatboro Borough Water Authority removed
these wells from operation, and supplemented the
water supply using an interconnection with a
neighboring water company. Further EPA site
investigations from 1980 to 1987 identified TCE in soil
and other wells on site and adjacent to the property,
and seem to indicate that contaminants from the site
may have been at least a contributing source of
contamination in the downgradient public water supply
wells. Other chemical contaminants identified in
samples from the public water supply wells, including
TCA, did not seem to originate at the site, indicating
several distinct sources for this contamination. In
1987, the site owners agreed to install ground-water
treatment units with air stripping towers, and, as
necessary, air emission control units, at two Hatboro
public supply wells to return these to routine
operation. This ROD addresses the contaminated
drinking water and ground water, referred to as
operable units two and three, respectively. The
soil/source contamination (operable unit one), will be
addressed in a subsequent ROD. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are
VOCs, including TCE and PCE.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes continuing the operation and maintenance of
the Hatboro public supply wells and the existing air
stripping towers at the wells, and the installation of
new vapor phase carbon adsorption units; completing
a ground-water remedial design study to determine
the number, location, and construction of new
extraction wells to be installed and implemented; on-
site pumping and treatment of ground water with air
stripping and vapor phase carbon adsorption units,
followed by discharge to Pennypack Creek; and
implementing institutional controls. The estimated
cost of this remedial action is $2,700,000, including an
annual O&M cost of $125,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
The ground water will be remediated until
contaminant levels reach SDWA MCLs, non-zero
MCLGs, or background levels, whichever are more
restrictive. The residual excess cancer risk resulting
from site-related contamination will be reduced to a
10"6 level and non-carcinogenic levels will be reduced
to a hazard index equal to 1.0. Chemical-specific
standards for ground water include TCE 5 ug/1 (MCL)
and PCE 5 ug/1 (proposed MCL). Additional,
still-undefined aquifer contamination at the site may
make it technically impracticable to attain these
levels; if so, an ARAR waiver will be enacted and the
ROD amended.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be implemented to
restrict access to the contaminated aquifer.
C-65
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SAND, GRAVEL AND STONE, MD
Second Remedial Action
September 28, 1990
The 200-acre Sand, Gravel and Stone site is a
former sand and gravel quarry 3 miles west of the town
of Elkton, in Cecil County, Maryland, along a tributary
to Mill Creek. Surface water in Mill Creek eventually
flows to the Elk River and the Chesapeake Bay.
Beginning in 1969, hazardous materials were disposed
of on site. In 1974, a pool of chemical waste burned in
an on-site fire, the cause of which has yet to be
determined. Subsequently, 200,000 gallons of this
liquid waste were removed to an off-site landfill, and
the remaining drums and sludge were buried on site in
two excavated pits (eastern and western). The site has
been separated into three operable units. A 1985
ROD addressed operable unit one, the remediation of
shallow ground-water contamination near the eastern
excavated pit, source control (i.e., removal of buried
drums), and site access restrictions. This ROD focuses
on operable unit two, the threat posed by soil
contamination and ground-water contamination
migrating from the eastern portion of the site, and
includes remediation of ground-water contamination in
the lower aquifers, if needed, and evaluation of
contaminant sources near the western excavation pit.
Soil sampling analyses and geophysical studies now
show that there are no unacceptable risks associated
with soil in the western area of the site. A future
ROD will address (operable unit three), the
contaminated soil, source control, final site closure,
and post-closure operation and maintenance activities.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
ground water are VOCs, including benzene and
toluene; and metals.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes on-site and off-site ground-water monitoring.
If the monitoring data demonstrate that remediation
is required, ground water may be treated either on
site, or off site at point of use, and bottled water will
be supplied to affected residences and businesses.
The on-site treatment system installed as a result of
the first remedial action would be expanded and
modified, as necessary, to treat the ground water in
the lower aquifer. Treatment measures may utilize
granular activated carbon, air stripping, ion exchange,
or any combination of these techniques. The
estimated cost of this remedial action ranges from
$702,000 to $7,125,000, depending on the extent and
nature of treatment required, and an annual O&M
cost ranging from $102,000 to $625,900 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Action levels that will trigger the
implementation of on-site and/or off-site ground-
water treatment include concentrations of chemicals
of concern in excess of MCLs, a cumulative
carcinogenic risk in excess of 10"4, or a
non-carcinogenic hazard index greater than 1.0.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-66
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
TYSON DUMP #1, PA
Third Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 4-acre Tyson Dump #1 site is an
abandoned septic and chemical waste disposal area in
Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania. The site consists of a series of
abandoned unlined lagoons in a former sandstone
quarry, and is bordered by unnamed tributaries to the
Schuylkill River on the east and west, and a railroad
switching yard to the north. Beyond the railroad yard
is a floodplain/wetlands area and the Schuylkill River,
which flows southeast toward Philadelphia. The river
is the main source of drinking water in the area.
Barbadoes Island lies in the center of the river in the
site vicinity and is used as an electrical substation.
From 1960 until 1973, the privately-owned site was
used for the disposal of liquid septic tank wastes,
sludges, and chemical wastes that were hauled on site
in bulk tank trucks. In 1973, the state ordered the site
owner to close the facility. In 1983, EPA required that
immediate removal measures be taken, including
constructing a leachate collection and treatment system
with drainage controls, covering the site, and
implementing site access restrictions. In 1984, the first
ROD for the site was issued for operable unit one,
which documented a remedy including excavation and
off-site disposal of lagoon materials. In 1988, a second
ROD was signed, which documented a remedy for
treating the ground-water contamination under the off-
site areas (operable unit two), including the railroad
yard and wetlands areas, using steam stripping followed
by liquid-phase carbon adsorption as a polishing step.
This third ROD addresses operable unit three, the
further remediation of the contaminated ground water
that has migrated under the Schuylkill River.
Additional ground-water investigations will be conduc-
ted on the north side of the river, and based on the
results, a fourth operable unit may be identified. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs, including toluene and xylenes.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes installing additional recovery wells on the
south bank of the Schuylkill River and on Barbadoes
Island, followed by treating the contaminated ground
water at the existing treatment facility on the south
bank of the river; expanding the capacity of the
existing treatment facility; investigating hydrogeologic
conditions on the north side of the river to assess
environmental impact and the need for additional
RODs; and implementing institutional controls to
restrict ground-water use. The estimated cost of this
remedial action is $10,100,000, including an annual
O&M cost of $834,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Discharge limits for treated ground water
were calculated by the state based on risk factors,
dilution within the river, and state and federal
standards. These limits are toluene 1.52 mg/l (based
on a chronic WQC of 0.33 mg/1) and xylenes 0.97 mg/l
(based on an MCL of 10.0 mg/l).
Institutional Controls
Ground-water use on Barbadoes Island and
on the north side of the river within the contaminated
ground-water plume will be restricted.
C-67
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
U.S. TITANIUM, VA
First Remedial Action - Final
November 21,1989
The 175-acre U.S. Titanium site in Nelson
County, Virginia, is a former titanium dioxide
manufacturing plant which operated from 1931 to 1971.
The facility has had a succession of owners and
currently is owned by U.S. Titanium Corporation.
Approximately 50 acres of the site will be addressed by
this remedial action, including seven waste storage
areas containing process wastes. These seven areas
include: Area 1, a burial pit containing 16,000 cubic
yards of solid ferrous sulfate (copperas); Area 2, a
former copperas stockpile area; Area 3, an evaporation
pond; Area 4, a 1-acre ore waste pile; Area 5,
sedimentation ponds containing fine-grained sediment
composed of unreacted ore, filter cake, and gypsum;
Area 6, a settling pond used to recover phosphate ore;
and Area 7, a drainage area which received surface-
water runoff. Several of these areas lie within the
100-year floodplain of the nearby Piney River. After a
large fish kill in 1979, the state ordered U.S. Titanium
to bury the copperas waste from Area 2 by December
1980. The copperas waste was collected and buried in
Area 1, the on-site burial pit. A supplemental
remedial investigation revealed the presence of
acidified soil underlying the waste storage areas,
contributing to ground-water contamination. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
ground water, and surface water are metals, including
arsenic and chromium; and other inorganics, including
acids.
The selected remedial activities for the seven
areas within this site include: in-situ dissolution of
copperas waste, and treatment of resulting leachate
using physical and chemical processes (Area 1);
diversion of surface-water flow using drainage controls
followed by revegetation (Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5); and
excavation and neutralization of acidified soil, followed
by placement of the mixed material around a wetland
that will be constructed on site (Area 7). Area 6
requires no remedial action. Ground water will be
collected passively using subsurface drains and
trenches and treated passively in an oxidation/settling
pond, a constructed wetland, and a limestone
neutralization bed. The oxidation/settling pond will
be capable of completely removing iron and sulfur
elements from the collected ground water and will
make up for any loss in the performance of the
wetland. Wetland vegetation and anaerobic bacteria
will remove iron and sulfur species from the water.
As a result of this process, an increase in pH can be
expected. The limestone bed will act as a final
polishing step for pH adjustment before the effluent
is discharged to the Piney River. The estimated cost
of this remedial action is $5,895,000, including present
worth O&M costs for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Action levels for in-situ dissolution and
leachate collection for Area 1 will ensure that
leaching of contaminants to ground and surface
waters will not exceed state water quality standards,
including arsenic 0.19 mg/1 and chromium 0.011 mg/1.
Effluent limits for discharge from the ground-water
treatment system into the surface water include iron
97,583 mg/1 and pH ranging from 6.0 to 9.0.
Institutional Controls
Local deed restrictions may be implemented
to prohibit excavation at any of the contaminated
areas and at the wetland area that will be constructed
on site. Site access restrictions will also be
implemented around the wetland.
C-68
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
WALSH LANDFILL, PA
First Remedial Action
June 29,1990
The 7-acre Walsh Landfill site encompasses an
approximately 1.5-acre landfill and surrounding area in
a heavily wooded region of Honeybrook Township,
Chester County, Pennsylvania. The landfill reportedly
received mixed municipal and industrial wastes for
disposal between 1963 and 1976, although state
investigations in 1979 revealed that disposal of
hazardous waste at the site had resumed after that
period. Investigations by the state revealed the
presence of 15 to 20 drums containing various
hazardous substances, including VOCs. Fumes from
the drums reportedly made local residents sick, and
organic and inorganic compounds were detected in
monitoring wells and private wells. In addition to
waste disposal, open burning of material was conducted
in the southeastern portion of the landfill. Residential
well sampling from 1987 through 1989 resulted in an
interim remedial measure in 1989 to provide bottled
water to 44 residences. Currently, the site is being
operated as a solid waste transfer station and salvage
yard, and operations are increasing the volume of
landfill/junkyard debris, and the overall size of the site.
This ROD addresses final source control for the
landfill and allows for expedited action on the
contaminated drinking water supply. A second ROD
will address the contaminated ground water. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, and groundwater are VOCs, including ben-
zene, PCE, and TCE; other organics, including PAHs;
and metals, including arsenic and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes removal of bulky items and debris from the
landfill surface for resource recovery, followed by
construction of an approximately 5.2-acre landfill cap;
provision of an alternate water supply to
approximately 50 residences by extending the
municipal water system; ground-water monitoring;
and implementing institutional controls, including
land use, ground-water use, deed restrictions, and site
access restrictions. The estimated cost of this
remedial action is $3,768,000, including an estimated
annual O&M cost of $63,090 for 25 years except years
5, 10, 15, 20, and 25, which will have an estimated
O&M cost of $108,950 due to the 5-year reviews.
Performance Standards or Goals
Provision of an alternate water supply will
ensure availability of water meeting SDWA MCLs.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls, including land use,
ground-water use, and deed restrictions, will be
implemented.
C-69
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
WESTLINE, PA
First Remedial Action (Amendment)
March 30,1990
The Westline site is a former chemical plant in
the rural community of Westline, LaFayette Township,
McKean County, Pennsylvania. The site is situated
along Kinzua Creek and is completely surrounded by
the Allegheny National Forest. From 1901 to 1952,
the Day Chemical Company plant was operated to
convert lumber to charcoal, methanol, and acetic acid.
The Day Chemical Company deposited tar material
containing phenolic compounds and PAHs into on-site
lagoons and into small canals to allow the tar material
to migrate downhill towards the banks of Kinzua
Creek. In 1983, EPA conducted an immediate removal
action to remove 2,000 tons of tar and contaminated
soil from the largest lagoon of tar deposits. Although
a 1986 ROD addressed the remediation of an
additional 2,340 tons of tar and soil found in an on-site
tar pit and in some of the interpersed tar deposits
along Kinzua Creek, there was still an estimated 4,000
tons of tar material left at the site in the areas planned
for excavation. Most of the remaining tar, however, is
3 feet below the surface and is not a dermal contact
threat. Based on an updated risk assessment using
more recent risk criteria for PAHs, EPA has
determined that the residual soil and tar material pre-
sents no potential carcinogenic risk greater than the
range of acceptable risks found at other Superfund
sites and will thus discontinue excavating soil and tar
material. This ROD amends a July 1986 ROD that
called for the excavation and off-site incineration and
disposal of waste tar from an on-site tar pit and the
interspersed tar deposits along Kinzua Creek. There
are no longer any primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil at the site.
The selected remedial action for this ROD
amendment is no further action. Because some tar
material will remain on site, EPA will monitor the
site to prevent unacceptable exposure from the waste
tar, and a 5-year review will be scheduled. No costs
were specified for this no action remedy.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-70
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEKFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
REGION 4
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee)
62nd STREET DUMP, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
June 27,1990
The 5-acre 62nd Street Dump site is an
inactive industrial waste disposal area in Tampa,
Hillsborough County, Florida. Several marsh areas and
a series of fish breeding ponds lie adjacent to the site.
Surrounding land use is mixed light industrial and
residential. The site overlies a series of sedimentary
rock aquifers that currently are used as drinking water
sources. In the mid-1970s, the site was used as a sand
borrow pit. After this operation halted, industrial
wastes, including auto parts, batteries, and kiln dust
were dumped on site. Industrial dumping ceased in
1976, but unauthorized on-site dumping of construction
materials and household garbage continued. In 1976,
fish kills occurred in the adjacent ponds. These led to
site investigations in 1979 and 1980 by private groups.
Based on these investigations, the contamination was
determined to be the result of waste material leaching
from the landfill. Several additional investigations
were conducted from 1983 to 1989 to identify and
further characterize contaminant sources and
contaminated media. This ROD addresses source
remediation and on-site and off-site ground-water
contamination. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, debris, and ground water are
organics, including PCBs; and metals, including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes dewatering and excavating approximately
48,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and non-
cement debris, followed by on-site treatment using
solidification/stabilization, and placing the treated
material on site within the original dump area;
capping the site with an impermeable membrane and
vegetative soil cover; pumping and on-site treatment
of contaminated ground water using chromium
reduction, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration,
followed by off-site discharge to a POTW or on-site
discharge to surface water; disposing of residual
sludges on site; monitoring ground water; and
implementing institutional controls including land use
restrictions. The estimated cost of this remedial
action is $16,460,000, including an estimated O&M
cost of $690,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Federal MCLs were chosen as clean-up
standards for ground water. Chemical-specific goals
include chromium 50 ug/1 (MCL) and lead IS ug/1
(proposed MCL). Soil clean-up criteria were chosen
as the more stringent of health-based criteria or
values calculated from a leachate model.
Chemical-specific goals for soil include PCBs 0.33
mg/kg, arsenic 3.5 mg/kg, chromium 8.8 mg/kg, and
lead 17.4 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
the site.
Land use restrictions will be implemented at
C-71
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
BYPASS 601 GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION, NC
First Remedial Action
August 31, 1990
The Bypass 601 Ground Water Contamination
site is in Concord, Cabarrus County, North Carolina.
One of the potential sources of on-site contamination
is the 13-acre Martin Scrap Recycling (MSR) facility,
an inactive battery salvage and recycling operation.
Ground water at the site is contaminated with heavy
metals by several unknown sources. The MSR facility
consists of two tracts of land; the larger tract includes
a main facility that was used for lead reclamation
activities; and the second lot encompasses the
floodplain area. The immediate area surrounding the
MSR facility is commercial, light industrial, and
residential with 1,400 persons residing within a 3-mile
radius of the site. The main facility is comprised of
several lead-contaminated buildings, including a scale
house, several garages and sheds, as a result of on-site
battery cracking operations. Contaminated debris,
including old tanks, drums, wires, casings, and trash is
spread throughout the main facility area. The
southeastern corner of the main facility has been
backfilled with cracked battery casings to a depth of 20
feet. Approximately 57,000 cubic yards of
lead-contaminated soil remains on site from previous
battery salvage activities. A 1984 EPA site
investigation found high levels of metals in nearby
wells. This ROD addresses operable unit one, which
contains the source contamination from the MSR
facility to minimize the continued degradation of
ground water and surface water. Subsequent RODs
will address the final action and remediation of other
on-site contaminant sources (operable unit two) and
ground-water contamination (operable unit three).
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and debris are metals, including chromium and
lead.
The selected remedial action for this site is
an interim action, which includes demolishing and
disposing of debris from four on-site buildings;
excavating and consolidating the contaminated surface
soil; regrading the site (i.e., covering the area with 6
inches of clean fill, covering the soil with a HPDE
liner, 18 inches of drainage soil, and 6 additional
inches of clean topsoil); revegetating the area;
backfilling excavated areas; realigning an adjacent
stream to minimize the erosion of the cap;
maintaining the soil cover; enacting public awareness
programs; and implementing institutional controls,
including deed restrictions, and site access restrictions,
including fencing. The estimated cost of this remedial
action is $738,821, including an annual O&M cost of
$9,700.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil contaminated with lead will be
remediated to 500 mg/kg (EPA Interim Guidance).
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented at the
site.
C-72
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CABOT/KOPPERS, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 99-acre Cabot/Koppers site is a pine tar
and charcoal generation facility in Gainesville, Alachua
County, Florida. Shallow and intermediate aquifers
underlie the site. Land in the site vicinity is used for
commercial and residential purposes. The site is
comprised of two distinct areas, the inactive Cabot
Carbon property to the southeast, and the industrial
zoned and currently operating Koppers area to the
west. North Main Street borders the entire site to the
west as does a drainage ditch, which drains into nearby
Springstead and Hogtown creeks. Pine tar and
charcoal generation operations began at the Cabot
Carbon facility in the early 1900s and generated a large
number of blended solvents as by-products. Resultant
wastewaters were treated on site in a lagoon. The
Koppers portion of the site has been operated since
1916 as a wood preserving operation, primarily for
utility poles and timbers. The main processing
facilities at the Koppers area include a tank farm, a
former cooling water pond, cylinder drip tracks, a
wastewater management system comprised of a north
and south lagoon, a wood shavings pile, and drying
kilns. Between 1980 and 1989, various site
investigations by the state, EPA, and private parties
identified soil contamination in the three lagoons, the
inactive cooling pond, the drip tracks, and a wood
shavings pile. Ground-water contamination also was
identified in both the on-site shallow and intermediate
aquifers. In addition, in 1986, the state identified
organics and heavy metal contamination in off-site soil
west of the site. This ROD addresses contaminated
on-site soil and ground water. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and ground
water are VOCs, including benzene; other organics,
including oils, phenols, and PAHs; and metals,
including arsenic and chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating 6,400 cubic yards of on-site
contaminated soil from the north and south Koppers
lagoon areas, treating the soil using soil washing and
bioremediation if necessary, followed by
solidifying/stabilizing the residual material and
disposing of these residuals on site; treating soil from
the cooling pond and drip track areas by in-situ
bioremediation; lining the North Main Street ditch to
prevent further discharge of leachate (if the ditch is to
remain intact); pumping and treating ground water
followed by off-site discharge to a POTW; operating
and maintaining the North Main Street lift station as
needed until the ground-water remediation system
renders it superfluous; monitoring ground water and
surface water; and implementing institutional
controls, including land use restrictions. The
estimated cost of this remedial action is $4,192,000,
including an annual O&M cost of $388,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals were
developed based on ground-water protection and
include carcinogenic PAHs 0.59 mg/kg, phenols 4.28
mg/kg, arsenic 27 mg/kg, and chromium 92.7 mg/kg.
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up goals include
carcinogenic PAHs 0.003 ug/1 (health-based), phenols
2,630 ug/1, arsenic 50 ug/1, chromium 50 ug/1 (MCL),
and benzene 1 ug/1 (state). Total noncarcinogenic
risk will result in a hazard index less than 1.0.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls, including land use
restrictions, will be implemented to prevent exposure
to on-site contamination.
C-73
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CITY INDUSTRIES, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
March 29, 1990
The City Industries site is a former hazardous
waste recycling and transfer facility in Goldenrod
Township, Orange County, Florida, near the cities of
Winter Park and Orlando. Winter Park's water supply
well field is located approximately 1,900 feet west of
the site. These wells draw from the deep Floridan
aquifer, which is separated from a surficial aquifer by
a 140-foot-thick confining layer. In 1971, a former fuel
oil business at the site was developed into a
waste-handling facility. Activities at the site included
receiving, handling, storing, reclaiming, and disposing
of various waste chemicals. Improper disposal
practices and intentional dumping led to on-site soil
and surficial ground-water contamination. In 1983,
after the state ordered the business closed, the site was
abandoned. The state subsequently removed the on-
site waste drums, some contaminated soil, and waste
sludge. In 1984, EPA removed and thermally treated
1,670 tons of contaminated soil and disposed of the
residuals on site. Additionally, EPA removed 180
cubic yards of highly contaminated soil and transported
the soil to an off-site hazardous waste landfill. This
ROD addresses contaminated ground water, which is
migrating through the surficial aquifer, a potential
drinking water source, and prevention of contaminant
migration to the deeper Floridan aquifer. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are
VOCs, including benzene, PCE, TCE, and toluene.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes pumping and treating ground water using air
stripping, and discharging to a POTW, if treatability
studies show the discharged water meets pretreatment
standards; and ground-water monitoring. If a local
POTW will not accept the treated effluent, a contin-
gency remedy will be instituted. The contingency
remedy includes ground-water pumping and treating
using air stripping followed by precipitation, filtration,
carbon adsorption, and possibly biological oxidation;
conducting treatability studies to ensure compliance
with surface-water discharge criteria; and discharging
the treated effluent off site to a nearby drainage
canal. Both the selected and contingency remedies
include implementation of institutional controls,
including land use and deed restrictions, and securing
construction rights-of-way and easements at the site.
The estimated cost of the selected remedial action is
$4,575,632, including an annual O&M cost of
$292,500 for 15 years. The estimated cost of the
contingency remedy is $4,262,101, including present
worth O&M costs of $2,849,191 for 15 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
The surficial aquifer is a potential source of
drinking water, therefore, contaminant levels must be
reduced to drinking water standards, including
benzene 1.0 ug/1 (state drinking water standard), PCE
3.0 ug/1 (state drinking water standard), TCE 3.0 ug/1
(state drinking water standard), and toluene 2,000 ug/1
(proposed MCLG).
Institutional Controls
Deed and land use restrictions, as well as
construction easements and other rights-of-way, will
be implemented.
C-74
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
COLEMAN-EVANS WOOD PRESERVING, FL
First Remedial Action - Final (Amendment)
September 26,1990
From 1954 to the late 1980s, the 11-acre
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving site operated as a
wood treatment facility in the community of
Whitehouse, Duval County, Florida. The surrounding
land use is primarily residential and light
commercial/industrial. Approximately 1,000 local
residents rely exclusively on ground water for their
drinking water supply. The site is divided into two
areas: a wood treatment facility on the western portion
of the site and a landfill area used for disposal of wood
chips and other facility wastes on the eastern portion
of the site. In addition to the treatment and storage
areas, there is an on-site drainage ditch that carries site
runoff into nearby McGirts Creek. Prior to 1970,
wastewater from the facility was precipitated and
discharged to the on-site drainage ditch. The
precipitated sludge was deposited into two unlined pits
until 1970, when the sludge was stored in tanks. The
wastewater treatment process was also enhanced in
1970 with lime precipitation and chlorination. In 1980,
on-site ground-water contamination was detected. As
a result, activated charcoal filters were added to the
treatment process to remove organics. The primary
contaminant in on-site soil and ground water is
pentachlorophenol (PCP). The highest areas of PCP
concentration were in the vicinity of on-site chemical
tanks and the unlined pit areas. In 1985, EPA
conducted an emergency response that included
excavating and disposing of pit material off site and
filling excavated areas with clean fill. PCP-laden fuel
is thought to be floating on the water table surface;
however, only limited low level ground-water
contamination has been detected on site. This ROD
amends a 1986 ROD, which documented the selection
of incineration for an estimated 9,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil. Since that time, additional studies
during the remedial design phase indicated that there
are approximately 27,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soil. Based on the excessive volume of soil and the
high cost of incineration, treatability studies were
conducted and an alternative source control treatment
was selected. The primary contaminants of concern af-
fecting the soil, sediment, and ground water are
organics, including PCP and metals.
The selected amended remedial action for
this site includes excavating approximately 27,000
cubic yards of soil and sediment contaminated with
PCP levels greater than 25 mg/kg, and pre-treating
these materials using soil washing; separating clean
soil fractions from contaminated soil fines and woody
wastes, followed by solidification/stabilization of any
soil fines or sludges, which exceed clean-up criteria;
placing a cover over the solidified mass; replacing the
solidified soil and sludges on site; treating residual
soil wash water using bioremediation, followed by a
granular activated polishing unit with subsequent on-
site discharge to the drainage ditch; pumping and
recovering ground water to facilitate soil excavation,
followed by on-site treatment using the GAC
adsorption unit, if PCP levels exceed 1.0 ugfl, and
using chemical precipitation removing metals prior to
discharging ground water to the on-site drainage
ditch; covering the area with vegetation; and
implementing institutional controls, including deed
restrictions, and site access restrictions, including
fencing. The estimated total cost for this remedial
action is $8,567,304. There are no O&M costs
associated with this remedy.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil contaminated with PCPs greater than
25.0 mg/kg will be excavated and treated to the
established clean-up level below 25 mg/kg. After
bioremediation, solidified/stabilized contaminant fines
will meet Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Criteria of 3.6 mg/kg. Ground water recovered during
soil dewatering will be treated to below PCP 1.0 ug/1
(state).
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented at the
site.
C-75
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
DUBOSE OIL PRODUCTS, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
March 29,1990
The 20-acre Dubose Oil Products site is an
inactive waste storage, treatment, recycling, and
disposal facility in Cantonment, Escambia County,
Florida. Surrounding land use is primarily rural
agricultural. The site overlies a deep aquifer, that
serves as a drinking water source for area residents.
Site operations began in 1979 and included thermal
treatment of waste oil, petroleum refining wastes, oil
based solvents, and wood treatment wastes; steam
heating of spent iron/steel pickle liquors; and rock salt
filtration of waste diesel fuel. Liquid waste was
transferred from tanker trucks and drums to on-site
treatment tanks for these processes. Empty drums
were either sold or crushed and buried on site.
Operations ceased in 1981, and the site owner
commenced closure of the site without a proper closure
plan. Unauthorized closure activities included
excavation of buried drums (causing some drums to be
punctured), operation of an aeration system to
remediate on-site drainage ponds, and movement of
contaminated material with heavy equipment. A state
emergency response action in 1985 included excavation
and on-site vaulting of 38,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and the off-site disposal of drums.
Site investigations in 1988 identified the soil
containment vault as the principal contaminant source
and revealed contamination above health-based levels
of the shallow aquifer beneath the site, in on-site
surface water, and sediment. Investigations showed
that the deep aquifer contained extremely low to
undetectable levels of contaminants, below drinking
water standards. This ROD addresses final
remediation of source areas and on-site shallow ground
water. The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil, sediment, ground water, and surface water are
VOCs, including benzene, TCE, toluene, and xylenes;
and other organics, including PAHs and phenols.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating the top 20 feet of vault soil
containing low-level contamination and disposing of
soil in an on-site ravine area; excavating the
remaining vault soil and treating by aerobic
biodegradation, which includes windrowing of soil on
a concrete slab, addition of microbial seed and
nutrients, and aeration; disposing of treated soil on
site in the ravine area; placing a 2-foot soil cover over
the vault area and the ravine area; treating soil
leachate from the windrowing process using filtration
and either carbon adsorption or UV oxidation
followed by on-site discharge to surface water;
draining and filling of on-site ponds; installing
surface-water runoff controls; conducting ground-
water and soil monitoring; restoring ground water by
natural attenuation; and implementing institutional
controls, including deed and ground-water use
restrictions. The estimated cost of this remedial
action is $3,008,000, including an annual O&M cost
of $115,000 for years 0 to 5 and $10,000 for years 6 to
10.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up standards for leachate discharge are
based on the more stringent of federal or state
ARARs and include benzene 1 ug/1 (state), TCE 3
ug/1 (state), xylenes 50 ug/1 (state), and PNAs 10 ug/1
(EPA detection limit). Soil clean-up goals are based
on either leaching potential (LP) or health-based
criteria (HBC) and include benzene 10 mg/kg (HBC),
TCE 0.050 mg/kg (LP), xylenes 1.5 mg/kg (LP), and
PAHs 50 mg/kg (LP).
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented at the site.
C-76
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
HARRIS/PALM BAY FACILITY, FL
First Remedial Action
June 28,1990
The 345-acre Harris/Palm Bay Facility site is
an electronics manufacturing company in Palm Bay,
Brevard County, Florida. Surrounding land use is
commercial, residential, and industrial. The site
overlies an unconsolidated aquifer, which is used by a
public wellfield located south of and downgradient of
the site. From the 1950s to 1967, the site was operated
by an electronics firm. Harris Corporation purchased
the facility in 1967. Current facility operations are
subdivided into the Government Systems operations
area and the Semiconductor Complex area. In 1981,
EPA identified VOCs in ground-water wells located
south of the Government Systems facility. Ground-
water contamination was attributed to several on-site
incidents at the Government Systems plant including
two fires, which resulted in the dumping of chemical
vats, a broken acid/solvent line, and spillage at drum
storage areas. Seepage from two former treatment
lagoons also may be a source of a shallow contaminant
plume. In 1985, Harris constructed a treatment facility
to implement an on-site ground-water treatment and
monitoring program that is still in operation. This
ROD addresses ground-water contamination at the
Government Systems facility. A subsequent ROD will
address the contaminated ground water at the
Semiconductor Complex and all of the contaminated
on-site soil. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water are VOCs, including TCE;
metals, including chromium and lead; and other
inorganics, including fluoride.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes continuing ground-water pumping and
treating using air stripping to remove VOCs; using
the treated ground water as industrial process water
then reinjecting the treated ground water on site into
a deep aquifer; and evaluating and modifying the
existing ground-water monitoring program to fully
characterize on-site contamination. The estimated
cost of this remedial action is $1,430,000, including a
total O&M cost of $950,000 for 5 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
The goal of this remedial action is to restore
the aquifer to its beneficial use. Clean-up standards
were chosen as the more stringent of state or federal
SDWA standards. Chemical-specific ground-water
goals include TCE 5 ug/1 (MCL), chromium 50 ug/1
(MCL), and lead 15 ug/1 (proposed MCL).
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-77
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
HIPPS ROAD LANDFILL, FL
First Remedial Action (Amendment) - Final
September 21,1990
The 7-acre Hipps Road Landfill site is an
inactive landfill in Jacksonville, Duvall County, Florida.
Surrounding land use is rural residential. The site
overlies a sedimentary surficial aquifer system, used as
a source of drinking water, which has been affected by
the site. Prior to the start of landfilling operations in
1968, the site was a cypress swamp. Types of
hazardous waste disposed of on site included cans of
TCE and artillery rounds from U.S. Navy facilities.
After on-site operations ceased, the property was
divided into lots, and five homes were constructed on
the landfill. Subsequently, biota in an adjacent pond
died, and area residents began to complain of
deteriorating well water quality. In 1983, state
investigations confirmed the presence of ground-water
contamination, and bottled water was supplied to the
affected residents. Consequently in 1985, area homes
were connected to the municipal water supply. In
1989, remedial actions stemming from a 1986 ROD
commenced and included properly closing the landfill
and implementing institutional controls. In addition,
the 1986 ROD included ground-water pumping and
treating at a publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
as part of the overall site remedy. In 1990, the landfill
was capped to control the source of the contamination.
Ground-water investigations after 1986 revealed that
the ground-water contamination plume was not as
extensive and the overall site quality was better than
previously estimated. This ROD amends the 1986
ROD for the ground-water component. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are
VOCs, including benzene; and metals, including
chromium and lead.
The remedy selected in 1986 to clean up the
ground water included ground-water pumping,
followed by discharging to a POTW for treatment.
This amendment provides for on-site ground-water
treatment using air stripping to remove VOCs,
followed by discharging the treated water on site to a
storm water retention basin, and monitoring of on-
site and off-site ground water. This amendment will
substantially decrease the overall cost of the remedy
from that of the POTW treatment alternative. The
estimated cost of this amended remedial action is
$1,242,000, including an O&M cost of $370,600 for 5
years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up standards were chosen
as the more stringent of state standards or federal
MCLs. Chemical-specific goals for ground water
include benzene 1 ug/1 (state), chromium 50 ug/1
(MCL), and lead 15 ug/1 (federal recommended clean-
up goal). Lead and chromium contamination were
determined to be non-site related, but clean-up goals
will be met in water discharged to the retention basin.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls, which were
implemented as part of the 1986 ROD, include
ground-water and land use restrictions.
C-78
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
HOWE VALLEY LANDFILL, KY
First Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The 11-acre Howe Valley Landfill site is an
inactive landfill in Howe Valley, Hardin County,
Kentucky. A Class IIA aquifer underlies the site, but
is not currently used as a drinking water source.
Ground-water flow is southeasterly toward Boutwell
Spring and Linders Creek. From 1967 to 1976, 2.5
acres of the site were used for disposal of refuse and
manufacturing by-products. In 1974, a state inspection
revealed that acidic liquid wastes were being dumped
directly into the landfill, in direct violation of the
solid-waste disposal permit issued. Although the
permit expired in 1974, the landfill continued dumping
operations until 1976. In 1988, EPA required the
removal of 9,150 full or partially filled drums
containing metal plating sludge, caulk, flammable
silicone polymers, and paint-like pigments; 1,621 empty
drums; 6,000 smaller containers; and 3,000 cubic yards
of loose waste from the site. State investigations in
1987 found that the potential migration of this waste
posed a drinking water hazard. Contaminant levels for
the underlying ground-water system cannot accurately
be monitored because of the karst topography at the
site. This remedial action focuses on reducing the
source contamination. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil are VOCs, including PCE;
and metals, including chromium.
The selected remedial action for the site
includes excavating approximately 100 cubic yards of
soil from the outlying areas of the site containing
elevated inorganic levels, followed by disposal off site;
excavating approximately 7,400 cubic yards of soil with
elevated concentrations of organics, followed by
aeration; performing a treatability study to ensure that
an on-site aeration process will reduce organic
concentrations in soil to acceptable levels; on-site
disposal of the treated soil; on-site air monitoring;
installing water diversion ditches to prevent water
from running onto the aerating soil; covering the area
with soil and installing a vegetative cover over the
entire site; monitoring ground water at Boutwell
Spring and at additional springs or wells; and
implementing institutional controls, such as deed
restrictions, to limit the property and ground-water
usage. If the treatability study indicates that soil
aeration will not effectively reduce contamination to
protective levels, a proposed contingency remedy
would include excavating, stockpiling, and
transporting approximately 7,500 cubic yards of
contaminated soil to an off-site RCRA-approved
landfill for disposal. The estimated cost of the
primary remedial action is $394,524, including a total
O&M cost of $42,625 for 5 years. The estimated cost
of the contingency remedy is $3,852,000, including a
total O&M cost of $42,625 for 5 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Health-based soil action levels have been
calculated for the site-specific conditions, and include
PCE 7.50 mg/kg and chromium (VI) 400 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
limit property and ground-water usage.
C-79
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
JADCO-HUGHES, NC
First Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 6-acre Jadco-Hughes site is a former
solvent reclamation and waste storage facility in North
Belmont, Gaston County, North Carolina. The
surrounding area, along with portions of the site,
contains woodlands interspersed with industrial and
residential developments. Two unnamed tributaries
that flow through the site ultimately empty into the
Catawba River, the predominant public drinking water
supply source for the area. Ground water is not used
as drinking water on site, but off-site residents who do
not yet have municipal water connections use this
ground water for their drinking water source. From
1969 to 1975, the plant was operated to reclaim used
waste paint and ink-type solvents. In addition, the
plant area was used to store drummed wastes, including
waste chemicals and sludges from area industries. In
1975, the state ordered the cleanup of two in-ground
solvent pits and the consolidation and covering of
contaminated surface soil in an on-site landfill in the
southwest portion of the site. In 1983, all remaining
storage tanks, a mobile tanker, and drums were
removed from the site. In addition, responsible parties
are currently leading the remediation of
PCB-contaminated soil in a southeastern area of the
site, also known as the "swale" area. This ROD
addresses the remediation of remaining contaminated
soil and the contaminated ground water and surface
water. The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil, ground water, and surface water are VOCs,
including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes;
other organics, including PCBs and phenols; and
metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes soil venting followed by vacuum extraction and
carbon adsorption to remove VOCs and other organics;
flushing the treated soil, then collecting and treating
the residual water in a ground-water treatment system;
collecting ground water with a subsurface drain system;
pumping ground water from highly contaminated areas
followed by pretreatment using aeration and carbon ad-
sorption to reduce VOC concentrations and
subsequent off-site discharge to a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW); conducting a treatability
study to ensure compliance with POTW pretreatment
standards; replacing an on-site surface water culvert;
monitoring ground water and surface water; sampling
soil and sediment; and implementing institutional
controls, including land and ground-water use
restrictions. A contingency remedy also has been
prepared for this site in the event that a POTW will
not accept the discharge from the site within a
reasonable time frame. The contingency remedy
includes ground-water pumping and treatment using
ultraviolet oxidation followed by discharge to an on-
site tributary. The estimated cost of this remedial
action is $4,830,900, including an estimated O&M
cost of $2,665,600 for 30 years. No costs were
provided for the contingency remedy.
Performance Standards or Goals
The goal of this remedial action is to restore
ground-water to its beneficial use as a potential
drinking water source. Both soil and ground-water
clean-up goals were developed to remediate and
protect the ground water. Chemical-specific clean-up
goals for soil include PCBs 10.0 mg/kg (TSCA),
arsenic 48.0 mg/kg (background), chromium 140.0
mg/kg (back ground), and lead 1.3 mg/kg. Treatment
goals for ground water include benzene 1 ug/1 (state),
PCE 0.7 ug/1 (state), phenols 4,200 ug/1 (RfD), TCE
2.8 ug/l (state), toluene 1,000 ug/1 (state), xylenes 400
ug/1 (state), arsenic 50 ug/1 (state), chromium 50 ug/1
(state), and lead 15 ug/1 (recommended clean-up goal
for Superfund sites).
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls, including land use and
ground-water use restrictions, will be implemented.
C-80
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
KASSOUF-KIMERLING BATTERY DISPOSAL, FL
Second Remedial Action - Final
March 30,1990
The Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Disposal site,
formerly known as the Timber Lake Battery Disposal
site and the 58th Street Landfill, is in Tampa,
Hillsborough County, Florida within a 100-year
floodplain area. The site consists of a 42,000-square-
foot landfill area with an estimated landfill volume of
11,350 cubic yards. The site is bordered by small lakes
and marshes to the north, east, and west Surface
water flows from the west marsh to the east marsh by
way of a canal that cuts through the site, connects the
marsh areas, and eventually discharges into the Palm
River. In 1978, empty battery casings were deposited
in previously excavated on-site areas, and contributed
to the release of metals into the landfill. Storm water
running eastward off of the landfill drained into the
wetlands, and the dense wetland vegetation has
contributed to the retention of heavy metal
contamination. The ROD for the first operable unit
addressed remediation of landfill wastes and
contaminated underlying soil. This ROD addresses
contamination of wetlands adjacent to the landfill. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the sediment
and surface water are metals, including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for the site
includes dredging 15,000 cubic yards of contaminated
sediment in the canal that lies within 150 feet of the
landfill, and marsh area sediment within 20 feet of the
landfill to a depth of 2 feet; solidifying and stabilizing
the sediment and disposing of the treated sediment on
site along with the treated landfill wastes from
operable unit one; covering the area with soil;
implementing engineering controls on the canal to
flood the wetlands.year round; wetlands mitigation;
and ground-water monitoring. A waiver will be
invoked for surface water because of the negative
impact that further remediation would have on
sediment in the wetlands area and the potential for
mobilization of lead beyond the site areas. The
estimated cost for this remedial action is $511,700,
including a total O&M cost of $99,500.
Performance Standards or Goals
Marsh sediment within 20 feet of the landfill
and sediment in the canal within 150 feet of the
landfill will be remediated to achieve Federal
Ambient Water Quality Criteria (FAWQC) and
include lead 40 mg/kg. A waiver of the FAWQC will
be imposed on marsh sediment greater than 20 feet
away from the landfill and sediment in the canal
greater than 150 feet away from the landfill.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-81
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
LEWISBURG DUMP, TN
First Remedial Action - Final
September 19,1990
The 20-acre Lewisburg Dump site includes a
4-acre abandoned landfill developed in an abandoned
6-acre limestone quarry in Lewisburg, Marshall County,
Tennessee. Land in the vicinity of the site is primarily
used as farm and pasture land. There are four public
water wells located within 0.5 mile of the site. This
municipally-owned and operated site began landfilling
operations between 1963 and 1969, and a variety of
residential and industrial wastes, including solvents and
metallic wastes were landfllled on site. Some
municipal waste was burned on site, and the resulting
ash was placed in the dump. Soil samples taken from
various test pits during state investigations showed
elevated levels of metals and organics on site. In
addition, a 2-acre quarry pond was suspected to be
contaminated when oil and other debris were seen
floating on its surface and gas bubbles were observed
in the absence of any aquatic life. In 1973, the state
found that the old quarry was in violation of recent,
more stringent state environmental laws, and concluded
that landfilling operations should be discontinued. In
1975, the state approved plans for interim maintenance
and final closure of the dump. In 1977, the waste was
covered with soil as part of the preliminary closure
activities. This ROD addresses the contaminated soil
and debris present at the site in the landfill and in the
quarry pond, and provides for protection of the ground
water, pond water, and sediment from further
contamination. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and debris are organics, including
bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate (DEHP); and metals,
including aluminum, barium, copper, zinc, and
manganese.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes removing landfill surface and quarry debris
and disposing of the wastes in one of the test pits at
the site, an approved sanitary landfill, or a hazardous
waste landfill; replacing the plastic test-pit caps with
landfill cap material; regrading the landfill cap to
stabilize site conditions and to meet state and federal
regulations; revegetating the landfill; conducting
long-term ground-water monitoring and analysis; and
implementing institutional controls, including deed
restrictions to restrict site usage, and site access
restrictions, such as fencing. The estimated cost for
this remedial action ranges between $791,512 and
$1,189,741 (depending upon which of the three
disposal options is implemented), including a total
O&M cost of $270,042 for years 0 to 5.
Performance Standards or Goals
No chemical-specific clean-up goals for soil
or debris were provided. Source treatment and
removal should indirectly reduce the level of ground-
water contamination. Chemical-specific ground-water
clean-up goals are based primarily on the proposed
MCL for DEHP 4.0 ug/1. The surface water clean-up
goal for copper is 12.0 ug/1, which will be less than or
equal to a hazard quotient of 1.0.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
limit site usage.
C-82
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
MUNISPORT LANDFILL, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
July 26, 1990
The 291-acre Munisport Landfill site, including
a 170-acre, inactive municipal landfill, is within the city
of North Miami, Dade County, Florida. The site is
adjacent to the State Mangrove Preserve, a wetlands
area that is tidally connected to Biscayne Bay. To
minimize contaminated surface water runoff from the
landfill, a dike was installed through the Mangrove
swamp at the southeast edge of the site. This dike has
hydrologically altered the fauna and flora of the inland
wetlands area. The Biscayne aquifer underlies the
Munisport property and is the sole source of drinking
water for Dade County; however, the ground water in
the portion of the aquifer located directly under the
site is non-potable due to high salt concentrations.
The city of North Miami leased 291 acres to Munisport
for recreational development in 1971. Munisport
began filling low-lying areas of the site with clean fill
and construction debris. In 1975, a temporary permit
allowed solid waste to be used as fill above the water
table. However, in 1976, a state inspection found 12
55-gallon drums that were leaking wastes on site; a
violation was issued, and these drums were removed off
site by the city. In 1977, Munisport applied for a 404
permit modification to dump additional solid wastes in
the wetlands. EPA opposed the modification and in
1981, issued a CWA 404(c) veto followed by an
Administrative Order that prohibited any additional
filling and required removal or realignment of the
diking at the Mangrove Preserve to restore the altered
wetland area. In 1981, the state directed Munisport
and the city to provide final closure of the landfill.
Landfilling operations ceased in 1981, but closure has
not yet taken place. Leachate from the landfill waste
still poses a significant threat to the aquatic organisms
in the Mangrove Preserve. The ground water is no
longer used for potable purposes as a result of salt
water intrusion. The contaminants of concern affecting
the ground water include VOCs, including benzene and
toluene; other organics, including phenols; metals, in-
cluding arsenic, chromium, and lead; and other
inorganics.
The selected remedial action for the site
includes intercepting, collecting, and treating the
leachate-contaminated ground water prior to its
emergence into the Mangrove Preserve and
discharging it on site; initiating landfill closure
proceedings; and conducting hydrologic, water quality,
and treatability studies as part of the remedial design.
Based on the studies, the less favored alternative
remedy may include intercepting the
leachate-contaminated ground water by constructing
a hydraulic barrier using negative pressure; treating
the contaminated ground water with air stripping,
adjusting the Ph, and discharging the treated effluent
into on-site shallow subsurface trenches or on-site
surface water to enhance the treatment process; and
making hydrologic improvements to the Mangrove
Preserve and the altered wetlands. Alternatively, the
site may be treated by using positive infiltration to
provide the hydraulic barrier, biological treatment to
reduce the contaminants, and discharging treated
effluent to an on-site trench to maintain a hydraulic
barrier. The estimated cost of the negative-pressure
remedial action is $6,166,000, including an annual
O&M cost of $430,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Treated effluent will meet appropriate Clean
Water Act and state standards for discharge to ground
water or surface water, as appropriate. No
chemical-specific goals were provided.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-83
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP., NC
Second Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 465-acre National Starch & Chemical
Corp. site is a manufacturing facility for textile
finishing and custom specialty chemicals in Rowan
County, North Carolina. A portion of the site is
heavily wooded, and surrounding land use is mixed
industrial and residential. From 1971 to 1978,
approximately 350,000 gallons of reaction vessel
washwater containing salt brines, sulfuric acid
solutions, and solvents were disposed of on site in
unlined trenches. Liquid plant production wastes also
were disposed of in the trenches after being held in an
unlined pretreatment lagoon. In 1976, sampling by the
site operator revealed shallow ground-water
contamination in the trench area. A state investigation
in 1977 supported this finding, and the state requested
the site operator to cease on-site liquid waste disposal
in the trench area. A 1988 ROD addressed operable
unit one and called for on-site ground-water pumping
and treating, further investigation of soil contamination
in the trench area, continued surface-water and
sediment monitoring, and a supplemental remedial
investigation. This ROD addresses operable unit two,
and identifies no further action as the remedy for the
trench area soil based on the supplemental remedial
investigation. A subsequent ROD will address
operable unit three, the remediation of on-site
contaminated surface water and sediment, which are
unrelated to the trench soil contamination. Results
of the supplemental remedial investigation indicate
that the natural leaching process of percolating
rainfall will continue to reduce the soil-contamination
level. Because the existing ground-water treatment
system is designed to treat contaminants leaching into
the ground water, there are no additional
contaminants of concern relating to the trench area
soil.
The selected remedial action for operable
unit two is no further action. Soil will be monitored
on a quarterly basis, and institutional controls,
including deed restrictions, will be implemented. The
estimated cost of this remedial action is $151,000,
including a total O&M cost of $150,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented at the
site.
C-84
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
NORTH HOLLYWOOD DUMP, TN
First Remedial Action - Final
September 13, 1990
The 70-acre North Hollywood Dump site is an
inactive, privately-owned landfill in Memphis, Shelby
County, Tennessee, in the Wolf River floodplain.
Directly beneath the site is a contaminated aquifer.
Ground water from this aquifer discharges directly to
the Wolf River. An abandoned dredge pond, a beaver
pond, and Oxbow Lake are adjacent to the site. All
three were affected by the site. From the mid-1950s
until its closure in 1967, municipal and industrial
refuse were disposed of at the site, which was operated
by the City of Memphis. A precise description of the
materials disposed of is unknown. In addition,
unauthorized dumping is thought to have occurred
during the 1970s. In 1979 and 1980, EPA and state
studies revealed various contaminants both on site and
off site in soil, sediments, ground water, surface water,
and fish. Commercial fishing activities in the Wolf
River ceased; and EPA required removal of
contaminated soil, capping of the landfill, and fencing
of the site. The RI/FS process identified buried drums
on site. This ROD addresses all of the contaminated
media by containing the source areas, including the
landfill and on-site surface-water bodies, with
provisions for off-site surface and shallow ground-water
monitoring and treatment as necessary. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment,
debris, ground water, and surface water are organics,
including aldrin, endrin, chlordane, and pesticides; and
metals, including arsenic and lead.
»
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating buried wastes and soil areas near
the edge of the landfill that erode easily and
consolidating them in the landfill area; excavating and
characterizing waste within the buried drums;
consolidating debris in the landfill or, should
contaminant levels warrant it, properly disposing of de-
bris as well as drummed wastes off site; upgrading the
existing landfill cover to be a total of 24 inches thick;
partially dewatering the surface impoundments;
excavating the contaminated sediment from the
beaver pond and placing it within Oxbow Lake;
covering the contaminated lake and beaver pond
sediments with a 36-inch hydraulic geofabric cover,
and infilling Oxbow Lake with clean fill; harvesting
contaminated fish from the abandoned dredge pond;
hydraulically containing the contaminated dredge
pond sediment with geofabric and 3 feet of clean fill;
refilling the pond with water and restocking with
unaffected fish; monitoring the shallow ground water,
with provisions for future pumping and treatment if
necessary; conducting surface-water (both on site and
off site), air, and biota monitoring; and implementing
institutional controls to restrict on-site land use and
to prohibit well installation in the vicinity, and site
access restrictions, including fencing. The estimated
cost of this remedial action is $8,041,890, including a
total O&M cost of $1,610,310.
Performance Standards or Goals
Specific goals for ground water include
arsenic 0.140 ug/1 (proposed state Water Quality
Standard) and lead 3.8 ug/1 (CWA Water Quality
Criteria) at the point the ground water reaches the
Wolf River.
Institutional Controls
Construction of wells in the vicinity is not
permitted, as county regulations prohibit the
placement of wells within a floodplain. On-site land
use restrictions will also be implemented.
C-85
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
PICKETTVILLE ROAD LANDFILL, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The 52-acre Pickettville Road Landfill site is
an inactive municipal landfill in Jacksonville, Duval
County, Florida. The area is rural with mixed
industrial and residential usage. Adjacent to the site is
Little Sixmile Creek to the east, which empties into
Sixmile Creek to the north of the site. Waste debris
from the landfill is present within the 100-year
floodplain of Sixmile Creek. The site overlies a
surficial sand aquifer and a deeper limestone aquifer.
From the 1940s to the 1960s, the site was used
primarily as a sand borrow pit. From 1968, when
landfilling operations began, to 1971, the municipal
landfill accepted all types of wastes. Subsequently, the
landfill accepted hazardous wastes exclusively. Types
of wastes disposed of on site included waste oil,
lead-acid battery liquid waste, battery casings, terpene
sludge, and PCBs. County site inspections in 1975 and
1976 revealed many improper waste disposal and
maintenance practices. These disposal practices
resulted in leaching of wastes into Sixmile Creek,
ground water, and soil. The landfill was closed in 1977.
Several investigations from 1979 to 1990 characterized
the affected media and the nature and extent of on-site
and off-site contamination. This ROD addresses both
source control and management of contaminant
migration, and is a final remedy for the site. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
debris, and ground water are VOCs, including benzene,
TCE, and toluene; other organics, including acids,
PCBs; and metals, including arsenic, chromium, and
lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating the waste soil and debris from the
100-year floodplain of Sixmile Creek to a depth of 5
feet, followed by on-site disposal of waste and debris
within the landfill area; capping the landfill with a
clay and soil cover; installing a passive landfill gas
venting system; providing an alternate water supply to
residents affected by the ground-water contaminant
plume by extending a city water main, and
implementing a plugging and abandonment program
for the affected wells; ground-water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls, including ground-
water use and deed restrictions, and site access
restrictions, such as fencing. The estimated cost of
this remedial action is $9,935,000, including an
estimated annual O&M cost of $171,100 for 20 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Surface-water discharge limits are SARA
alternate concentration limits (ACLs), and include
benzene 115 ug/1 and vinyl chloride 115 ug/1.
Ground-water discharge, which exceeds ACLs, may
indicate the need for future ground-water
remediation.
Institutional Controls
Ground-water use and deed restrictions will
be implemented at the site.
C-86
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SCHUYLKILL METAL, FL
First Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The 17-acre Schuylkill Metal site is a former
battery recycling facility containing marsh areas in the
southwest portion of Plant City, Hillsborough County,
Florida. From 1972 to 1986, the facility was used to
recycle lead from batteries; the lead was subsequently
sent off site for smelter processing. Wastes generated
in the recycling process included rubber and plastic
chips from battery casings and sulfuric acid solution.
In 1980, the state required the removal of
approximately 250 tons of sediment from a disposal
pond, 3,000 tons of battery casings, and 500 tons of soil
underlying the battery casings. Prior to 1981, acidic
washdown wastewaters were stored in a 2.2-acre,
unlined wastewater holding pond, and neutralized with
lime or ammonia. In 1981, the facility upgraded the
wastewater treatment system, and acidic rinse
washdown wastewaters were neutralized with sodium
hydroxide and discharged into the city's treatment
plant. Site investigations conducted in 1981 revealed
that on-site surficial aquifer monitoring wells contained
elevated levels of ammonia. Analyses of soil, surface
water, and sediment samples near the processing area
and around the holding pond revealed elevated
concentrations of metals. This ROD provides a final
remedy and addresses all contaminants at the site. The
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, debris,
sediment, ground water, and surface water are acids
and metals, including lead, arsenic, and chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavation and on-site solidification of
approximately 36,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil
from the process area and approximately 2,000 cubic
yards of contaminated sediment from the ditches; on-
site disposal of treated soil and sediment; debris
recycling; on-site treatment of surface water from the
wastewater holding pond and pumping and treatment
of ground water by chemical action and filtration,
followed by off-site discharge of the treated surface
and ground water to a publicly owned treatment
works (P.OTW) or. to surface water; biological
monitoring of the east and west on-site marshes;
installing flood control mechanisms to maintain
continued surface-water inundation in the east marsh;
mitigating the wetlands that have been adversely
impacted by the site; and implementating site access
restrictions, including fencing. The estimated cost of
this remedial action ranges from $5,864,000 to
$8,161,000, depending on O&M costs, which will be
estimated during the RD/RA phase.
Performance Standards or Goals
All soil with lead levels of 500 mg/kg and
ditch sediment to a depth of 2 feet will be treated by
chemical stabilization. This clean-up level was based
on site-specific analyses to prevent excessive lead
leaching to the ground water. Debris will be
excavated to a depth of between 3 and 10 feet below
land surface and will be recycled. Ground-water
clean-up level is lead 0.015 mg/1 (MCLs or
background levels), and treated water discharged to
nearby wetlands will achieve lead levels of 0.013 mg/1
(WQC). The ambient water quality criteria for the
existing marsh and for surface water has been waived,
due to the potential for destructive effects of the
remediation on the wetlands.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be implemented in
marsh areas.
C-87
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SCRDI BLUFF ROAD, SC
First Remedial Action - Final
September 12,1990
The 4-acre SCRDI Bluff Road site is an
inactive chemical waste manufacturing, storage,
recycling, and disposal facility in Richland County,
South Carolina. Surrounding land use is rural
residential and industrial, and part of the site has been
classified as a wetlands area. The site was first used as
an industrial facility that manufactured acetylene gas.
Two lagoons were constructed on site to support this
operation. Starting in 1975, the site was used as a
storage, recycling, and disposal facility for chemical
waste. An above-ground storage tank was installed for
use in these processes. All operations at the site
ceased in 1982 after state investigations identified on-
site soil and ground-water contamination. From 1982
to 1983, the state addressed the site contamination and
required the removal of over 7,500 drums containing
various chemicals, visibly contaminated soil, and above-
ground structures. Additionally, in 1989, the storage
tank containing approximately 100 gallons of
contaminated sludge was removed. This ROD
addresses remediation of both the contaminant source
and ground water, and provides a final remedy for the
site. The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil and ground water are VOCs, including
benzene, toluene, PCE, TCE, and xylenes; other
organics, including PCBs, phenols, and pesticides; and
metals.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes pumping and on-site treatment of ground
water using flocculation/precipitation as a pre-
treatment to remove metals, air stripping to remove
VOCs, and granular activated carbon adsorption to
remove semi-volatile organic compounds, if necessary,
followed by reinjecting the treated water on site;
treating contaminated soil in-situ using vacuum
extraction, followed by carbon adsorption or fume
incineration to destroy off-gases; managing carbon
residuals from ground-water and soil treatments
through off-site disposal or regeneration; and
monitoring soil and ground water. The estimated cost
of this remedial action is $5,574,984, including an
annual O&M cost of $311,287 for 16 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up standards for ground water are the
more stringent of federal or state MCLs or proposed
MCLs. Chemical-specific ground-water goals include
benzene 5 ugfl (MCL), PCE 5 ug/1 (MCL), TCE 5
ug/1 (MCL), toluene 2 mg/l (MCL), and xylenes 10
mg/l (MCL). Soil clean-up levels were calculated
using a soil teachability model (SL).
Chemical-specific goals for soil include benzene 12
ug/kg (SL), PCE 53 ug/kg (SL), TCE 18 ug/kg (SL),
toluene 17.4 mg/kg (SL), xylenes 69.5 mg/kg (SL), and
phenol 3.95 mg/kg (SL).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
YELLOW WATER ROAD, FL
First Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 14-acre Yellow Water Road site is a
former storage area for PCB-contaminated liquids and
electrical equipment in Baldwin, Duval County,
Florida. Dense woodlands are located along the
perimeter of the site, and surrounding land use is
commercial and residential. In 1981, on-site storage of
PCB-contaminated liquids and electrical equipment
began at the former operational area in anticipation of
upcoming on-site incineration operations, but the
proper permits for the incinerator were never obtained.
Subsequently in 1982, PCB-contaminated oils were
spilled at the site as a result of an on-site salvage
operation that included metal removal from
transformers. As a result of this on-site PCB
contamination, EPA conducted a removal action in
1984 that included cleaning and storing 719 electrical
transformers, securing 100,000 gallons of PCB liquids
in on-site holding tanks, and excavating and storing
3,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil on site. In
1988, EPA directed a second removal action that
included demolishing an on-site warehouse; disposing
of warehouse debris and stockpiling contaminated soil
off site; incinerating 78,854 gallons of PCB liquids off
site; and disposing of 704 transformers and 18,690
pounds of capacitors off site. This ROD addresses the
remediation of PCB-contaminated soil and sediment.
On-site ground-water contamination will be addressed
in a subsequent ROD. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and sediment are organics,
including PCBs.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating 3,560 cubic yards of on-site
contaminated soil and sediment with PCB
concentrations greater than 10 mg/kg; solidifying and
stabilizing the soil and sediment, if a treatability study
determines the effectiveness of using solidification for
organics; placing treated soil within the old salvage
operational area and covering the area with
1-foot-thick soil cover; conducting leachability studies
of the treated mass; backfilling excavated areas with
clean soil and revegetating the site; implementing site
access restrictions, including fencing; conducting
ground-water monitoring; and abandoning ground-
water wells within the excavated area, if necessary.
The estimated cost for this remedial action ranges
from $1,119,000 to $1,448,200 (depending on the soil
disposal method used), including a total O&M cost of
$62,600 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
On-site soil clean-up levels are based on the
TSCAPCB Spill Cleanup Policy for unrestricted sites.
PCBs will be remediated to a level of 10 mg/kg with
a minimum excavation depth of 10 inches, and
excavated areas will be covered with clean fill to
reduce levels of PCBs to less than 1 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-89
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
ZELLWOOD GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION, FL
First Remedial Action (Amendment)
March 1, 1990
The 57-acre Zellwood Ground Water
Contamination site is approximately 0.5 mile west of
the town of Zellwood in Orange County, Florida. The
site is situated in a rural area, and approximately 300
homes, located within 1 mile of the site, depend on
private wells for their potable water supply. The site
is comprised of four active industries and an open field
with marshy wetlands. Prior to 1963, the area was used
by several agriculturally related businesses. In 1963, a
drum recycling facility began operations at the site.
During the drum recycling process, on-site wastewaters
were generated by draining and cleaning procedures,
and two on-site evaporation/percolation ponds (#1 and
#2) were used in the treatment and disposal of the
wastewaters. A new treatment system was installed in
1980, and use of the ponds was discontinued. In 1981,
the site owners drained the two ponds and moved some
of the contaminated sediment to an off-site landfill.
The remainder of the contaminated sediment was
consolidated into a temporary sludge storage area
before the sediment was moved off site in 1982 and the
on-site ponds were filled in. In 1982, EPA identified
an abandoned drum storage area by a 6-acre field at
the northern part of the site that apparently was used
for disposing drums and other wastes. Site
investigations by EPA from 1988 to 1990 identified
contamination in the soil, sediment, and ground water
at the site. This ROD addresses remediation of the
on-site source areas. Ground-water remediation will be
addressed in a subsequent ROD. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
sediment are VOCs, including PCE, toluene and xy-
lenes; other organics, including PAHs and pesticides;
and metals, including lead and chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating approximately 3,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and sediment from the ditch, drum,
and pond areas, followed by on-site stabilization and
solidification of the soil and sediment; replacing the
stabilized soil and sediment into the excavation area,
covering the area with top soil and reseeding the area;
evaluating existing ground-water wells for
decommissioning; and ground-water monitoring. This
ROD amends a 1987 ROD, which proposed
treatment of contaminated soil and sediment by
incineration with disposal of the residual ash on site.
The estimated cost of this remedial action is
$1,030,000, including an estimated total O&M cost of
$250,000 over 10 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil clean-up criteria were calculated using
site specific soil and climatic data from EPA, state,
and other sources. Chemical-specific goals for soil
include lead 220 mg/kg, chromium 100 mg/kg, total
PAHs 10 mg/kg, PCE 1 mg/kg, toluene 30 mg/kg, and
total xylenes 5 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-90
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
REGION 5
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin)
ALGOMA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL, WI
First Remedial Action - Final
September 29,1990
The 13-acre Algoma Municipal Landfill site is
an inactive municipal landfill in Algoma, Kewaunee
County, Wisconsin. Surrounding land use is primarily
agricultural/rural residential, with wetlands adjacent to
the site. The site overlies an aquifer that currently
supplies water to private wells. From 1969 to 1983, the
site was operated as a municipal landfill comprised of
three distinct landfill areas. Solvents, thinners,
lacquers, as well as municipal wastes, were reportedly
disposed of in the main landfill area known as the
Landfill Disposal Area (LDA). Two smaller areas, the
North Disposal Area (NDA) and the South Disposal
Area (SDA) were reportedly used for the disposal of
construction debris and asbestos-contaminated sludge.
Approximately 400,000 cubic yards of municipal wastes
were disposed of at the site. In 1983, the landfill was
closed and the wastes were covered. However, over
time, the cap has deteriorated due to weather elements
and lack of protection from freezing and thawing.
Therefore, the current cover has not been
impermeable, and landfill contaminants have been
released into the ground water. EPA site
investigations conducted in 1984 and 1989 revealed on-
site ground-water contamination caused by leaching
from the LDA This ROD addresses the remediation
of contaminated source and ground water. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water, soil, and debris are VOCs, including benzene;
other organics; and metals, including arsenic and
cadmium.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes capping the LDA with a soil/clay cover and
installing a gas venting system to remove off-gases;
covering the SDA and NDA with a soil cover, if
further waste characterization determines these areas
to be sources of asbestos contamination; monitoring
ground water on site, off site, and in nearby private
wells to determine the effectiveness of the landfill cap
in controlling the migration of contaminants into
ground water; monitoring landfill gases; and
implementing institutional controls, including deed
restrictions, and site access restrictions, such as
fencing. The estimated cost for this remedial action
is $1,298,000, including a total O&M cost of $11,000
for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
The state has determined that contaminant
migration from the landfill to ground water must not
exceed state prevention action limits (PALs),
including benzene 0.067 ug/1 (PAL).
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented at the
site.
C-91
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT, MI
First Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The 12.5-acre Anderson Development site is
an active chemical manufacturing facility in Adrian,
Madison Township, Lenawee County, Michigan. The
site is in a 40-acre industrial park, and is comprised of
several areas of contamination that exceed health-based
levels, including a 0.5-acre former process wastewater
pretreatment lagoon containing lagoon sludge, clay
underlying the lagoon, and a small quantity of nearby
soil. From 1970 to 1979, the plant produced
4,4-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA), a
hardening agent for the production of polyurethane
plastics. Process wastewater was discharged directly to
surface water until 1973, when it was discharged to a
POTW. In 1979, the state ordered the POTW not to
accept the waste stream because of the decreased
efficiency of the POTW resulting from MBOCA In
1980 and 1981, the site owner and the state performed
a clean-up action of all contaminated site areas with
levels of MBOCA above 1 ppm. This included
decontaminating the plant, sweeping streets,
shampooing/vacuuming residential carpet, and
removing some surface soil. This ROD addresses the
remediation of the pretreatment lagoon area. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting soil and
lagoon sludge are organics, namely MBOCA and its
degradation products.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes removing and treating standing water in the
lagoon; excavating contaminated soil, clay, and lagoon
sludge from a 100-foot by 75-foot area, and placing
the material in an unexcavated portion of the lagoon;
treating the contaminated material by in-situ
vitrification; collecting pyrolized gases, and treating
the gases using a scrubber system, air filters, and
carbon adsorption beds; filling the lagoon containing
the vitrified material with clean fill; and conducting
ground-water monitoring and soil sampling. The
estimated cost for this remedial action is $2,364,050,
including a total O&M cost of $38,530 over 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
A clean-up action level of MBOCA 1,684
ug/kg was calculated based upon EPA guidance
documentation. The clean-up level corresponds with
the excess lifetime cancer risk level of 10 .
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-92
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
BOFORS NOBEL, MI
First Remedial Action
September 17,1990
The 85-acre Bofors Nobel site is an active
specialty chemical production plant in Edelston
Township, Muskegon County, Michigan. An inactive
landfill also is located in the eastern portion of the
site. On-site wetlands lie within the floodplain of Big
Black Creek, which runs through the southern portion
of the site. The site overlies a lacustrine aquifer, a
potential drinking water source, which has been
contaminated as a result of site activities. During the
1960s and early 1970s, sludge, wastewater, and waste
liquids from plant operations were discharged into 10
on-site lagoons. Subsequent investigations by EPA
have identified eight of the on-site lagoons as potential
sources of ground-water contamination. In 1976, the
state restricted wastewater discharge from the site, and
a ground-water pump and treatment system was
installed to treat contaminated ground water in the
lacustrine aquifer. This ROD addresses remediation of
the lagoons, as well as upgrading the current ground-
water treatment system. A subsequent final ROD will
address other contaminated soil and complete
restoration of the aquifer. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil, sludge, and ground water
are VOCs, including benzene.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating approximately 101,000 cubic yards
of sludge and berm material highly contaminated with
VOCs, treating the contaminated material on site using
incineration and low temperature thermal desorption,
disposing of the residual ash in an on-site landfill, and
treating scrubber water from the incinerator by
precipitation; treating landfill leachate in the ground-
water treatment system; excavating approximately
372,000 cubic yards of lesser VOC-contaminated soil
and sludge and disposing of these wastes on site in
the landfill; pumping and treatment of ground water
using ozone oxidation or a comparable treatment with
on-site discharge to surface water; monitoring ground
water, surface water, and air; and implementing site
access restrictions, including fencing. The estimated
cost for this remedial action is $70,874,000, including
an annual O&M cost of $313,000 for 43 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Landfilled material must exhibit an excess
lifetime cancer risk of less than 10"6.
Chemical-specific soil clean-up levels were developed
based on the type and location of contaminated media
within or adjacent to the lagoons, including benzene
410 to 4,500 ug/kg. Ground-water clean-up levels are
based on proposed best available technology discharge
standards, including benzene 5.0 ug/1.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CLARE WATER SUPPLY, MI
First Remedial Action
August 30,1990
The Clare Water Supply site is the public
water supply system for the City of Clare, Clare
County, Michigan. The Clare Water Supply system
withdraws ground water from four municipal wells in
the site wellfield, each tapping an unconsolidated sand
aquifer. In 1981, ground-water sampling revealed
contaminants, including chlorinated hydrocarbons in
two of the wells (Municipal Well #2 and Municipal
Well #5) in the northeastern portion of the site. An
industrial area containing approximately 14
manufacturing and retailing businesses operates west of
the contaminated wells. Soil samples extracted from
this industrial area indicate soil contaminated with
TCE and DCE. In addition, a nearby settling lagoon
contains solvents and heavily contaminated sediment.
EPA conducted a short-term study that determined
that the major source of ground-water contamination
resulted from contaminants leaching out of soil on the
industrial properties, entering a shallow perched
aquifer, and migrating to the deeper aquifer that serves
the municipal wellfield. The Clare Water Supply
wellfield is the sole source of drinking water for the
community. Remedial actions for this site will focus
on two operable units. This ROD provides an interim
remedy, which addresses TCE contamination of the
drinking water supply. A subsequent ROD will
address operable unit two, the remaining ground-water
and soil contamination. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs,
including TCE.
The selected remedial action for this interim
remedy includes installing and operating an air
stripper to treat the ground water, modifying
pipelines on the existing water supply system,
monitoring treated water from the air stripper prior
to its release into the water supply system, and
monitoring air emissions from the air stripper. The
estimated cost for this interim remedial action is
$1,284,059, including an annual O&M cost of $61,000
for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
This ROD will remediate ground-water TCE
and TCE-degradation components to meet Safe
Drinking Water Act MCLs, including TCE 5.0 ug/1.
Additional chemical-specific ground-water goals will
be determined in the subsequent ROD.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-94
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
FISHER CALO CHEM, IN
First Remedial Action - Final
August 7,1990
The Fisher Calo Chem site is in LaPorte
County, Indiana. The site is comprised of the 33-acre
One-Line Road facility, the 340-acre Two-Line Road
facility, and the 170-acre Space Leasing facility.
Surrounding the site are woodlands, grasslands,
wetlands, and a wildlife area. Site contamination at all
three facilities is the result of the production and
distribution of industrial chemicals, and reclamation of
waste paint and metal finishing solvents. From 1970 to
1985, packaging and storage violations were
documented by the state during investigations. In
1979, when the state excavated buried drums from the
One-Line Road facility, additional on-site
contamination was identified. In 1982, EPA initiated
site investigations that revealed elevated levels of
organic compounds in ground water, heavy metals in
the soil, and evidence of additional buried drums.
Sampling and analysis continued until 1988, when EPA
initiated a removal action to dispose of drums, tanks,
and containers at the Two-Line Road facility. This
ROD addresses the remaining contaminated areas,
including the soil, waste material, and structures at the
site, and contaminated ground water in aquifers
underlying the site. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, debris, and ground water are
VOCs, including TCE, toluene, xylenes; other organics,
including PAHs and PCBs; and asbestos.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavation and incineration of semi-volatile
and PCB-contaminated soil, with ash disposal location
to be determined upon leaching test results; treatment
of VOC-contaminated soil remaining in the excavated
area using soil flushing or vapor extraction; limited
asbestos removal/repair of structures and off-site
disposal of any asbestos-containing materials, drums,
tanks, or containers and their contents; treating
ground water using an equalization/sedimentation
basin, granular activated carbon, and air stripping,
followed by filtration and reinjection of the treated
water into the shallow aquifer to enhance soil and
ground-water monitoring; and implementation of site
access restrictions. The estimated cost for this
remedial action is $31,685,000, including an annual
O&M cost of $9,379,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Excavation levels for contaminated soil are
based on TSCA standards and TBC criteria including
PCBs 10 mg/kg. Ground-water clean-up levels are
derived from action levels adopted by the state from
SDWA MCLs and MCLGs, including TCE 5 ug/1.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-95
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
HAGEN FARM, WI
First Remedial Action
September 17,1990
The 10-acre Hagen Farm site is a former waste
disposal facility in Dade County, Wisconsin. This site
is in a rural area, dominated by sand and gravel mining
and agricultural activities. From 1950 to 1966, waste
materials were disposed of in three subareas of the
site's defined area of contamination. On-site
investigations indicate that subarea A, a 6-acre area in
the southern portion of the site, contains industrial
wastes consisting of solvents and various other
organics, as well as municipal waste. Subareas B and
C, each 1.5-acre areas in the northeastern portion of
the site, appear to contain only scattered municipal
wastes. Site investigations have determined the need
for two concurrent operable units. The source control
operable unit, which is defined in this ROD, addresses
the waste refuse and subsurface soil at subareas A, B,
and C. The goal is to control the migration of the
waste refuse and sub-soil and reduce the volume of
contaminants from the waste and sub-soil to the
ground water. The ground-water operable unit will be
addressed in a subsequent ROD. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and waste
refuse are VOCs, including benzene, toluene, xylenes;
other organics, including phenols and PCBs; and
metals, including lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes consolidating waste materials from disposal
subareas B and C into disposal subarea A, and back-
filling excavated depression areas within disposal
subareas B and C with clean soil, followed by
revegetation; capping disposal subarea A after
consolidation; treating 67,650 cubic yards of waste and
112,000 cubicyards of contaminated sub-soil materials
in disposal subarea A using in-situ vapor extraction
(ISVE), and treating off-gas emissions using carbon
adsorption, followed by regenerating the spent carbon
from the off-gas treatment process; and implementing
site access restrictions and institutional controls,
including deed restrictions, to prevent installation of
drinking water wells and to protect the integrity of
the cap. The estimated cost for the remedial action is
$3,299,000, including an annual O&M cost of $29,530
for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
The goal of the ISVE will be a 90 percent
removal of the VOCs from the waste and
contaminated sub-soil. Off-gas extracts from the
ISVE will be treated to meet state emission standards.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent disturbances of the consolidated capped
material.
C-96
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEBFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
HUNTS DISPOSAL, WI
First Remedial Action - Final
September 29,1990
The 84-acre Hunts Disposal site is an inactive
landfill in Caledonia Township, Racine County,
Wisconsin. On-site features include a 35-acre landfill
surrounded by woodlands, wetlands, agricultural areas,
and a lake. Part of the site that includes the landfill is
within the 100-year floodplain of the Root River. The
site overlies a contaminated surficial sand and gravel
aquifer. Prior to 1959, when on-site landfilling
operations began, the site was a sand and gravel pit.
By 1961, municipal and industrial wastes were dumped
and burned in an on-site open pit. Approximately
620,000 cubic yards of waste is currently landfilled on
site, with 168,000 cubic yards present below the water
table. Specific wastes disposed of on site included
waste newspaper ink, spent solvents, tannery wastes,
chromic acids, arsenic acid, and beryllium. Because
state site inspections revealed improper landfilling
practices, the state ordered the landfill closed in 1974.
EPA investigations conducted in 1984 and 1988
characterized contaminated media and determined the
extent of on-site contamination. The primary
contaminant migration pathway is on-site ground water,
which is contaminated by wastes leaching from the
water table. This ROD addresses both source control
and management of contaminant migration. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, debris, and ground water are VOCs,
including benzene, TCE, and xylenes; acids; and metals,
including arsenic and chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating and consolidating 5,300 cubic yards
of on-site contaminated soil and sediment from
outside the landfill area to within the landfill, and
filling excavated areas with clean soil; constructing a
levee to prevent erosion of the landfill during floods;
capping the landfill with a multi-layer clay and soil
cover; installing an active landfill gas collection and
combustion system; constructing a slurry wall
intersecting the cap and a subsurface confining layer
to hydraulically contain contaminated ground water;
pumping and off-site treatment of ground water
followed by off-site discharge; and implementing
institutional controls, including land use, ground-
water use, deed restrictions, and site access
restrictions, such as fencing. The estimated cost for
this remedial action is $17,454,000, including and
annual O&M cost of $375,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up levels chosen for the
site are state preventive action limits (PALS), which
are equal to, or more stringent than, federal MCLs.
Ground-water chemical-specific goals include benzene
1 ug/1, TCE 0.18 ug/1, xylenes 124 ug/1, arsenic 5
ug/1, and chromium 5 ug/1. Specific clean-up
standards for soil and sediment
have not been set.
Institutional Controls
Land and ground-water use, and deed
restrictions will be implemented at the site.
C-97
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
JANESVILLE ASH BEDS, WI
First Remedial Action - Final
December 29,1989
The Janesville Ash Beds site is being
remediated concurrently with the Janesville Old
Landfill site and two nearby, non-NPL sites, the
Janesville Old Dump and the Janesville New Landfill
sites. These four sites comprise the 65-acre Janesville
Disposal Facility in Janesville, Wisconsin. The
Janesville Ash Beds site, which is RCRA regulated,
operated from 1974 to 1985 and consisted of five ash
beds in which industrial liquids and sludges were
deposited and allowed to evaporate or dry. Although
the Janesvilles Ash Beds site was excavated, closed, and
capped with clay, it is a source of ground-water
contamination and possibly surface-water
contamination in the nearby Rock River. The second
NPL site, the 18-acre Janesville Old Landfill site, was
operated from 1963 to 1978, accepting both municipal
and industrial wastes. The site was capped with silty
sand and sandy clay at the time of closure in 1978, but
was subsequently shown to be contributing to air and
ground-water contamination. The two other contingent
sites also are included as part of this remedy because
of their proximity to the two NPL sites. A 1986
Consent Order authorized that the four sites
comprising the Janesville Disposal Facility would be
addressed in one remedial investigation under the joint
authority of CERCLA and RCRA The 16-acre
Janesville New Landfill site was operated from 1978 to
1985 and accepted municipal and industrial wastes.
The site is also a possible source of air and ground-
water contamination. The second additional site is the
15-acre Janesville Old Dump site, which was operated
from 1950 to 1963 as a general refuse dump, accepting
unknown types of waste. This site does not
significantly contaminate the Janesville Disposal
Facility area. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water and air are VOCs, including
benzene, PCE, and TCE; and metals, including arsenic.
Remedial activities at the Janesville Disposal
Facility site will be implemented at three of the sites
and include upgrading the landfill cap, and providing
site drainage, as needed, at the Janesville Ash Beds
site; treating the landfill gas by extraction and flaring,
upgrading the landfill cap, and air monitoring at the
Janesville Old Landfill site; and treating the landfill
gas by extraction and flaring, upgrading the landfill
cap, improving the leachate collection system, and air
monitoring at the Janesville New Landfill site. No
further action will be implemented at the Janesville
Old Dump site. Overall, contaminated ground water
at the Janesville Disposal Facility site will be pumped
and treated on site by air stripping, with discharge to
Rock River, in conjunction with ground-water
monitoring. Ground-water use, land use, and deed
restrictions will be implemented at each site. The
estimated cost for the Janesville Ash Beds site is
$1,020,000, including an annual O&M cost ranging
from $33,100 to $53,100.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground water will be treated to attain federal
MCLs or state standards. Surface water will meet
state surface-water quality standards. Chem-
ical-specific clean-up goals were not provided.
Institutional Controls
Deed and land use restrictions will be
implemented to assure that future use of the site does
not increase the potential release of hazardous
substances. Deed and ground-water use restrictions
for the area between the Janesville Disposal Facility
site and the neighboring Rock River also will be
implemented.
C-98
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
JANESVILLE OLD LANDFILL, WI
First Remedial Action - Final
December 29, 1989
The Janesville Old Landfill site is being
remediated concurrently with the Janesville Ash Beds
site and two nearby, non-NPL sites, the Janesville Old
Dump and the Janesville New Landfill sites. These
four sites comprise the 65-acre Janesville Disposal
Facility in Janesville, Wisconsin. The 18-acre Janesville
Old Landfill site was operated from 1963 to 1978,
accepting both municipal and industrial wastes. The
site was capped with silty sand and sandy clay at the
time of closure in 1978, but was subsequently shown to
be contributing to air and ground-water contamination.
The second NPL site, Janesville Ash Beds site, was
operated from 1974 to 1985 and consisted of five ash
beds in which industrial liquids and sludges were
deposited and allowed to evaporate or dry. Although
the Janesville Ash Beds site was excavated, closed, and
capped with clay, it is a source of ground-water
contamination and possibly surface-water
contamination in the nearby Rock River. The two
other contingent sites also are included as part of this
remedy because of their proximity to the two NPL
sites. A 1986 Consent Order authorized that the four
sites comprising the Janesville Disposal Facility would
be addressed in one remedial investigation under the
joint authority of CERCLA and RCRA. The 16-acre
Janesville New Landfill site was operated from 1978 to
1985 and accepted municipal and industrial wastes.
The site is also a possible source of air and ground-
water contamination. The second additional site is the
15-acre Janesville Old Dump site, which was operated
from 1950 to 1963 as a general refuse dump, accepting
unknown types of waste. This site does not
significantly contaminate the Janesville Disposal
Facility area. The primary contaminants.of concern
affecting the ground water and air are VOCs, including
benzene, PCE, and TCE; and metals, including arsenic.
Remedial activities at the Janesville Disposal
Facility site will be implemented at three of the sites
and include treating the landfill gas by extraction and
flaring, upgrading the landfill cap, and air monitoring
at the Janesville Old Landfill site; upgrading the
landfill cap, and providing site drainage, as needed, at
the Janesville Ash Beds site; and treating the landfill
gas by extraction and flaring, upgrading the landfill
cap, improving the leachate collection system, and air
monitoring at the Janesville New Landfill site. No
further action will be implemented at the Janesville
Old Dump site. Overall, contaminated ground water
at the Janesville Disposal Facility site will be pumped
and treated on site by air stripping, with discharge to
Rock River, in conjunction with ground-water
monitoring. Ground-water use, land use, and deed
restrictions will be implemented at each site. The
estimated cost for the Janesville Old Landfill site is
$6,059,000, including an annual O&M cost ranging
from $71,500 to $174,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground water will be treated to attain federal
MCLs or state standards. Surface water will meet
state surface-water quality standards.
Chemical-specific clean-up goals were not provided.
Institutional Controls
Deed and land use restrictions will be
implemented to assure that future use of the site does
not increase the potential release of hazardous
substances. Deed and ground-water use restrictions
for the area between the Janesville Disposal Facility
site and the neighboring Rock River also will be
implemented.
C-99
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
K&L LANDFILL, MI
First Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The 87-acre K&L Landfill site is an inactive
municipal landfill in Oshtemo Township, Kalamazoo
County, Michigan. Surrounding land use is
rural-residential with several nearby small lakes and
ponds. The site overlies two sand and gravel aquifers
(shallow and deep), which are not apparently
hydraulically connected, but both are area drinking
water sources. From the early 1960s to 1979,
approximately 5 million cubic yards of refuse and an
unknown quantity of liquid and drummed chemical
wastes were accepted at the landfill. In 1972, the state
notified the site owners to stop accepting chemical
wastes, but the request was ignored. Residential well
testing in 1976,1978, and 1979 revealed ground-water
contamination. In 1979, the state ordered the landfill
to cease operations, supply an alternate water supply to
affected residents, and cover the landfill. This ROD
provides a final remedy and addresses contaminated
ground water in the shallow aquifer. The primary
contaminants of concern present in the landfill
affecting the soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs,
including benzene, toluene, and xylenes; other organics,
including acids, PAHs, PCBs, and phenols; and metals,
including chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes capping approximately 83 acres of landfill area
with a RCRA multi-layer'cap and installing gas vents
throughout the landfill; pumping and on-site treatment
of ground water using enhanced bioremediation/fixed-
film bioreactor technology accompanied by aeration;
conducting treatability studies or pilot tests to ensure
the effectiveness of the selected technology;
discharging the treated effluent by either on-site
reinjection, discharge to an on-site filtration pond, or
off-site discharge of ground water to a POTW;
disposing off site of any resulting sludges; continued
ground-water, surface-water, and air monitoring;
closure and abandonment of affected residential wells;
implementing institutional controls, including deed
restrictions to limit ground-water and land use, and
site access restrictions, such as fencing. The
estimated cost of this remedial action is $16,407,100,
including a total O&M cost of $1,099,900 for 30
years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Remedial goals are based upon reduction of
excess life-time cancer risks to 10"4 to 10"6 for
carcinogens. For non-carcinogens, the hazard index
will be reduced to 1 or less. Chemical-specific goals
for ground water include acetone 700 ug/1 (state),
benzene 1.0 ug/1 (state), toluene 40 ug/1 (state), vinyl
chloride 0.02 ug/1 (state), xylenes 20 ug/1 (state),
phenols 300 ug/1 (state), and lead 5.0 ug/1 (state).
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions limiting ground-water and
land use will be implemented.
C-100
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
KUMMER SANITARY LANDFILL, MN
Third Remedial Action - Final
September 29,1990
The 35-acre Kummer Sanitary Landfill site is
an inactive mixed municipal waste landfill in Northern
Township, Beltrami County, Minnesota, approximately
1 mile west of Lake Bemidji. A large residential area
lies approximately 1,000 feet easlt of the site, and there
is a hospital directly southwest. The privately-owned
landfill was operated from 1971 until 1985; however,
business records for the site are virtually nonexistent.
Operations at the landfill caused the state to take a
number of administrative and enforcement actions.
Following the discovery of ground-water contamination
in Northern Township in 1984, the state issued a public
health advisory concerning the well water and provided
a temporary water supply. In 1985 and 1988, two
RODs documented the provision of an alternative
water supply for the Northern municipal water system
(operable unit one), and a source control operable unit
(operable unit two), which included a cover system to
control the source of contamination (operable unit
three). This final ROD addresses ground-water
contamination. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water are VOCs, including
benzene, PCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes ground-water pumping and treatment using
advanced oxidation processes (e.g., ozone, hydrogen
peroxide, or ultraviolet light), and lime soda
softening, as necessary, to precipitate alkalinity and
other inorganic compounds, followed by disposal of
the precipitate sludge, polishing the effluent stream
with granulated activated carbon, and discharging
treated ground water to an on-site infiltration pond;
and ground-water monitoring. Treatability studies for
bioremediation as a more cost-effective remedy are
planned; however, the ROD will be amended if the
treatment is changed to biotreatment. The estimated
cost for this remedial action is $1,800,000 to
$6,200,000, including an annual O&M cost of
$240,000 to $510,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Contaminants of concern in the ground water
will be reduced to meet current and proposed MCLs
including PCE 5 ug/1 (proposed MCL), TCE 5 ug/1
(MCL), and benzene 5 ug/1 (MCL); thereby reducing
cumulative residual carcinogenic risk due to ingestion
to 10-6.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-101
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
MASTER DISPOSAL SERVICE LANDFILL, WI
First Remedial Action
September 26,1990
The 26-acre Master Disposal Service Landfill
site is an inactive industrial landfill in the town of
Brookfield, Waukesha County, Wisconsin. The site lies
within the marshy floodplain of the Fox River and is
partially surrounded by wetlands and drainage channels.
The site overlies a surficial sand/gravel and dolomite
aquifer system, which has been contaminated by on-site
disposal activities. On-site disposal of mainly industrial
foundry sands and slags occurred between 1967 and
1982. On-site disposal of hazardous wastes, including
inks, sludges, and solvents, also was observed during
this period. The site was partially closed in 1982, but
controlled burning of wood waste continued until 1985
when the site was permanently closed. Investigations
completed in 1990 identified negative impacts on
surface water and ground water from the landfill
sources. This ROD addresses source control as a final
remedy and management of migration of ground water
as an interim remedy. A subsequent ROD will address
the final restoration of the surficial aquifer system.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
debris, and ground water are VOCs, including benzene,
TCE, toluene, and xylenes; and metals, including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes capping the landfill with a clay/soil cap and
soil cover; installing an active landfill gas venting
system; pumping and treating ground water in the
surficial aquifer system using filtration and either air
stripping, carbon adsorption, in exchange or chemical
treatment, based on the results of treatability studies;
discharging the treated water on site to surface water;
restoring or mitigating any wetlands impacted by this
remedial action; conducting long-term surface-water
and ground-water monitoring; and implementing
institutional controls, including deed, land use, and
ground-water use restrictions, and site access
restrictions, such as fencing. The estimated cost for
this remedial action ranges from $4,632,000 to
$5,016,000, including an annual O&M cost ranging
from $142,730 to $164,130 for 30 years, depending
upon the selected ground-water treatment.
Performance Standards or Goals
Effluent discharge limitations for treated
ground water were calculated from state discharge
statutes, and specify weekly averages for metal
contaminants and monthly averages for VOCs, as well
as maximum concentration levels. Chemical-specific
goals include benzene 8.5 Ibs/day, TCE 22 Ibs/day,
toluene 17 mg/l, (daily concentration level) arsenic
0.045 Ibs/day, chromium (total) 0.034 Ibs/day, and lead
0.0096 Ibs/day.
Institutional Controls
Deed, land use, and ground-water use
restrictions will be implemented at the site.
C-102
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
METAMORA LANDFILL, MI
Second Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 160-acre Metamora Landfill site is an
inactive, privately-owned landfill in Metamora
Township, Lapeer County, Michigan. Both wetland
and woodland areas are present on site. The site is
underlain by a shallow glacial deposit aquifer, a lower
sand and gravel unit (the intermediate aquifer), and the
Marshall Sandstone bedrock aquifer. Landfill
operations began in 1955 as an open dump, and the
facility was upgraded in 1969. Industrial and municipal
wastes, including approximately 35,000 drums, were
accepted until the landfill closed in 1980. In 1981, the
state sampled seven drums and identified several
hazardous materials. A 1986 ROD for operable unit
one called for the excavation and disposal of the waste
drums off site at a RCRA incinerator. This ROD
addresses ground-water contamination of the shallow
aquifer, and the generation of leachate at the landfill
(operable unit two). A third ROD will address on-site
contaminated subsurface soil (operable unit three).
The primary contaminants of concern in the landfill
affecting debris and ground water are VOCs, including
benzene, PCE, TCE, and xylenes; and metals, including
arsenic and barium.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes pumping and treatment of ground water using
precipitation/flocculation to remove inorganic contam-
inants, followed by air stripping and carbon
adsorption to remove organics, and reinjection of
treated water into the shallow aquifer; off-site
treatment and disposal of secondary waste streams,
including flocculation sludge and spent carbon;
capping the landfill area using a multi-layer clay cap
as required by the state, and collection and flaring of
landfill gases; monitoring ground water; implementing
institutional controls, such as deed and ground-water
use restrictions, and site access restrictions, such as
fencing. The estimated cost for this remedial action
is $19,354,050, including an annual O&M cost of
$856,944 for 20 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific clean-up goals for ground
water are based on Michigan Act 307 rules as well as
MCLs and include benzene 1.0 ug/1 (state), PCE 0.7
ug/1 (state), TCE 3.0 ug/1 (state), xylenes 20 ugA
(state), and for arsenic the more stringent of 0.02 ug/1
(state) or background.
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented at the site.
C-103
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
MOSS-AMERICAN KERR-MCGEE OIL, WI
First Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 88-acre Moss-American Kerr-McGee Oil
site is a former wood preserving facility in Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin. Part of the facility lies within the
100-year floodplain of the Little Menomonee River,
which flows through the site. A section of the site is
wooded, and wetlands are located near the river, on
site and downstream. A 23-acre portion of the site is
presently used as a railroad loading and storage facility
for automobiles, and the remainder of the site is an
undeveloped parkland. An unconfined shallow aquifer
underlies the site. Beginning in 1921, operations
consisted of wood preserving of railroad ties, poles, and
fence posts with a mixture of creosote, which is high in
PAHs, and No. 6 fuel oil. The facility changed names
and ownership several times until it ceased operations
in 1976. Wastes were discharged to on-site settling
ponds until 1971, when wastewater was discharged into
the sanitary sewer system. In 1971, several people
received chemical burns attributed to creosote while
wading 3 miles downstream of the site. This led to a
state order requiring cleanup of on-site settling ponds
by the site owner and operator. In 1973, EPA dredged
5,000 feet of the river directly downstream of the site.
From 1977 to 1978, 450 cubic yards of contaminated
soil were removed during the dismantling of the
facility. Studies conducted before 1980 indicated that
extensive creosote contamination was present in the
soil and ground water on site, as well as in the
sediment of the Little Menomonee River. This ROD
provides a final remedy and addresses source and
ground-water remediation. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil, sediment, and ground
water are VOCs, including benzene, toluene, and
xylenes; and other organics, including PAHs.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes rerouting 5 miles of the river channel on site
parallel to the existing channel, followed by excavating
highly contaminated sediments from the old channel;
mitigating wetland areas; treating 5,200 cubic yards of
river sediment and 80,000 cubic yards of contaminated
on-site soil using soil washing and bioslurry
technologies; separation and dewatering of residues
followed by redeposition on site; covering treated
material with 2 feet of clean soil and 6 inches of
topsoil, followed by revegetation; recycling or treating
slurry water on site before discharge to a POTW or
the river; constructing a synthetic geomembrane
barrier to prevent movement of contaminated ground
water into the river; collecting ground water using a
drain and interceptor system, followed by treatment
using an oil/water separator and granular activated
carbon, with discharge of treated water to a POTW or
to the river; removing pure-phase liquid wastes for
off-site incineration; and ground-water monitoring.
The estimated cost for this remedial action is
$26,000,000, including an annual O&M cost of
$130,000 for 10 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Goals are designed to reduce the excess
lifetime cancer risk for carcinogens to 10"4 or less.
For non-carcinogens, clean-up levels will reduce the
hazard index to 1 or less. Chemical-specific goals for
ground water include benzene 0.067 ug/1 [state
preventive action level (PAL)], toluene 68.6 ug/1
(state PAL), and xylenes 124.0 ugA (state PAL). The
chemical-specific goal for soil and sediment is PAHs
(carcinogenic) 6.1 mg/kg (state).
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent on-site development.
C-104
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
NATIONAL PRESTO INDUSTRIES, WI
First Remedial Action
August 1,1990
The 325-acre National Presto Industries site is
a former munitions and metal-working facility in Eau
Claire, Chippewa County, Wisconsin, adjacent to the
town of Hallie. From 1942 until 1945, the site was
government-owned and contractor-operated, and
produced gunpowder and small arms. From 1945 to
1980, the site was owned by National Presto Industries
(NPI). Initial operations were for the manufacture of
cookware and consumer products, which generated
waste streams consisting of metals, oils, grease, and
spent solvents. Also, beginning in 1951, artillery shell
fuses, aircraft parts, and metal projectiles were
produced by NPI under a military contract. Early
waste-handling practices included the use of dry wells
and seepage pits, with overflow from the pits pumped
to a series of lagoons, used as settling and percolation
ponds. A major waste steam generated from the
defense-related activities was a spent forge compound,
comprised of mineral oil, graphite, VOCs, and asphalt,
which accounts for much of the sludge in the bottom
of one of the settling ponds. From 1966 to 1969, the
spent forge compound also was landfilled on site.
Subsequently, the compound was recycled as part of
the manufacturing process. Based on their
investigations, EPA required NPI to provide bottled
water to an area in Hallie where private wells are
contaminated or threatened by contamination from
confirmed on-site sources. This ROD provides for a
permanent alternate water supply to address the
principal threat posed by the ground-water
contamination at the site. Future operable units will
address source control and ground-water remediation.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
ground water are VOCs, including PCE and TCE.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes constructing a well field, storage facilities,
and distribution system to supply water to the
businesses and residences within the affected area of
the Hallie Sanitary District; extending municipal
water service from the City of Eau Claire to
businesses and residences within the affected area that
have been annexed to Eau Claire; closing and
abandoning all existing private wells within the
affected area that draw from the contaminated
aquifer; and annual monitoring of the designated
private wells immediately outside the affected area
that are still used as drinking water supply to ensure
continued quality of drinking water. The estimated
cost for this remedial action is between $3,000,000
and $3,200,000, including an estimated annual O&M
cost of between $48,200 and $120,000, depending on
the size and extent of remediation required. The
most likely annual O&M cost is $90,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
The primary goal of the EPA and the state is
to provide a permanent and safe alternate drinking
water supply to the affected area.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-105
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
NAVAL INDUSTRIAL RESERVE ORDNANCE PLANT, MN
First Remedial Action (Federal Facility)
September 28, 1990
The 82.6-acre Naval Industrial Reserve
Ordnance Plant (NIROP) site is a weapons system
manufacturing facility in Fridley, Minnesota, which
began operations in 1940. The site is a
government-owned, contractor-operated plant located
just north of the FMC Corp. Superfund site. NIROP
is located approximately 30 feet above and 700 feet
east of the Mississippi River and less than 1 mile
upstream from the City of Minneapolis drinking water
supply intake. During the 1970s, paint sludge and
chlorinated solvents were disposed of on site in pits
and trenches. In 1981, state investigations identified
TCE in on-site water supply wells drawing from the
Prairie DuChien/Jordan aquifer, and the wells were
shut down. In 1983, EPA found drummed waste in the
trenches or pits at the northern portion of the site and,
as a result, during 1983 and 1984, the Navy authorized
an installation restoration program, during which
approximately 1,200 cubic yards of contaminated soil
and 42 drums were excavated and landfilled off site. In
1987, TCE use at the site was discontinued. The
principal threat posed by the site, however, is the
continued migration of TCE via ground water to the
Mississippi River. This ROD addresses remediation of
a shallow ground-water operable unit. The need for a
second operable unit to treat potential contamination
sources will be determined pending the results of
additional investigations. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs,
including PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes.
The selected remedial action for the site is a
two-phased approach. Phase I includes ground-water
pumping and pre-treatment, as necessary, before
disposal to a POTW via an existing sanitary sewer sys-
tem; and testing the recovered water to assist in the
design of Phase II treatment facilities. Phase II
includes treating the recovered ground water by either
a two-stage air stripping process, followed by
vapor-phase granular activated carbon (GAC) to treat
air emissions, or treating ground water using
aqueous-phase GAC, depending on Phase I test
results; and discharging treated ground water into the
Mississippi River. Both options include disposal of
the treated effluent off site and regenerating the spent
carbon at an off-site facility. The estimated cost for
this remedial action is $4,100,000 for the GAC-only
option. O&M costs were not provided.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water quality in the unconsolidated
aquifer at the site will be restored to MCLs or state
recommended allowable limits, if more restrictive.
Because TCE was found with the greatest frequency
and in the highest concentrations at the site than any
other VOC, TCE 5.0 ug/1 (MCL) was established as
the target clean-up goal for ground water in the
aquifer. Clean-up levels for recovered ground water
discharged to the local POTW must not exceed total
VOCs 10 mg/1, and individual VOC levels must be
less than 3 mg/1 (local POTW standards).
Contaminants in any uncaptured portion of the
aquifer are expected to dissipate by natural means
over time.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-106
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
NLINDUSTRIES/TARACORP LEAD SMELTING, IL
First Remedial Action
March 30,1990
The NL Industries/Taracorp Lead Smelting site
is an inactive secondary lead smelting facility in a
heavily industrialized section of Granite City, Madison
County, Illinois. Land in the site vicinity is primarily
industrial, but includes adjacent residential
communities, including Eagle Park Acres and Venice
Township. Prior to 1903, the site was used for metal
refining, fabricating, and other associated activities.
From 1903 to 1983, the site was used for secondary
lead smelting activities. These operations generated an
on-site pile of blast furnace slag and battery casing
debris waste (the Taracorp pile). From 1981 to 1983,
St. Louis Lead Recyclers, Inc. (SLLR) used equipment
on an adjacent property to recycle lead-bearing
materials from the Taracorp waste pile for use in the
furnaces at Taracorp. Hard rubber was the end waste
product of this recycling process. In 1983, both
operations were discontinued and the equipment
dismantled. In 1983, a state study of the Granite City
lead attainment air emissions problem linked emissions
from the on-site lead smelter and reclamation
operations at the NL Industries/Taracorp site to the air
pollution problem. On-site contaminated areas
identified during the study included the 85,000-cubic
yard Taracorp pile, smaller adjacent waste piles
associated with the SLLR recycling operation that total
2,450 cubic yards, and 25 to 35 drums containing solid
waste from on-site smelting operations. Additionally,
the adjacent property contained a 4,000-cubic yard pile
of battery casing debris from the SLLR operation, and
another large contaminated unpaved area was
identified south and west of the site. Other
contamination associated with the site included 2,700
cubic yards of battery casing material in Eagle Park
Acres and an additional 670 cubic yards of similar
material in Venice Township. In 1984, the state
required the implementation of remedial actions to
improve air quality. This ROD addresses the Taracorp
pile, the SLLR piles, and residential soil, alleys, and
driveways that are contaminated by airborne lead
and/or hard rubber battery casing material. The
primary contaminant of concern affecting the soil and
debris is lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating a total of 94,820 cubic yards of
lead-contaminated soil and debris from the SLLR
piles, the unpaved area, and adjacent residential areas,
and hard rubber battery casing material from Venice
Township, Eagle Park Acres, and other nearby
communities; consolidating the soil and debris within
the Taracorp pile; covering the Taracorp pile with a
RCRA multi-media cap, and lining the newly-
expanded Taracorp pile with a clay liner; removing all
on-site drums to an off-site secondary lead smelter
facility for recovery; monitoring nearby communities
to determine if additional areas need remediation or
lead exposures need mitigation; performing blood
lead sampling to determine potential acute
site-associated health effects; monitoring air and
ground water during remedial activities; developing a
contingency plan to provide remedial action if any
nearby soil lead levels exceed 500 mg/kg or ground
water or air exceed applicable standards; and
implementing institutional controls, including deed
restrictions, and site access restrictions, such as
fencing. The estimated cost for this remedial action
is $30,000,000, including an annual O&M cost of
$35,300 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil clean-up levels for lead are based on the
"Interim Guidance on Establishing Soil Lead Cleanup
Levels at Superfund Sites" (1989). All contaminated
soil in the unpaved area adjacent to the site will be
excavated to achieve a lead clean-up level of 1,000
mg/kg. All contaminated soil in adjacent residential
areas will be excavated to achieve a clean-up level of
lead 500 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented at the
site to prevent disturbance of the capped Taracorp
pile.
C-107
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
OCONOMOWOC ELECTROPLATING CO., INC., WI
First Remedial Action
September 20, 1990
The 10.5-acre OconomowocElectroplating Co.,
Inc. site encompasses a 5-acre active electroplating
facility and 5 acres of adjacent wetlands in Dodge
County, Ashippun, Wisconsin. The Oconomowoc
Electroplating Company's (OEC) facility includes a
main building that houses process lines, a wastewater
treatment building, two formerly used wastewater
treatment lagoons, and various storage tank and
container deposit areas. Recreational facilities,
residences, and businesses that use ground water for
their drinking water supply are in proximity to the
OEC facility. In addition, Davy Creek, a small creek
and warm water sport fishery, flows through the
wetlands 500 feet south of the site. Electroplating,
finishing, and degreasing processes performed since
1957 at the OEC facility produce a multi-source
effluent stream contaminated with heavy metals and
VOCs. The effluent, as well as accidental spills and
leaks around the property, have resulted in widespread
site contamination. Prior to 1972, untreated
wastewaters were discharged directly into the Davy
Creek wetlands, and even after the construction of two
treatment lagoons, untreated wastes and sludge
overflowed the lagoons and continued to accumulate in
the wetlands. Lagoon sludge removal was initiated by
OEC in 1979 but was never completed and, therefore,
discharge of contaminants, including RCRA-listed
hazardous waste (F006), continued into the wetlands.
An estimated 10,000 square yards of wetlands are
contaminated with metals and cyanide. Hazardous
waste also was found between the walls and floor of
the wastewater treatment building (where it was placed
as a sealant), leaking from waste containers, and spilled
in a north parking lot area. Due to its complexity, the
site has been divided into four operable units (OU) for
remediation: the surface water, sludge and
contaminated soil associated with the two lagoons
(OU1); all other contaminated soil around the OEC
facility not associated with the lagoons or found
beneath the manufacturing building, including a fill
area, a lowlands area, the drainage ditches and the
parking lot area (OU2); the associated contami-nated
ground water (OU3); and the highly conta-minated
sediment in the Davy Creek wetlands area (OU4). All
remedial actions for the operable units are final except
for OU4, which is an interim action. Further wetland
investigation will delineate the final removal area. In
addition, if after further investigation, the building
foundation and underlying soil will need remediating,
an appropriate remedial action will be developed to
accompany the wetland remedial action. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment,
debris, sludge, ground water, and surface water are
VOCs, including TCE, toluene, and xylenes; and
metals, including chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes clean closing the lagoon by excavating 650
cubic yards of lagoon sludge and surrounding soil,
followed by stabilization and off-site disposal of the
material, and pumping 72,000 gallons of contaminated
lagoon water (which will be hauled off site and
treated) (OU1); excavating 700 cubic yards of soil and
debris with off-site treatment and disposal (OU2); on-
site ground-water pumping and treatment using
filtration, ion exchange, air stripping, and carbon
adsorption, followed by on-site discharge to surface
water (a treatability study will be conducted to
determine the effectiveness of the ion exchange and
to determine the disposition of the resin) (OU3);
excavating 6,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment
from Davy Creek and adjacent wetlands to a depth of
2 feet, followed by off-site stabilization, treatment,
and disposal of the contaminated sediments and
monitoring of the area; and performing additional
bioassay and risk assessment work to determine final
exposure levels (OU4). The estimated cost for this
remedial action is $7,576,196, including an annual
O&M cost of $90,569. The costs associated with each
of the four OUs are $490,302 (OU1); $258,667
(OU2); $1,831,805 (OUS), including an annual O&M
cost of $90,569; and $4,995,422 (OU4).
Performance Standards or Goals
The lagoon soil excavation levels for the
OEC site (OU1) will attain background levels
consistent with state and federal (RCRA) clean
closure levels; excavation of soil (OU2) will attain a
10"6 cumulative carcinogenic risk and a cumulative
C-108
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
hazard index less than 1 for noncarcinogens. Ground- TCE 0.18. Clean-up levels for Davy Creek and
water treatment (OU3) will attain federal and state adjacent wetlands have not been determined.
ground-water clean-up standards and are based on state
preventative action limits (PALs). Chemical-specific Institutional Controls
ground-water goals include chromium 5.0 ug/l, and
Not applicable.
C-109
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
ONALASKA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL, WI
First Remedial Action - Final
August 14, 1990
The 11-acre Onalaska Municipal Landfill site
includes a 7-acre landfill owned by the Township of
Onalaska, which is located in central-western
Wisconsin. The Black River and its associated
wetlands are 400 feet west of the site and lie within a
wildlife and fish refuge. The site was operated as a
sand and gravel quarry until the late 1960s, when it was
converted and used as a municipal landfill until 1980.
Although the site was primarily used for the disposal
of municipal wastes, solvent wastes also were disposed
of on site until 1976. Approximately 320,000 gallons of
liquid solvent waste and approximately 1,000 drums of
solvent waste were either burned with other trash on
site or poured directly into holes for burial in the
southwestern portion of the landfill. The Township
capped the landfill in 1982, but subsequent on-site
investigations revealed ground-water contamination
within and around the site. Ground-water flows
beneath the landfill, where it comes into contact with
solvents leaking from the solvent disposal area. The
ground-water flows in a southwesterly direction and a
ground-water contaminant plume has migrated from
the southwestern edge of the landfill and appears to be
discharging into the wetlands. This ROD addresses
two operable units, the ground-water plume and the
contaminated soil adjacent to the southwestern portion
of the landfill, which is a major source of ground-water
contamination. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs,
including benzene, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other
organics, including PAHs; and metals, including arsenic
and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes in-situ bioremediation of the
solvent-contaminated soil and, if feasible, a portion of
the landfill debris; pumping and treatment of the
ground-water plume using aeration, clarification, and
filtration, followed by discharge of the treated ground
water into the Black River and on-site disposal of the
sludge generated during the treatment process;
reconstruction of the landfill cap and installation of
a passive methane gas venting system to control the
gas buildup under the cap; ground-water monitoring;
and implementation of institutional controls,
including deed restrictions limiting ground-water and
surface-water use. The estimated cost for this
remedial action is $8,000,000, including an annual
O&M cost of $164,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up standards
were not provided but will be established once the
reduction rate for bioremediation has been
determined during the pilot-scale test. Currently, the
estimated clean-up goal is an 80-95 percent reduction
of the organic contaminant mass in the soil. Ground
water at the landfill waste boundary will meet SDWA
MCLs or non-zero MCLGs. Chemical-specific clean-
up standards for the ground water beyond the site
boundary are based on state clean-up levels and
include benzene 0.067 ug/1, toluene 68.6 ug/1, xylenes
124 ug/1, TCE 0.18 ug/1, arsenic 5 ug/1, and lead 5
ug/1. The reconstructed cap is projected to reduce
the rate of precipitation infiltration by 80 percent,
thereby minimizing contaminant migration toward the
ground water.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions limiting surface- and
ground-water use at the site will be implemented.
C-110
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
OTT/STORY/CORDOVA CHEMICAL, MI
Second Remedial Action
September 29,1990
The Ott/Stoiy/Cordova Chemical site is a
former specialty chemical manufacturing facility in
Dalton Township, Muskegon County, Michigan. The
site is at the headwaters of a small, unnamed tributary
of Little Bear Creek, which flows southeast of the site
approximately 0.5 mile away to Muskegon River, 3
miles to the south. The site operated from 1957 to
1985 under a series of owners. Chemical products
manufactured on site included intermediate items used
in manufacturing Pharmaceuticals, dyestuffs,
agricultural chemicals, diisocyanates, and herbicides.
For at least 10 years, production vessel clean-out
wastes and wastewaters were discharged to on-site
unlined lagoons and allowed to dissipate into soil. In
subsequent years, wastes also were drummed and stored
on site. In the early 1960s, the state noted signs of
water and soil contamination. Site owners attempted
to manage the ground-water contaminant plumes
emanating from the site, but the effectiveness of these
measures was uncertain. In 1977, the state negotiated
with a new site owner to remove several thousand
drums, thousands of cubic yards of lagoon sludges, and
to destroy or to neutralize phosgene gas left on site. In
1982, an alternate water supply was undertaken and
financed in part by the state and a former owner. A
ROD, signed in 1989 and reaffirmed in 1990 after
additional public comment, addressed operable unit
one, the contamination of the nearby Little Bear Creek
system. This ROD addresses aquifer restoration. A
subsequent ROD will address remaining threats posed
by the contaminated soil areas at the site. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are
VOCs, including benzene, 1,2 dichloroethane, PCE,
TCE, toluene, vinyl chloride, and xylenes; other
organics, including pesticides; and metals, including
arsenic.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes installing and operating extraction wells in a
phased approach to restore the aquifer and prevent
degradation of useable ground water downgradient of
the plume; pumping and treating ground water in the
shallow and deeper zones of the aquifer system using
physical-chemical treatment, including UV-oxidation,
air stripping, biological treatment such as activated
sludge, and/or filtration/adsorption such as granular
activated carbon as determined in the design phase;
discharging the treated effluent in the nearby stream;
installing a ground-water monitoring system to
demonstrate the effectiveness of restoration; and
implementing institutional controls, such as deed
restrictions to limit ground-water use. The estimated
cost for this remedial action is $26,000,000, including
an annual O&M cost of $1,400,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up goals include benzene
1 ug/1 (W6 cancer risk level), toluene 40 ug/1 (state
standard), TCE 3 ug/1 (Wr6 cancer risk level), and
xylenes 20 ug/1 (state standard). Effluents must meet
limitations for stream discharge as administered by
the state.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions or other controls will be
implemented to limit current and future uses of
ground water at and downgradient of the facility.
C-lll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
PRISTINE, OH
First Remedial Action - Final (Amendment)
March 30,1990
The 2-acre Pristine site is in Reading,
Hamilton County, Ohio. The site is bordered by
industrial and residential areas, including a trailer park
300 feet northeast of the site. Eight municipal supply
wells serving the citizens of Reading are located
approximately 300 feet northwest of the site. Prior to
1974, this site was used for the manufacture of sulfuric
acid. Subsequently, Pristine began liquid waste
disposal operations at the site, and in 1977, obtained a
permit to operate an on-site liquid waste incinerator.
An on-site concrete lined pit (the magic pit) was used
to store and treat hazardous materials during liquid
waste disposal operations. In 1979, state investigations
identified as many as 8,000 to 10,000 drums and several
thousand gallons of liquid wastes on site. Types of
waste included acids, solvents, pesticides, and PCBs.
Over 90 hazardous compounds were detected on site in
the soil, ground water, surface water, sediment, and
debris as a result of past disposal activities. In 1981,
the state ordered all on-site disposal operations to
cease. From 1980 to 1983, EPA and Pristine removed
on-site wastes, including paint and solvent sludges,
solvents, pesticides, organics, PCB-contaminated soil,
and incinerator ash. During 1984, the PRPs removed
contaminated soil and waste as a means to address the
immediate site hazards. A 1987 ROD documents the
selection of in-situ vitrification of the upper 12 feet of
soil across the site. This ROD amends the soil
component remedy of the 1987 ROD from in-situ
vitrification to incineration and soil vapor extraction.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, debris, ground water and surface water are
VOCs, including benzene, PCE, TCE, and xylenes;
other organics, including dioxin and pesticides, such as
DDT; metals, including lead, chromium, and arsenic;
and other inorganics.
The selected amended remedial action for this
site includes excavating and incinerating the top foot of
contaminated soil from across the site (a total of 3,598
cubic yards) and 1,799 cubic yards of contaminated
soil to a depth of 4 feet in areas that contain
semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides in
excess of performance goals; incinerating 600 cubic
yards of contaminated sediment and 1,125 cubic yards
of contaminated soil surrounding the magic pit;
testing the residual ash and placing the ash on site if
it meets standards for delisting; performing in-situ soil
vapor extraction with an off-gas control system to
extract VOCs from on-site soil to a depth of 12 feet;
dewatering the upper aquifer, and on-site treatment
of the extracted ground water using carbon
adsorption; capping the soil with a RCRA multi-layer
cap; pumping and treating ground water from the
lower and upper aquifer and lower outwash lens of
the upper aquifer using air stripping and carbon
adsorption; decontaminating and demolishing all on-
site structures and disposing of the debris off site;
monitoring ground water; and implementing
institutional controls, including deed restrictions, and
site access restrictions, such as fencing. The
estimated cost for this remedial action is $13,500,000,
including an O&M cost of $6,000,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific goals for soil and sediment
were based on a cumulative 10"6 incremental lifetime
cancer risk of 11 indicator compounds including
aldrin 15 ug/kg, benzene 116 ug/kg, chloroform 2,043
mg/kg, DDT 487 ug/kg, 1,2-DCA 19 ug/kg, 1,1-DCE
285 ug/kg, dieldrin 6 ug/kg, PAHs 14 ug/kg, dioxin 0
ug/kg, PCE 3,244 ug/kg, and TCE 175 ug/kg.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented at the
site.
C-112
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORP. (ST. LOUIS PARK), MN
Third Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 80-acre Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (St.
Louis Park) site is a former coal tar distillation and
wood preserving plant in St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
The site overlies a complex system of aquifers,
including the St. Peter aquifer, that provide drinking
water to area residences. The St. Peter Aquifer
contains one municipal well, which is used during
periods of peak demand; however, the majority of the
drinking water in St. Louis Park is obtained from
deeper aquifers. Surrounding land use is primarily
residential. From 1917 to 1972, wastewater containing
creosote and coal tar was discharged to on-site surface
water and, as a result, small wastewater spills occurred
into on-site soil. In 1972, the site was purchased by
the city in response to complaints about wastewater
contamination, and the plant was dismantled. State
investigations from 1978 to 1981 identified site-related
ground-water contamination. Two previous RODs in
1984 and 1986 addressed remediation of specific
aquifers, the filling of a small on-site wetland, and off-
site soil contamination. This ROD addresses operable
unit four, remediation of the St. Peter aquifer. A
subsequent ROD will address any remaining site
problems as operable unit three. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are
organics, including PAHs and phenols.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes pumping an existing well screened within the
St. Peter aquifer and initially discharging the extracted
water off site to a POTW, and ground-water
monitoring. Within 3 to 5 years, direct on-site
discharge to surface water will be conducted if
NPDES permit requirements can be met. If
requirements are not met, on-site treatment, possibly
using granular activated carbon, will be conducted
prior to on-site discharge. The estimated cost for this
remedial action is $225,000 to $250,000, depending on
the need for on-site treatment. Annual O&M costs
are estimated at $60,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Extracted ground water must meet NPDES
discharge requirements for both discharge to a POTW
and to surface water. Chemical-specific levels include
carcinogenic PAHs 70 ug/1, other PAHs 17 ug/1, and
phenols 10 ug/1.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-113
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SANGAMO/CRAB ORCHARD NWR (US DOI), IL
Second Remedial Action (Federal Facility)
August 1, 1990
The Sangamo/Crab Orchard NWR (US DOI)
site, in the Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, is
near Carterville, Illinois. Within the refuge, lakes and
adjacent wetlands support recreational activities on the
western portion of the refuge, while the eastern portion
is used for manufacturing purposes. The Department
of Defense (DOD), the original administrator of the
refuge, leased portions of the refuge to munitions and
explosives manufacturers who continue to operate on
site. In 1947, DOD transferred the administration of
the refuge to the Department of the Interior (DOI).
DOI also leased portions of the refuge to
manufacturers of PCB transformers and capacitors,
automobile parts, fiberglass boats, plated metal parts,
and jet engine starters. Solid wastes generated from
these industrial activities were disposed of in on-site
landfills, while other liquid wastes may have been
discharged into nearby surface waters and
impoundments. EPA has divided the site into four
operable units. The first operable unit addressed the
metal-contaminated areas. The second operable unit
is documented in this ROD and focuses on the
PCB-contaminated soil and sediment in four sites,
including the Job Corps Landfill (site 17), an inactive
1-acre landfill containing 1,400 cubic yards of
contaminated material; the Water Tower Landfill (site
28), an inactive 1-acre landfill containing 100 cubic
yards of contaminated material; the Area 9 Landfill
(site 32), an inactive 2.5-acre landfill; and the Area 9
Building Complex (site 33), where contaminated runoff
from an industrial building complex discharges into two
drainage ditches. The Area 9 Landfill and Building
Complex contain a total of 36,000 cubic yards of
contaminated material. Two additional operable units
will be addressed in a future ROD. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting soil and sediment are
organics, including PCBs and metals, including lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavation and treatment of PCB-contam-
inated soil and sediment using incineration or in-situ
vitrification (ISV), if appropriate, and
stabilization/fixation of incineration residues and
non-incinerated, metal-contaminated soil and
sediment, followed by on-site disposal in a
RCRA-permitted landfill; backfilling, capping, and
closure of excavated areas and areas where
contamination is below the excavation criteria;
environmental monitoring, including ground-water,
surface-water, and leachate monitoring; and
implementation of institutional controls, including
land use and transfer restrictions. ISV, an innovative
treatment technology, will substitute for incineration
if a successful demonstration of the technology is
made. The estimated cost for this remedial action is
$25,000,000, including an annual O&M cost of
$379,701 for 30 years. If ISV is used, the estimated
cost of this remedial action will be $17,080,215,
including an annual O&M cost of $201,800.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil and sediment contaminated above the
established remediation goals will be excavated and
treated. Soil remediation goals include PCBs 1 mg/kg
for the top 12 inches of surficial soil, PCBs 25 mg/kg
for soil below 12 inches, and lead 450 mg/kg.
Sediment remediation goals include PCBs 0.5 mg/kg.
Soil and sediment remediation goals are based on the
risk assessment, a 10"6 excess cancer risk level, and an
hazard index equal to 1.
Institutional Controls
Land use and transfer restrictions will be
implemented.
C-114
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SPIEGELBERG LANDFILL, MI
Second Remedial Action - Final
June 29,1990
The 115-acre Spiegelberg Landfill site is an
active sand, peat, and gravel mining site in Green Oak
Township, Livingston County, Michigan. Surrounding
the site are several residences and small businesses
which rely on on-site non-municipal water sources for
their drinking water supply. In addition, the Rasmussen
Superfund site neighbors the site to the east. From
1966 to 1977, a 2.5-acre portion of the site was used to
dispose of septic, domestic, and industrial wastes,
including paint sludge. Site investigations revealed two
areas of concern, a paint sludge disposal area (operable
unit one) and a ground water plume (operable unit,
two), contaminated as a result of the paint sludge
disposal area. The paint sludge disposal area was
addressed in a 1986 ROD, and all wastes associated
with the paint sludge disposal area were removed,
including the paint sludge and debris, the contaminated
soil underlying the paint waste, liquid paint, laboratory
liquid waste, and gas cylinders. This second ROD
focuses on the resulting ground-water plume, which is
estimated to contain 3,770,000 cubic feet of
contaminated ground water. Although the
contaminated ground-water plume has not yet migrated
beyond the site boundary, continued migration of the
plume poses a threat to water supply wells north and
northwest of the site. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs,
including benzene, toluene, and xylenes; and metals,
including lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes ground-water pumping and treatment using
chemical precipitation and pH adjustment to remove
inorganics, biological treatment to remove organics,
and air stripping and granular activated carbon to
remove residual organic contamination, followed by
on-site discharge of treated water to the ground
water; implementing institutional controls, including
deed restrictions; and ground- and well-water
monitoring. The estimated cost for the remedial
action is $4,420,000, including a present worth O&M
cost of $2,000,000 over at least 5 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals include benzene 1.2 ug/1 (based on a 10"6 cancer
risk level), toluene 40 ugA (based on taste and odor
thresholds), and lead 5.0 ug/1 (based on human
lifecycle safe concentrations).
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions and other institutional
controls, as necessary, will be implemented to ensure
the integrity of the remedial action.
C-115
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP DUMP, MI
First Remedial Action - Final
September 29,1990
The 16-acre Springfield Township Dump site
is in Davisburg, Springfield Township, Michigan. The
site is comprised of an open field area surrounded by
dense woods. Surrounding land use is mixed
agricultural and residential. The site overlies both a
shallow and deep aquifer, with several adjacent
wetlands. A 4-acre portion of the site was used for
industrial waste disposal between 1966 and 1968.
Unknown quantities of industrial waste were drained
into on-site excavated pits in a central disposal area or
deposited on low ground areas. Random dumping of
refuse occurred on site, and many drums containing
liquid wastes were seen scattered throughout the
woods. In 1978, the state identified PCBs, paint
sludge, solvents, oils, and greases in 15,000 on-site
drums. State studies also determined that a portion of
the aquifer underlying the site was highly susceptible to
contamination, due to the absence of a clay layer. In
1979 and 1980, VOC-contaminated well water was
found at private residences near the site. In 1979, the
state ordered the 1,500 on-site drums removed off site,
and from 1979 to 1980, 711 tons of contaminated soil
were excavated and removed from several on-site areas,
including the centrally located disposal pits. Because
of limited funding, some wastes remained on site, but
the pits were subsequently filled in and regraded. In
1980, the state identified on-site PCB- and
DDT-contaminated soil and on-site VOC
contamination in ground water. This ROD addresses
remediation of on-site contaminated soil and ground
water and will be a final remedy for the site. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs, including TCE and toluene;
other organics, including PCBs; and metals, including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating and treating on site a total of
11,820 cubic yards of VOC- and other organic-
contaminated soil by incineration, followed by
solidification of the resulting ash; treating metal-
contaminated soil using solidification, and
redepositing the treated soil and ash on site or
temporarily storing the treated soil on site in a solid
waste unit; treating soil using in-situ vacuum
extraction and performing a treatability study to
determine its effectiveness; ground-water pumping
and treatment using carbon adsorption, followed by
on-site reinjection of the treated ground water; and
implementing site access restrictions, such as fencing.
The estimated cost for this remedial action is
$9,271,290, including an annual O&M cost of $97,659.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil remediation goals are based on a 10'6
cancer risk and state Michigan Act 307 Standards.
Chemical-specific soil clean-up levels include PCBs 1
mg/kg, toluene 0.08 mg/kg, and TCE 0.08 mg/kg.
Ground water will be remediated to meet or exceed
SDWA federal MCLs or MCLGs including toluene
0.4 mg/1 (MCL) and TCE 0.003 mg/l (MCL). Lead
and arsenic will be remediated to background levels
for both soil and ground water.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-116
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
ST. LOUIS RIVER, MN
First Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 230-acre St. Louis River site (also known
as the St. Louis River/Interlake Duluth Tar site) is on
the north bank of the St. Louis River in Duluth,
Minnesota, with portions of the site within the
100-year floodplain. The bank of the river consists of
a series of inlets and peninsulas, including the Stryker
Embayment and the boat slip inlets. This site is the
former location of several pig iron and coking plants,
as well as separate tar and chemical companies, which
used by-products from the plants. The chemical
companies closed in the 1940s, and the pig iron coking
plants closed during the 1960s. Tar seeps are present
on site in several locations, including the embayment
and boat slip areas where tar producers had disposed
of tars directly onto the ground. Soil and underlying
ground water are contaminated with high levels of
PAHs as a result of past on-site disposal activities.
Chemicals released from the sediment are the source of
a thick layer of tar-like material in portions of the
embayment and boat slip areas. This ROD addresses
operable unit one, the remediation of the on-site tar
seeps, which are a potential source of ground-water
and surface-water contamination. A future ROD will
include a treatability study to address the
contamination of the soil, sediment, ground water,
and surface water at the site (operable unit two). The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil are
organics including PAHs.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating 300 to 2300 cubic yards of visible
tar seeps with off-site disposal to a power plant or a
similar facility for use as recyclable fuel, and
landfilling the tar and ash residues off site. This
ROD provides a contingency for incineration of up to
10 percent of the materials at a RCRA incinerator if
the power plant will not accept the contaminated
soil/tar mixture. The estimated cost for this remedial
action ranges from $700,000 to $2,700,000, depending
on the extent of excavation required. There are no
O&M costs associated with this remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
No chemical-specific goals are provided;
however, this remedial action will reduce the current
excess lifetime cancer risk for ground water to
acceptable levels and prevent migration of
contaminants to surface and ground water.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-117
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
TRI-STATE PLATING, IN
First Remedial Action - Final
March 30,1990
The 3,900-square-foot Tri-State Plating site is
an abandoned metal plating facility in Columbus,
Bartholomew County, Indiana. Land use in the vicinity
of the site is residential and industrial. Metal plating
operations at the site began during the 1940s.
Tri-State Plating operated the facility from 1981 until
1984, when operations were shut down and the site
abandoned. Site features include an electroplating
building and an on-site storage building. In 1983, the
state identified soil contaminated with chromium, lead,
and other metals, which was thought to be a result of
an on-site waste spill. Tri-State Plating excavated the
contaminated soil and placed it in on-site drums.
Subsequently, the state identified additional on-site
contaminated soil and elevated levels of chromium in
off-site ground water, and determined that facility
wastes had been discharged directly into the sewer line.
In 1984, following additional on-site waste disposal
violations, on-site spills, and the failure of Tri-State
Plating to install an on-site waste treatment system, the
state blocked sewers from the site and cut off the water
supply. From 1987 to 1989, in two separate actions,
EPA removed 27 drums of inorganic material from the
storage building, excavated contaminated on-site soil,
decontaminated and demolished all on-site structures,
rilled and revegetated the excavated areas, and disposed
of the soil and debris in off-site landfills. Subsequent
site investigations revealed that ground water beneath
and migrating from the site was contaminated with
metals and required remediation. Previous removal ac-
tions successfully reduced metal concentration in on-
site soil to background levels; therefore, on-site soil
does not warrant remedial action. This ROD
addresses the contaminated on-site ground water.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
ground water are metals, including chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes pumping contaminated ground water from
the underlying aquifer and discharging the water to a
POTW; monitoring ground water and surface water;
conducting a public education program; and
implementing institutional controls and site access
restrictions, including fencing. The estimated cost for
this remedial action ranges from $1,110,000 to
$1,115,000 for 2 to 10 years, depending on the
ground-water pumping rate. O&M costs were not
provided for this remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
Pumping of ground water will continue until
contaminant levels meet state and federal standards,
including chromium SO ug/1.
Institutional Controls
Ground-water usage will be restricted until
remediation has been completed.
C-118
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
UNION SCRAP IRON METAL, MN
First Remedial Action - Final
March 30,1990
The Union Scrap Iron Metal site is a vacant
industrial property in Minneapolis, Hennepin County,
Minnesota. The site overlies an alluvial aquifer.
Surrounding land use is primarily industrial and
commercial, with adjacent residential areas. From the
early 1970s until 1983, the site was used as a processing
faculty for used batteries and scrap metal. Batteries
were crushed and recyclable materials were sorted on
site. Several piles of crushed battery casings and
electrical equipment were present on site at various
times. Intermittent investigations conducted from 1980
to 1987 identified contaminated soil on site as a result
of these processing activities. In 1987, a potentially
responsible party removed 773 tons of battery casing
material from the site. Two subsequent EPA removal
actions in 1988 included the excavation and off-site
disposal of on-site contaminated soil, an underground
storage tank, debris, a concrete pad, and an on-site
building. A remedial investigation conducted form
1989 to 1990 determined that prior removal actions
were effective in eliminating contaminated on-site soil
and waste, and the low level ground-water
contamination does not pose any threat to public
health. Therefore, there are no contaminants of
concern affecting this site.
The selected remedial action for this site is
no further action. Previous site removal activities
have reduced on-site contaminant levels to below
background or EPA health-based levels.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-119
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, MN
First Remedial Action - Final
June 11,1990
The University of Minnesota site, composed of
four subsites, is in Rosemount, Dakota County,
Minnesota, approximately 20 miles southeast of the
Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Surrounding
land use is agricultural and rural residential. The site
is underlain by a shallow sand and gravel aquifer and
a deeper fractured dolomite and sandstone aquifer,
both hydraulically connected and current sources of
drinking water. Three of the subsites were occupied by
tenants between approximately 1968 and 1985. All
three subsites were involved with the storage and/or
reconditioning of electrical equipment and contain
PCB-contaminated soil and debris from spills or
disposal of PCB oil. One subsite also was involved in
reclamation of copper wire. The fourth subsite was
used by the University of Minnesota as a burn pit for
waste chemicals. From 1968 to 1974, it is estimated
that 90,000 gallons of laboratory chemicals, solvents,
corrosives, salts, heavy metals, organics, and inorganics
were disposed of in the burn pit, which was ultimately
capped in 1980. In 1984, ground-water sampling
identified the burn pit as a source of contamination.
In 1986, the University submitted plans for an alternate
water supply for affected residents. This action has
been updated and is addressed in this ROD. This
ROD also addresses ground-water treatment in the
burn pit area and treatment and consolidation of
contaminated soil and debris in the remaining three
subsites. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs,
including chloroform; other organics, including PCBs;
and metals, such as lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating 2,620 cubic yards of soil containing
greater than 1,000 mg/kg of lead, and transporting the
soil to an off-site RCRA landfill for disposal;
excavating 160 cubic yards of concrete debris and
6,309 cubic yards of soil with greater than 25 mg/kg of
PCBs, followed by on-site thermal desorption and
fume incineration; consolidating 14,809 cubic yards of
soil with 10-25 mg/kg of PCBs and limiting access
with man-made barriers; backfilling excavations with
treated soil, and grading and revegetating the area;
pumping and treating contaminated ground water
using a packed tower air stripper, followed by on-site
discharge to an infiltration supply pond; and ground-
water monitoring. Outside of the selected remedy,
the University of Minnesota is constructing two
supply wells upgradient of the contaminant plume and
supplying 27 affected residents with this alternate
water supply. The combined estimated cost for both
remedies is $8,308,686. There are no O&M costs
associated with the soil remedy. The estimated
annual O&M cost for the ground-water remedy is
$8,695 for 20 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up levels for carcinogenic compounds
are meant to reduce the excess lifetime cancer risk to
10"4 to 10"7. Specific soil clean-up goals include PCBs
25 mg/kg (TSCA PCB "Spill Cleanup Policy") and
lead 1,000 mg/kg (EP Toxicity Leach Testing).
Specific ground-water clean-up goals for VOCs also
were provided.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-120
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
WAYNE WASTE OIL, IN
First Remedial Action - Final
March 30,1990
The 30-acre Wayne Waste Oil site is a former
oil reclamation operation and municipal landfill in
Columbia City, Indiana. The site lies within the Blue
River floodplain, and a wetlands area is located on site.
The site overlies a contaminated unconsolidated
surficial aquifer. From 1953 to 1970, part of the site
was operated as a municipal landfill. From 1975 to
1982, waste oil reclamation activities, which included
the storage and handling of hazardous wastes, were
conducted on site. Site features include an incinerator,
on-site disposal pits, buried drums, vacant office
buildings, and several above-ground and underground
storage tanks, which contain hazardous material. From
1979 to 1980, an estimated 250,000 gallons of
hazardous waste were illegally dumped on site and
allowed to percolate into the soil. In addition the
current landfill cap is not adequate to prevent exposure
of buried landfill material. Removal actions by PRPs in
1986 and 1988 resulted in remediation of several on-
site disposal pits, and the removal and off-site disposal
of 340 buried drums, the contents of 23 storage tanks,
over 12,900 tons of contaminated soil from the on-site
pits, and implementation of site access restrictions.
From 1988 to 1989, site investigations conducted by the
PRPs under a Consent Order characterized the
location and extent of remaining contaminated media,
and quantified the chemical contaminants at the site.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
debris, and ground water are VOCs, including benzene,
PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics,
including PAHs and phenols; and metals, including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes treating VOC-contaminated soil using vapor
extraction; treating metal-contaminated soil using soil
washing or solidification/stabilization; delineating the
area of the municipal landfill; capping the landfill and
constructing a landfill venting system if necessary;
covering PAH-contaminated soil or consolidating the
soil under the landfill cap; treating and disposing of
the contents of storage tanks off site, steam cleaning,
and removing the storage tanks off site; dismantling
the incinerator and disposing of the debris off site or
within the on-site municipal landfill; pumping and
treating ground water on site using air stripping, or
discharging the ground water off site to a POTW;
monitoring air, ground water, and surface water; and
implementing institutional controls, including deed,
land use, and ground-water use restrictions, and site
access restrictions, such as fencing. The estimated
cost for this remedial action is $5,582,499, including
an annual O&M cost of $291,000 for 15 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up levels for soil will be calculated
using a contaminant leaching model. Chemical-
specific clean-up levels for ground water are based on
federal MCLs and non-zero MCLGs, including
benzene 5 ug/1 (MCL), PCE 5 ug/1 (MCL), TCE 5
ug/1 (MCL), toluene 2,000 ug/1 (MCL), xylenes 10,000
ug/1 (proposed MCL), and arsenic 50 ug/1 (MCL).
Institutional Controls
Deed, ground-water, and land use restrictions
will be implemented on site.
C-121
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
WHEELER PIT, WI
First Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The 3.4-acre Wheeler Pit site is a former
industrial waste disposal pit in LaPrairie Township,
approximately 1.5 miles from Janesville, Wisconsin.
The soil beneath the site is generally sand and gravel,
and the uppermost aquifer, also composed of sand and
gravel, serves as a major source of drinking water for
the Janesville area. From 1900 to the 1970s, the site
was used as a sand and gravel pit by a railroad
company, which also may have used the pit for refuse
disposal. In 1956, General Motors Corporation
(GMC) leased 3.82 acres of the pit, and from 1956 to
1960, disposed of general refuse on site. From 1960 to
1974, GMC disposed of an estimated 22.3 million
gallons of industrial wastes, including paint spray booth
sludge, residue from part hanger stripping systems,
clarifier sludge, and powerhouse coal ash. In 1974, the
state required closure of the disposal area along with
ground-water monitoring. On-site elevated levels of
several contaminants, including TCE and chromium,
were detected in the ground water after the site was
closed. This ROD addresses control of the source
area, as well as monitoring of ground water. Natural
attenuation will be relied upon to remediate the
ground water. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the waste, soil, and/or ground water are
VOCs, including benzene, toluene and xylenes; other
organics, including PAHs; and metals, including
arsenic, lead, and chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes consolidating waste and contaminated soil
from adjacent property into the original on-site
disposal area; removing trees from the area to provide
a regular surface for the cap; capping the landfill with
a solid waste cap to comply with state requirements;
installing a gas venting system in the cap, if necessary,
to release gas generated during tree root
decomposition; monitoring of ground water and
private wells, and evaluating results to determine the
need for any additional remedial actions;
implementing institutional controls to limit land and
ground-water use, and site access restrictions,
including fencing. The estimated cost for this
remedial action is $2,940,000, including an annual
O&M cost of $137,300 per year for 30 years. Costs
associated with the gas venting system are not
included.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up levels identified for ground water
are based on state preventive action limits and
include arsenic 5.0 ugA and chromium 5.0 ug/1. No
clean-up levels have been determined for soil or on-
site wastes, as these will be permanently contained on
site.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls, including deed
restrictions, will be implemented to limit land and
ground-water use at the site.
C-122
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
REGION 6
(Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas)
ARKWOOD, AR
First Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The 15-acre Arkwood site is a former wood
treatment facility in Boone County, Arkansas. Land
use in the vicinity of the site is primarily agricultural
and light industrial. Approximately 200 residences are
located within 1 mile of the site, and 35 domestic water
supply wells are within 1.5 miles of the site. In
addition, numerous springs, including New Cricket
Spring, are found on, and adjacent to, the site. The
site is characterized as karst terrain formed by the
solution of limestone and dolomite by ground water.
Ground water on or near the site is highly susceptible
to contamination as a result of underground cavities,
enlarged fractures, and conduits which hinder
monitoring and pumping. From 1962 to 1973,
Arkwood operated a PCP and creosote wood treatment
facility at the site. Subsequently, from 1973 to 1984,
Mass Merchandisers, Inc. (MMI) leased the plant and
continued operations until the lease expired, and MMI
removed all remaining inventory and materials. In
1986, the site owner dismantled the plant. State
investigations conducted during the 1980s documented
PCP and creosote contamination in surface water, soil,
debris, and buildings throughout the site.
Contaminated surface features at the site include the
wood treatment facility, a sinkhole area contaminated
with oily waste, a ditch area, a wood storage area, and
an ash pile. In 1987, EPA ordered the site owner to
perform an immediate removal action, which included
installing barriers such as fencing and sign postings to
restrict site access. This ROD addresses remediation
of all affected media, and provides the final remedy for
the site. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, sludge, debris, ground water, and
surface water are organics, including PCP, PAHs, and
dioxin.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating approximately 21,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and sludge from the railroad ditch,
wood treatment facility, storage areas, and ash pile;
pretreating these materials by sieving and washing the
soil; incinerating approximately 7,000 cubic yards of
pretreated materials exceeding clean-up levels on site;
backfilling washed coarse materials pretreated to
below clean-up levels as well as any residual ash;
decontaminating on-site structures and debris,
followed by on-site or off-site disposal; covering the
site with a soil cap and revegetating the area; on-site
pumping and treating 3,000 gallons of oily sinkhole
liquids and any wastewater from decontamination
activities using filtration and granular activated
carbon, followed by on-site discharge of treated
liquids, and incineration of any free phase oil;
disposing of any residuals off site; implementing site
access restrictions, including fencing; monitoring
drinking water and ground water; providing municipal
water lines to affected residences; monitoring New
Cricket Spring for a two year period to measure the
success of natural attenuation. If PCP levels still
exceed state standards after two years, a treatment
system will be implemented for the spring. The
estimated cost of this remedial action is $10,300,000.
O&M costs were not provided.
Performance Standards or Goals
Action levels for soil excavation and
treatment include PCP 300 mg/kg (based on the
teachability of PCP from site soil), carcinogenic PAHs
6.0 mg/kg (10~5 excess cancer risk), and dioxin 20
ug/kg (ATSDR).
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-123
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CIMARRON MINING, NM
First Remedial Action
September 21,1990
The 10.6-acre Cimarron Mining site, Lincoln
County, New Mexico, is an inactive milling facility used
to recover iron from ores transported to the site. The
land surrounding the site supports agricultural,
commercial, and residential uses. A shallow aquifer,
which is not a potential drinking water source, and a
deeper primary drinking water aquifer lie beneath the
site. The iron recovery process was conducted between
the late 1960s and 1979. Although cyanide was not
used in the original iron-recovery milling process,
operations changed in 1979, and cyanide was used until
1982 to recover precious metals. The operation of the
mill resulted in the discharge of contaminated liquids
on site. The sources of environmental cyanide
contamination at the site are the processed waste
materials, including tailings piles and cinder block
trench sediment piles, the cyanide solution and tailings
spillage areas, and the cyanide solution recycling and
disposal areas, including cinder block trenches and an
unlined discharge pit. The major sources of ground-
water contamination by cyanide are the cinder block
trenches and the discharge pit. These areas of
prolonged contact between cyanide solution and
underlying soil led to cyanide contamination in the
shallow aquifer. Field investigations revealed another
abandoned mill, Sierra Blanca, operated by the same
owner, which will be addressed in a second ROD. This
ROD addresses contaminated shallow ground water at
the Cimarron Mining mill area. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the debris and
ground water are inorganics, including cyanide.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes pumping and discharging contaminated
shallow ground water to an off-site POTW; ground-
water monitoring; removing and off-site disposal of
process chemical drums, decontaminated tanks, and
associated piping; filling in the discharge pit and
cinder block trenches with soil and waste pile
material, and covering with clean soil; plugging the
on-site abandoned water supply well; and inspecting
and maintaining the existing fence. The estimated
cost of this remedial action is $105,000, including a
total estimated O&M cost of $50,825.
Performance Standards or Goals
The discharge to the POTW will comply with
the pretreatment standard of cyanide 5 mg/1 (CWA).
Ultimate clean-up goals for the shallow aquifer are
based on federal MCLs and state action levels,
including cyanide 200 ug/1 (state and MCL). The
hazard index of cyanide will be remediated to less
than or equal to 1.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-124
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
CRYSTAL CHEMICAL, TX
First Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 24-acre Crystal Chemical site consists of
a 7-acre abandoned herbicide manufacturing facility
(referred to as the on-site area) and 18 acres of
affected surrounding properties (referred to as the off-
site area) in Houston, Harris County, Texas. The site
lies within the 100-year floodplain of an adjacent flood
control channel. A shallow aquifer underlies the site.
Surrounding land use is commercial/industrial. From
1968 to 1981, herbicides, including arsenide compounds
were manufactured at the site. During that time,
several structures, four evaporation ponds, and many
storage tanks were utilized. Drums of raw and finished
product were routinely stored in the open. On-site soil
was contaminated by herbicides spilled from drums
during transfer of raw materials from rail cars.
Contamination of off-site soil and sediment was a
result of periodic flooding, which caused contaminated
on-site materials to be relocated off site. In 1981, the
site was abandoned, and approximately 99,000 gallons
of chemical liquids in a storage tank and 600,000
gallons of wastewater in the evaporation ponds were
left on site. Emergency Removal Actions were
conducted intermittently from 1981 to 1988. They
included removing chemical liquids and wastewater,
temporarily capping the site, dismantling and
decontaminating structures, constructing drains and
fencing, and placing fill material on site. The primary
contaminant of concern affecting the soil, sediment,
and ground water is arsenic.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating approximately 55,000 cubic yards of
off-site soil and sediment with arsenic levels greater
than 30 mg/kg and redepositing the materials on site;
treating approximately 16,500 cubic yards of on-site
soil and sediment with levels of arsenic greater than
300 mg/kg using in-situ vitrification; covering the on-
site area with a multi-layer cap; pumping and treating
approximately 3 million gallons of contaminated
ground water using ferric hydroxide precipitation,
flocculation, clarification, filtration, and ion exchange;
discharging the treated water off site to a POTW, to
surface water, or reinjecting the treated water on site;
disposing of residual sludge at an off-site facility;
conducting long-term ground-water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls, including land
use restrictions. The estimated cost for this remedial
action is $18,590,740, including an annual O&M cost
of $140,079 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
The excavation level of arsenic is 30 mg/kg
for off-site soil and sediment and is based on
calculated health standards. Treatment of on-site soil
with greater than 300 mg/kg arsenic will effectively
treat 95 percent of the on-site contamination and will
reduce the amount of teachable arsenic to 5 mg/kg.
The clean-up standard for ground water is arsenic
0.05 mg/kg, which is based on the federal MCL.
Institutional Controls
Land use restrictions will be implemented at
the site.
C-125
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
HARDAGEVCRINER, OK
First Remedial Action (Amendment)
November 22,1989
The Hardage/Criner site is in an agricultural
area near Criner, McClain County, Oklahoma. The
site is situated in the North Criner Creek drainage
basin, approximately 0.8 miles from the confluence of
North Criner Creek and Criner Creek. From 1972 to
1980, the site was operated under a state permit for the
disposal of industrial wastes, including paint sludges
and solids, ink solvents, tire manufacturing wastes, oils,
other solvents, cyanides, and plating wastes sludges.
Waste disposal practices have resulted in the
contamination of approximately 70 acres of ground
water beneath and adjacent to the site and several
acres of surface soil. The principal source of
contamination is approximately 278,000 cubic yards of
sludges, waste drums, highly contaminated soil, and
waste liquids contained in three main waste (source)
areas near the center of the property. Additional
source areas include scattered mixing ponds, spill areas,
and runoff paths in the vicinity of the main source
areas. Dense non-aqueous phase liquids have pooled
beneath the disposal areas and are a continuing source
of contamination to the ground water. A 1986 ROD
addressed source control through incineration,
stabilization, and on-site disposal; however, the
remedial action was not implemented due to protracted
litigation. The 1989 ROD amendment provides a
comprehensive site remedy addressing both source
control and ground-water remediation and takes into
consideration recently enacted land disposal
restrictions. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs,
including benzene, PCE, TCE, and other carcinogenic
compounds; other organics, including PCBs and
pesticides; and metals, including arsenic, chromium,
and lead.
The selected remedial action for the site
includes source control and ground-water components.
Source control remediation includes installation of ex-
traction wells to pump out free liquids currently
pooled in the three waste areas and any liquids
released from drums buried in the mounds, followed
by off-site treatment of the removed organic liquids
and on-site treatment of aqueous liquids; excavation
of drummed organic liquids for off-site destruction;
excavation and consolidation of contaminated soil
adjacent to the main source areas with placement in
the main source areas, followed by temporary
capping; treatment of the main source areas using
in-situ soil vapor extraction with treatment of air used
in soil extraction by thermal destruction; and
installation of a permanent RCRA-compliant cap
once remedial activities are completed. Ground-water
components are designed to control the spread of
ground-water plumes and protect downgradient areas
because of the technical impracticability of restoration
of the bedrock aquifer. Ground-water remediation
includes installation of an interceptor trench
downgradient of the source areas to intercept and
collect contaminated ground water migrating into
bedrock zones, and a second trench or system of
extraction wells to intercept and collect ground water
that is contaminating the alluvium; and design and
construction of an on-site ground-water treatment
system to treat both organic and inorganic
contaminants before discharge of treated water to
surface water. Contaminants already present in the
alluvium will be allowed to dissipate by natural
dilution, natural attentuation, and flushing. Active
restoration, however, will be implemented, if
contaminant reduction goals are not met. In addition,
institutional controls, surface-water controls, and
multimedia monitoring will be implemented, and the
current provision of an alternate water supply will be
continued. The estimated cost of this remedial action
is $62,904,655, including an annual O&M cost of
1,300,000.
C-126
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Performance Standards or Goals
The goal of the soil vapor extraction is a 99
percent reduction of the VOC concentrations found at
the beginning of treatment. Beyond reduction of the
source, the goal of this action is to restore the ground
water, especially the alluvial aquifer associated with
North Criner Creek, to levels below MCLs, including
chromium 50 ug/1. If contaminant concentrations in
the alluvium increase after trench installation and
pumping, or there is a decline in the mass of contam-
inants of less than 40 percent in 10 years, active
restoration of the alluvium will be implemented.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls, including deed
restrictions and maintenance of the availability of an
alternate water supply system, will be implemented to
restrict access to the site and contaminated ground
water.
C-127
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
JACKSONVILLE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL, AR
First Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 80-acre Jacksonville Municipal Landfill
site is an inactive landfill outside the city limits of
Jacksonville, Lonoke County, Arkansas. The site is
located in a floodplain. Neighboring the site are the
Rogers Road Municipal Landfill and the Vertac
Chemical Superfund sites. From 1960 to 1973, ap-
proximately one half of the site was used to landfill
unknown types or quantities of drummed or loose
waste. Before 1969, waste was openly burned prior to
on-site disposal in unlined trenches. During this
period, trenching was used as the sole disposal method.
EPA holds evidence that the on-site wastes were
physically and chemically similar to the wastes at the
Vertac Chemical Superfund site, and that the waste
may have originated at Vertac. Dioxin was found in
some of the 10 to 50 above-ground waste drums at the
site. This ROD addresses the drummed waste, soil,
and loose debris, and their off-site disposal at the
Vertac facility. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and debris are organics, including
pesticides such as dioxin.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes sampling of soil to determine the amount of
contaminated soil and debris on site; excavating, with
off-site thermal treatment and disposal of soil and
debris exceeding 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10 mg/kg at the Vertac
Chemical Superfund site; excavating, disinfecting, and
disposing on-site debris removed from the 10 mg/kg
TCDD-contaminated areas; backfilling and covering
the remaining soil and debris with clean soil;
revegetating excavated areas at the site; monitoring
ground water; and implementing institutional
controls, including deed, ground-water use, and land
use restrictions. The estimated cost for this remedial
action is $1,949,940, including an annual O&M cost
of $523,730.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil-action levels are based on action levels
established by the Centers for Disease Control. Soil
with concentrations exceeding 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10.0
mg/kg will be excavated and transported off site for
treatment. Soil with concentrations exceeding
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 mg/kg but less than 10.0 mg/kg will
be covered with 1 foot of soil.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
limit land use and ground-water use on and
downgradient of the site.
C-128
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
PAGANO SALVAGE, NM
First Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 1.4-acre Pagano Salvage site is in Los
Lunas, Valencia County, New Mexico, and consists of
a family-run salvage business and a residence. During
1983, salvage operations at the site included purchasing
"high technology" scrap material from federal facilities,
such as transformers, drums containing waste fluids,
and capacitors. Site inspections in 1984, 1985, and
1986 revealed several areas of soil contamination in the
yard due to leaks from scrap materials, which released
PCB-contaminated oil into the soil. These areas
included two surface burn areas, a stained soil area,
and a surface pool of oil. In 1990, EPA removed
approximately 5,100 cubic yards of contaminated soil
and debris for disposal in an approved RCRA facility
off site. Soil containing less than 10 mg/kg PCB was
covered with a 10 to 12 inch soil cover. Soil sampling
has confirmed that this removal has resolved the PCB
contamination at the site, and EPA proposes no
additional remedial action. Based on this rationale,
there are no primary contaminants of concern
affecting this site.
The selected remedial action for this site is a
no action remedy with ground-water monitoring for
1 year at the request of the state.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-129
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
ROGERS ROAD MUNICIPAL LANDFILL, AR
First Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 10-acre Rogers Road Municipal Landfill
site is an inactive landfill in a residential and
agricultural area in Pulaski County, outside the city
limits of Jacksonville, Arkansas. Approximately 50
residences are located within 0.5 mile of the site. The
site lies within a 100-year floodplain and has poor
drainage because of slow percolation of rain-water.
From 1953 until 1974, approximately one half of the
site was used intermittently as a municipal waste
disposal facility. Specific waste types and quantities are
unknown; however, wastes appear to have been
disposed of in a long excavated trench and in several
surface piles. In addition, chemical waste materials
probably originating from the nearby Vertac Chemical
Corporation, including herbicides and associated dioxin
impurities, have been disposed of at the site.
Currently, as many as 50 drums of contaminated
materials are estimated to be on site. Thirty of these
drums are visibly corroded, and their contents are
exposed. Investigations by EPA beginning in 1983
revealed that a 0.5-acre drum disposal area containing
drums, waste piles, and associated soil contaminated
with herbicides and dioxin, comprises the principal
threat from the site. Vertac Chemical Corporation
wastes also were disposed of at the Jacksonville
Municipal Landfill Supertund site, which is 0.5 mile
east of the site. To achieve economies of scale, the
two sites will be remediated concurrently, including
excavating highly contaminated wastes and soil, and
transporting these to Vertac for final treatment and
disposition. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and debris are organics, including
dioxin/furan (2,3,7,8-TCDD), the pesticide dieldrin, and
herbicide compounds (2,4,5-T, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-TP).
The selected remedial action for this site
includes additional soil sampling with excavation of
approximately 50 cubic yards of highly contaminated
soil and debris (i.e., greater than 10 ug/kg of
2,3,7,8-TCDD), followed by temporary storage off site
at the Vertac Chemical Corporation Superfund site;
conducting thermal treatment of all Rogers Road site
material stored at the Vertac site, followed by residual
analysis to evaluate treatment effectiveness, backfilling
of residuals on the Vertac site, and revegetating
backfilled ash areas; steam cleaning and disposing of
debris removed from the Rogers Road site at the
Vertac site; backfilling excavated areas and the open
trench with uncontaminated native soil and
decontaminated refuse; covering on-site soil, debris,
and waste contaminated at low levels (i.e., below the
clean-up criteria) with 12 inches of native soil;
inspecting and maintaining soil caps and fences;
ground-water monitoring; and implementing
institutional controls, including ground-water and
land use restrictions. The estimated cost for this
remedial action is $1,226,000, including a total O&M
cost of $384,000 over 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Pre-remedial action levels have been
identified and will be used to determine where soil
remediation is required. Post-remedial treatment
goals will be used to assure that effective treatment
has been achieved. Moderately-contaminated soil and
debris triggering action levels, including 2,3,7,8-TCDD
between 1 and 10 ug/kg (10"s excess cancer risk),
dieldrin greater than 37.0 ug/kg (10"7 excess cancer
risk), and/or a dieldrin and herbicide (2,4,5-T and
2,4,5-TP) combination resulting in a cumulative
hazard index exceeding 0.7, will be covered with 12
inches of clean soil. Thermal treatment will be used
for approximately 50 cubic yards of soil and debris
with 2,3,7,8-TCDD exceeding 10 ug/kg. Treatment
goals include achieving 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 ug/kg
(health-based) or a 99.9999 percent destruction
removal efficiency (40 CFR 264.343), and 2,4-D
10,000 ug/kg (40 CFR 268.43), 2,4,5-TP 7,900 ug/kg
(40 CFR 268.43), and dieldrin 37 ug/kg
(health-based), as well as a combined dieldrin and
herbicide cumulative hazard index less than 0.7. The
overall residual risk attained by these goals will be
less than 8 x 10"5 and a maximum cumulative hazard
index of 1.0.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls, including land use
controls, will be implemented to limit ground-water
use on, and immediately downgradient of, the site.
C-130
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
TENTH STREET DUMP/JUNKYARD, OK
First Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 3.5-acre Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard site
is an inactive landfill in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
The site is in the North Canadian River's 100-year
floodplain. There are two residences and a salvage
yard within 100 yards of the site. From 1951 to 1979,
the site was used as a municipal landfill, a privately-
owned and operated salvage yard, and an automobile
salvage yard. Waste materials accepted by the first
salvage yard included paint thinners, old transformers,
and tires. Dielectric fluid that contained PCBs was
drained from old transformers, stored in barrels, and
sold. During this PCB recovery process, substantial
quantities of PCB-contaminated oil were spilled onto
the ground at the site. In 1983, EPA site inspections
located 20 drums, some of which were corroded and
leaking contaminated material into the soil. Soil
samples, taken on and around the site, showed
contamination by hazardous materials, particularly,
high levels of PCBs. In 1985, EPA completed removal
actions that included disposal of drums containing
hazardous waste, decontamination and relocation of
junk automobiles, consolidation of contaminated soil
to the center of the site, installation of a plastic liner
and a clay cap, and installation of security fencing.
This ROD addresses soil contamination at the site. It
is estimated that 8,500 cubic yards of soil are contami-
nated by PCBs, with 7,500 cubic yards of this total
having PCBs levels above the TSCA PCB spill clean-up
policy level of 25 mg/kg. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil are organics, including
PCBs.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes removing the red clay cover and plastic liner;
excavating an estimated 7,500 cubic yards of
PCB-contaminated soil with concentrations of 25
mg/kg and higher; treating the excavated soil by
chemical dechlorination and carbon adsorption to
control air emissions; and backfilling and regrading
the excavated area with clean and treated soil. The
estimated cost for this remedial action is $4,044,000.
There are no O&M costs associated with this
remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
Contaminated soil with greater than 300
mg/kg PCB (an order of magnitude higher than the
health-based goal) is considered the principal threat.
However, the soil excavation goal is PCB 25 mg/kg
(TSCA), due to the cost effectiveness of treating soil
with low levels of PCBs along with the highly
contaminated soil, and is based on a 10"6 excess
cancer risk level. Soil residuals will contain less than
2 mg/kg PCBs.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-131
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
TEXARKANA WOOD PRESERVING, XX
First Remedial Action
September 25,1990
The 25-acre Texarkana Wood Preserving site
is a former wood treating facility in Bowie County,
Texas. The site is in the Days Creek 100-year
floodplain. Surrounding land use is industrial,
residential, and agricultural. Since the early 1900s,
several lumber-related businesses have operated at the
site, with documented creosote-based wood treating
operations starting in 1954. By 1971, Texarkana Wood
also was using creosote and pentachlorophenol for
wood preserving. State investigations of the site
between 1968 and 1984 showed Texarkana Wood
Preserving to be negligent or delinquent in fulfilling
various permit requirements. Fund-lead removal
actions from 1986 to 1988 included implementation of
site access restrictions, and construction of a berm
around, and pumping down, the creosote-contamina-
ted on-site processing ponds to prevent runoff and
overflow. This ROD addresses on-site contaminated
soil near the processing ponds and contaminated
ground water in a shallow aquifer. Remediation of
ground water in a deeper aquifer will be addressed in
a subsequent ROD. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, sediment, sludge, and ground
water are organics, including dioxin, PAHs, pesticides,
and phenols.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating approximately 77,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil, including any affected sediment and
sludges, followed by treating the excavated soil on site
using incineration, leachability testing of residual ash,
and on-site backfilling of ash with the installation of a
soil cover and revegetation; pumping and treating ap-
proximately 16 million gallons of contaminated
ground water from the shallow aquifer using carbon
adsorption, with on-site or off-site regeneration or
off-site disposal of the spent carbon, pretreatment
using ferric hydroxide precipitation and flocculation,
followed by clarification and filtration as needed, and
reinjecting the treated water on site into the shallow
aquifer; and implementing institutional controls,
including deed restrictions to limit land use. The
estimated cost for this remedial action is $47,500,000,
which includes a total O&M cost of $1,060,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil remediation will reduce the excess cancer
risk to below 10"6. Ground water will be restored to
its beneficial use as drinking water. Chemical-specific
goals for soil include carcinogenic PAHs 3 mg/kg,
total PAHs 2450 mg/kg, dioxin 20 ug/kg, and
pentachlorophenol 150 mg/kg. Chemical-specific
goals for ground water include carcinogenic PAHs 10
ug/1 (detection limit), dioxin 0.001 mg/1 (Proposed
MCL). CWA requirements for PAHs and dioxin in
ground water are lower than the above values, but
ground water will be remediated to below detection
limits as indicated.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
restrict future site land use. Water use restrictions
cannot be enforced in Texas, however.
C-132
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
TINKER AFB (SOLDIER CREEK/BLDG 3001), OK
First Remedial Action (Federal Facility)
August 16, 1990
The 220-acre Tinker AFB (Soldier
Creek/Building 3001) site in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
includes an active military facility and Soldier Creek.
The Air Force uses Building 3001 as an aircraft
overhaul and modification complex for jet engine
service, repair, and upgrades. Surrounding land use is
urban residential. A surficial perched aquifer and a
sole-source aquifer for the region underlie the site.
The site contains several areas that potentially have
contributed to ground-water, surface, and soil
contamination, including the North Tank Area, Pit Q-
51, and other subsurface degreasing pits. From the
1940s to the 1970s, organic solvents were used to
degrease metal parts in the subsurface pits. Ground-
water contamination has occurred on site as a result of
seepage from these pits, direct discharge of solvents to
storm drains, spills, and faulty drainage system
connections. The North Tank Area contains several
active and abandoned underground waste oil and fuel
tanks. Contamination in this area has resulted from
leaking tanks and fuel spills directly onto the ground.
There also is on-site VOC contamination, which may
be the result of leaking utility lines in the area.
Investigations by the Air Force from 1982 to 1989
documented the ground-water contamination under the
B3001 complex; the potential threat of further
contamination from Pit Q-51, one of the former
degreasing pits; and that underground storage tanks in
the North Tank Area were leaking. In 1985, in
response to the detection of on-site contamination, the
Air Force removed an abandoned 13,000 gallon
gasoline tank from the North Tank Area, closed three
contaminated production wells, and cleaned all of the
on-site degreasing pits with the exception of Pit Q-51,
which contains approximately 45 gallons of
contaminated liquid waste. This ROD addresses
remediation of on-site ground water, along with
remedial actions relating to Pit Q-51 and the North
Tank Area. A subsequent ROD will address
contamination associated with Soldier Creek. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
debris, and ground water are VOCs, including benzene,
PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics, inclu-
ding phenols; and metals, including chromium and
lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes ground-water pumping and treating using air
stripping to remove VOCs, precipitation to remove
metals, and fine filtration to remove any remaining
organics and metals; using the treated water in on-site
industrial processes; disposing of any residuals from
the treatment processes off site; recovering 6,000 to
12,000 gallons of hydrocarbons floating above the
ground-water table by using a dual fluid production
system, followed by off-site disposal of the
hydrocarbons; removing approximately 45 gallons of
liquid waste from Pit Q-51, and placing the liquid
waste into 55-gallon drums; steam cleaning,
backfilling, and covering the pit with a concrete slab;
storing the drums temporarily on site; disposing of
waste and washwater from the steam cleaning process
off site; removing and disposing of a 750-gallon waste
tank, and properly abandoning, demolishing and
backfilling the on-site 235,000 gallon fuel oil tank at
the North Tank Area; treating the contaminated soil
from the North Tank Area using vapor extraction,
with destruction of vapors in a thermal combustor;
and ground-water monitoring. The estimated cost for
this remedial action is $13,198,308. O&M costs were
not provided.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil remediation goals include a 99.9 percent
removal of organic contaminants at the North Tank
Area. Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up goals
include benzene 5 ug/1 (MCL), PCE 5 ug/1 (MCL),
TCE 5 ug/1 (MCL), chromium 50 ug/1 (MCL), and
lead 50 ug/1 (MCL).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-133
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
VERTAC, AR
First Remedial Action
September 27,1990
The Vertac site, a former herbicide and
pesticide manufacturing facility in Jacksonville,
Arkansas, is comprised of an on-site and off-site area.
Production of herbicides and pesticides, including
"Agent Orange," began in 1948 and resulted in
extensive on-site contamination. The off-site
contamination, the focus of this ROD, resulted from
improper discharge of wastewater generated during on-
site operations. Prior to 1960, untreated wastewater
was discharged directly into Rocky Branch Creek,
which flows into Bayou Metro a few miles south of the
site. Beginning in the 1960s, wastewater was
discharged to the city's Old Sewage Treatment Plant,
which had been upgraded with a pretreatment facility
that included an aerated lagoon and oxidation ponds
(West Wastewater Treatment Plant). A solvent
treatment process was later added to remove dioxin
from the product. This process, however, created
contaminated liquid and solid waste residues that were
drummed and buried or stored on site until 1987, when
pesticide production ceased. As part of an effort to
improve on-site disposal methods, a cooling water pond
and equalization basin were closed, and sediment was
removed and placed in an on-site sediment vault in
1986. The burial area was capped, a french drain and
a leachate collection system were installed, and ground-
water monitoring was initiated. Since 1986, EPA has
made various improvements to the on-site area and
ordered the site owners to remove some off-site soil
and install fencing in the Rocky Branch floodplain.
The state also has ordered remediation of off-site
contamination, including remediation of process
wastewater to Rocky Branch Creek. The primary
contaminant of concern affecting the soil, sediment,
and sludge is 2,3,7,8-tetra-chlordibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD).
The selected remedial action for this site
includes removing contaminated sediment from the ac-
tive sewage lines between the Vertac plant and the
West Wastewater Treatment Plant, with on-site
incineration of sediment, followed by on-site disposal
of residual ash; grouting abandoned sewer lines;
removing sludge from the sludge digester at the Old
Sewage Treatment Plant; incinerating the sludge on
site, followed by on-site disposal of residual ash;
capping the sludge drying beds with clean soil and
demolishing treatment units after removing and
treating the accumulated water at the Old Sewage
Treatment Plant, followed by on-site discharge of
treated water to Rocky Branch Creek; draining and
capping the aeration basin at the West Wastewater
Treatment Plant; removing soil and sediment with
TCDD levels greater than 1 ug/kg from Rocky Branch
Creek and Bayou Metro floodplains; incinerating the
contaminated soil and sediment on site, followed by
on-site disposal of residual ash; and continuing to
enforce a commercial fishing ban and a sport fishing
advisory. The estimated cost for this remedial action
is $14,000,000, including an annual O&M cost of
$57,000 for year 1 and $46,000 for years 2 to 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry has recommended a soil and sediment action
level for TCDD of 1 ug/kg for the off-site area, which
will result in the reduction of carcinogenic risk from
as high as 10"3 due to the sewer line sediment to 10"5
or 10"6, depending on the point of exposure.
Institutional Controls
Deed and land use restrictions will be
implemented at the West Wastewater Treatment
Plant and the Old Sewage Treatment Plant to
maintain the commercial/industrial zoning.
C-134
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
REGION 7
(Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska)
FAIRFIELD COAL GASIFICATION PLANT, IA
First Remedial Action - Final
September 21,1990
The 1.3-acre Fairfield Coal Gasification
Plant is a former coal gas generator plant in the
town of Fairfield, Jefferson County, Iowa. Since
1917, the site has been owned by the local power
company. From 1878 to 1950, gas was generated
from coal as an energy source using various
processes, each producing an array of by-products
that were either sold or disposed of on site. Since
1937, coal tar and ammonium liquor wastes have
been disposed of on site. In 1986, site
investigations by the power company found
evidence of surface contamination and
contamination in the underlying ground water as a
result of leaching from buried coal tar wastes. The
source of contamination was determined to be the
sediment and soil associated with a relief gas
holder, a gas holder pit area, and a tar separator.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil, sediment, and ground water are VOCs,
including benzene, toluene, and xylenes; other
organics, including PAHs; and metals, including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for the site
includes excavating 3,800 cubic yards of PAH-con-
taminated coal tar waste, soil, and sediment from
the source areas, and an additional undetermined
quantity of soil from these site areas after
separating and decontaminating larger items,
followed by off-site treatment using incineration;
pumping and treatment of an estimated 1,577,000
gallons of contaminated ground water using
filtration, polymer injection, and settling out of the
sludge wastes, followed by treatment of the
supernatant using carbon adsorption with off-site
discharge to a POTW or on-site use of the treated
water in a nutrient addition treatment process;
disposing of the settled sludge in accordance with
approved disposal methods; treating the coal gas
migration areas by enhanced bioremediation if a
pilot study proves successful; and implementing
institutional controls, including ground-water and
land use restrictions, and site access restrictions,
such as fencing. The estimated cost for this
remedial action is $5,815,000, including an
estimated O&M cost of $4,762,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground water will be treated to reduce the
level of contaminants to levels acceptable to the
state, including benzene 1 ugA (10* cancer risk
level), toluene 2,000 ug/1 (lifetime health advisory),
and xylenes 10,000 ug/1 (lifetime health advisory).
Ground water will be treated to best available
detection levels. If the ground-water remediation
levels can not be attained, alternate concentration
levels may be established or a chemical-specific
ARAR waiver may be invoked in an amended
ROD. Clean-up levels for soil are based on risk
assessment and include total PAHs 500 ug/kg,
carcinogenic PAHs 100 ug/kg, and benzene 241
ug/kg.
Institutional Controls
Ground-water and land use restrictions
will be implemented to prevent direct contact with
contaminants.
C-135
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
HASTINGS GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION, NE
(EAST INDUSTRIAL PARK)
First Remedial Action
September 28, 1990
The Hastings Groundwater Contamination
site is a contaminated aquifer in and near the City
of Hastings, Adams County, Nebraska. The site
consists of seven source areas, or subsites,
contaminated with industrial chemicals. This ROD
addresses contaminated surface soil (1 to 10 feet)
on approximately 14 acres of the 2,600-acre
Hastings East Industrial Park subsite. The subsite
is on a portion of the former Hastings Naval
Ammunition Depot (NAD). Investigations have
detected three major types of contaminants in on-
site soil, including explosives such as
trinitrotoluene (TNT), carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), and metals. The remedy is designed to
control the migration of contaminants from surface
soil to the underlying aquifer. One or more future
RODs for this subsite will address contaminated
ground water, and possibly vadose zone
remediation. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil are organics, including
PAHs; metals, including arsenic, chromium, and
lead; and TNT.
The selected remedial action for this
subsite includes excavating and treating
approximately 125,900 cubic yards of contaminated
soil. Treatment of the excavated soil will involve
on-site incineration of an estimated 16,400 cubic
yards of soil containing high levels of organic
contaminants (e.g., TNT exceeding 660 mg/kg,
PAHs exceeding 1.8 mg/kg); stabilizing
approximately 39,000 cubic yards of metal-
contaminated soil and placing the soil in an on-site
RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill; and
stabilizing approximately 70,500 cubic yards of soil
with low levels of organic and explosive contami-
nation (less than 10"4 excess cancer risk), if
effective, and placing the stabilized soil in the
constructed on-site landfill. If stabilizing the
low-level organic-contaminated soil is ineffective,
the soil will be placed directly in the landfill. If
soil is RCRA characteristic hazardous waste, it will
be treated to the appropriate RCRA best
demonstrated available technology treatment
standard or to the soil and debris variance levels
prior to placement in the landfill. The estimated
cost for this remedial action is $45,000,000,
including an estimated annual O&M cost of
$86,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil with concentrations exceeding TNT
660 mg/kg or PAHs 1.8 mg/kg (carcinogenic risk
exceeding 10"4) will be remediated by incineration.
Clean-up goals for the surface soil contaminants
include TNT 2.5 mg/kg (based on carcinogenic
risk), total PAHs 50 ug/kg (based on analytical
detection limits), arsenic 11 mg/kg (background
levels), chromium 230 mg/kg (noncarcinogenic
hazards), and lead 69 mg/kg (noncarcinogenic
hazards).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-136
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
HASTINGS GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION, NE
(FAR-MAR-CO)
Second Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The Hastings Groundwater Contamination
site (FAR-MAR-CO) is a contaminated aquifer in
and near the City of Hastings, Adams County,
Nebraska. The site consists of seven source areas,
or subsites, contaminated with volatile industrial
chemicals. This ROD addresses the Zone 2
portion of the FAR-MAR-CO subsite, which has
been divided into two general areas of
contamination referred to as Zone 1 and Zone 2.
Zone 1 includes grain elevators and areas to the
north of the elevators. It contains soil, soil-gas,
and ground water contaminated with ethylene
dibromide and carbon tetrachloride originaSting
from the disposal of liquid grain fumigants used in
grain elevator operations. Zone 1 contamination
was addressed in a 1988 ROD that documented the
selection of a remedy to construct a soil vapor
extraction system. Zone 2 includes the area south
of the grain elevators (between the elevators and
manufacturing and production buildings owned and
operated by the Hastings Irrigation Pipe Company
(HIPCO)). It contains soil contamination
primarily due to 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA)
resulting from the disposal of cleaning solvents
used in the manufacturing operations. In
December 1989, HIPCO performed a removal
action excavating contaminated soil in Zone 2.
Subsequent testing revealed that the concentration
of TCA in Zone 2 had been reduced to a
protective level. Response actions for ground-
water contamination near the FAR-MAR-CO
subsite, however, will be addressed in subsequent
remedial activities.
The selected remedial action for this site
is that no further action be taken at this time with
regard to the TCA soil contamination. Due to the
small amount of residual contamination remaining
in the soil and the significant depth to the water
table, the possibility of transport of TCA from this
source to ground water is minimal. Ground-water
monitoring will continue on a semi-annual basis
for 2 years. HIPCO will conduct the ground-water
monitoring and has agreed to reimburse the EPA
for all oversight costs. There are no additional
costs associated with this remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-137
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
LINDSAY MANUFACTURING, NE
First Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The 42-acre Lindsay Manufacturing site is
an irrigation sprinkler manufacturing facility in
Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska. The site is in a
topographic low created by Shell Creek, a
USDA-designated wetland. Part of the site also is
within a 100-year floodplain. A sand and gravel
aquifer underlies the site. Sprinkler manufacturing
operations began in 1958, and until 1982,10,000 to
15,000 gallons of spent acid from a galvanizing
process were piped monthly to an earthen unlined
disposal pit. After 1982, a wastewater treatment
facility was used. In addition, small quantities of
solvents and degreasers were burned in two burn
areas, or disposed of at the rear of the facility in a
disposal pit. Test wells for the 1982 treatment
facility construction showed acid contamination of
ground water. In 1984, Lindsay and the state
performed interim remedial measures to extract
and treat ground water using precipitation and
flocculation technologies. Investigations from 1987
to 1989 revealed soil and ground water
contamination by organics and metals throughout
the site. This ROD addresses both the
remediation of soil source areas and the
enhancement of the ground-water treatment
already underway as a result of the interim action.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and ground water are VOCs, including PCE;
and metals, including chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for the site
includes vacuum extraction of volatile organic com-
pounds from soil, followed by a carbon adsorption
filter system before vapor emission, with full-scale
implementation based on the results of a pilot
study; on-site pumping and treating ground water
using precipitation and flocculation, followed by
sedimentation of the flocculant, with on-site
discharge to surface water, and disposing of
dewatered solid residuals off site at a local landfill.
The estimated cost for this remedial action is
$3,006,600, including an annual O&M cost of
$636,000 for 5 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up levels are based on the more
stringent of either SDWA MCLs or state
regulations. These levels will reduce lifetime
cancer risks to between 10"4 and 10"6 for
carcinogenic compounds, and the hazard index to
less than 1 for non-carcinogens. Chemical-specific
ground-water clean-up goals include PCE 5 ug/1
(proposed MCL), chromium 0.05 mg/1 (MCL), and
lead 0.05 mg/1 (MCL). Specific clean-up levels for
soil were not provided.
Institutional Controls
Ground-water use restrictions will be
implemented to prohibit drinking water well
construction within the contaminant plume.
C-138
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
MIDWEST MANUFACTURING/NORTH FARM, IA
First Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 8-acre Midwest Manufacturing/North
Farm site is located on a manufacturing site owned
and operated by Smith-Jones, Inc. in Kellog, Iowa.
Land use in the area is primarily industrial. From
1973 to 1981, Smith-Jones engaged in
electroplating and painting operations of
manufactured products, which involved the use of
TCE to clean the product before it was coated with
the metal. In 1977, the state required treatment of
the wastewaters to precipitate metals. The solid
residuals were stored in an above-ground tank,
then transferred periodically to an unlined disposal
cell on site. Site inspections in the early 1980s by
EPA revealed elevated heavy metal concentrations
in the 170 cubic yard waste disposal cell, the
surrounding soil, as well as a 7,200-cubic foot
waste metals pile and a borrow pit area. Ground-
water sampling revealed contamination of the
alluvial aquifer underlying the site. This ROD
addresses both source-control and ground-water
remediation at the site. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil/waste and ground
water are VOCs, including PCE, TCE, toluene,
and xylenes; and metals, including chromium and
lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes installing a low permeability cap over the
waste disposal cell in accordance with RCRA
landfill closure requirements; treating ground water
using air stripping, and possible treatment of
vapor/air mixture using carbon adsorption, and
filtering water to remove inorganics, if needed;
discharging the treated water on site to the Skunk
River or off site to a POTW; implementing
institutional controls, including deed and ground-
water use restrictions; and ground-water
monitoring for 30 years. The estimated cost for
this remedial action is $288,419, including a total
O&M cost of $200,425 for 25 to 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water contamination at the site
will be reduced to meet Iowa Anti-Degradation
Requirements.
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water-use restrictions
will be implemented until remediation is
completed.
C-139
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
MISSOURI ELECTRIC WORKS, MO
First Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The 6.4-acre Missouri Electric Works
(MEW) site is an electrical equipment sales,
service, and remanufacturing operation in Cape
Girardeau, Missouri. Intermittent on-site runoff
channels flow into Cape LaCroix Creek located 0.7
miles east of the site, which enters the Mississippi
River, 1.1 miles to the southeast. A wetland area
is located 700 feet south of the site. Since 1953,
MEW has recycled materials from old electrical
equipment, including filtered transformer oil.
More than 16,000 transformers have been repaired
or scrapped, and approximately 28,000 gallons of
transformer oil received on site were never
recycled. The MEW property, as well as adjacent
properties, have been contaminated with PCBs as
the result of inadequate storage and handling of
transformers and PCB-contaminated transformer
oils. In addition, spills and disposal of industrial
spent solvents occurred on site, affecting ground
water underlying the site. In 1984, preliminary
state and EPA investigations found leaking drums
of transformer oil on site and PCS levels in soil of
up to 21,000 mg/kg. Based on this, in 1984, the
state required removal of approximately 5,000
gallons of drummed waste oil. EPA conducted
investigations from 1985 to 1987 that revealed on-
site PCB contamination in the soil at levels of up
to 58,000 mg/kg. Off-site migration of PCBs also
was detected during these investigations. In 1988,
the EPA required MEW to notify the public of site
contamination, limit exposure to employees and
the public, and minimize movement of
PCB-contaminated soil off site from runoff and
erosion. In 1989, barriers were installed across
runoff channels to intercept contaminated runoff.
This ROD addresses both contaminated soil and
sediment removal, and the treatment of affected
ground water. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, sediment, and ground
water are VOCs, including benzene, PCE, and
TCE; and organics, including PCBs.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating PCB-contaminated soil and
sediment and treating these by incineration on site;
placing exhaust gases through flue-gas coolers and
paniculate removal systems; removing acid gases
in-situ; backfilling with residual materials, based on
teachability test results; constructing a soil cover
over the site; pumping and treating ground water
with filtration and treatment via air stripping with
subsequent carbon adsorption; discharging the
treated water off site to a surface drainage ditch
between the site and the wetlands or to a POTW.
The estimated cost for this remedial action is
$9,130,000, including an estimated annual O&M
cost of $64,010 for 15 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Contaminant levels for soil and sediment
after treatment will represent an excess upper
bound lifetime cancer risk of 2 x 10"5. Clean-up
levels for ground water will be 10"5 and clean-up
levels will meet the TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup
Policy, state water quality standards and federal
MCLs for VOCs. Chemical-specific goals include
TCE 5 ug/1 (MCL) for ground water, PCB 10
mg/kg (TSCA) for soil to a depth of 4 feet,, and
PCB 100 mg/kg (TSCA) for soil below a 4-foot
depth.
Institutional Controls
Deed and/or land use restrictions will be
implemented to limit the site to industrial or
commercial use.
C-140
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
NORTHWESTERN STATES PORTLAND CEMENT, IA
First Remedial Action - Final
June 26, 1990
The Northwestern States Portland Cement
site, a cement manufacturing facility, is in Mason
City, Cerro Gordo County, Iowa. Calmus Creek
flows between the Northwestern States Portland
Cement Company (NWSPCC) facility and another
cement manufacturing plant facility located just
north of the site. The site includes a 150-acre area
named the West Quarry where NWSPCC disposed
of 2 million tons of waste cement kiln dust from
1969 to 1985. Local ground water and surface
water have been impacted by elevated pH levels as
a result of waste cement kiln dust disposal in the
West Quarry. Two seeps emerged from the
northeastern portion of the West Quarry in 1979
with high pH water from the seeps flowing
overland into Calmus Creek. In 1984, the state
found elevated pH levels in Calmus Creek
downstream of the seep area, and in 1985 ordered
NWSPCC to cease discharge from the seep area to
Calmus Creek and to cease kiln dust disposal in
the quarry. In 1987, NWSPCC installed an
acid-neutralization system to treat the seep water
and to dewater the West Quarry pond. The open
area of the quarry was filled with approximately
420 million gallons of water. This action has
significantly decreased the contact of the water
with the kiln dust and, as a result, pH levels in the
quarry water have declined. This ROD addresses
the contamination source, the cement kiln dust
disposed of in the West Quarry, and the resulting
ground-water and surface-water contamination.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
gtound water and surface water are organics,
including phenols; metals, including chromium and
lead; and other inorganics, including waste cement
kiln dust.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes continued acid neutralization of the water
from the dewatered West Quarry, followed by
discharge of the neutralized water to Calmus
Creek; construction of a permanent drainage
system in the dewatered West Quarry to collect
precipitation runoff and ground-water inflow to the
West Quarry, followed by on-site treatment of
contaminated water prior to discharge of the
treated water to Calmus Creek; installation of
bedrock dewatering wells to collect contaminated
ground water beneath the West Quarry, to prevent
migration of the contaminated ground water from
the site, and to maintain ground-water levels below
the kiln dust; installation of kiln dust dewatering
wells, if necessary, to facilitate kiln dust
dewatering; capping of the West Quarry area
containing cement kiln dust; and monitoring of
ground water and treated discharge. The estimated
cost for this remedial action is $2,037,129, with
estimated O&M costs of $210,000 for year 1 and
$65,000 for subsequent years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Discharges to Calmus Creek will meet
state effluent limitations, including pH 6.0 to 9.0
and phenols 0.05 mg/1. Treated ground water will
meet state ground-water action levels and SDWA
MCLs, including chromium 0.05 mg/1 (SDWA),
lead 0.05 mg/1 (SDWA), and pH 6.5 to 8.5
(SDWA).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-141
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SHENANDOAH STABLES, MO
Second Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The Shenandoah Stables site is located in
a rural area near Moscow Mils, Lincoln County,
Missouri, within the upper floodplain of Crooked
Creek. The property includes an enclosed arena
and horse stables building, a number of single
family residences, a livestock operation, and other
small businesses on approximately 5- to 10-acre
land parcels around the facility. In 1971, the area
inside the arena was sprayed with approximately
1,500 gallons of dioxin-contaminated waste oil for
dust control purposes. Subsequently, a number of
adverse effects were noted in horses, other animals,
and in humans. In two separate removals during
1971 and 1972, approximately 24 to 26 inches of
the contaminated materials were removed and
disposed of either off site or on site. EPA
investigations in 1982 identified dioxin levels
greater than 1,750 ug/kg at the facility, with
approximately 8,600 square yards of interior and
exterior site areas affected. A 1988 ROD
documented the remedial action, which involved
excavating and interim on-site storage of dioxin-
contaminated soil exceeding federal and state
health-based levels. This ROD addresses the final
remedy for the site, the removal of 3,471 cubic
yards of contaminated materials currently stored
on site in 2,660 separate containers. The primary
contaminant of concern affecting the soil and
debris is dioxin.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes transporting of 3,471 cubic yards of
contaminated materials off site to the Times Beach
Superfund site for thermal treatment, followed by
land disposal of treatment residuals off site; and
restoring the Shenandoah Stables site by
decontaminating and dismantling the on-site
storage buildings. The estimated cost for this
remedial action is $2,800,000. There are no O&M
costs associated with this remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
Thermal treatment will ensure 99.9999
percent destruction and removal of dioxin from the
contaminated soil and debris.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-142
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
WAVERLY GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION, NE
First Remedial Action • Final
September 26,1990
The Waverly Groundwater Contamination
site is in Waverly, Lancaster County, Nebraska. At
this municipally-owned site, the ground-water
aquifer provides 100 percent of the drinking water
for the community of approximately 2,000 people
through the municipal water system. Between
1952 and 1974, a federal grain facility, located on
a portion of the site, was the source of ground-
water contamination. From 1955 to 1965, the
fumigant 80/20, composed of 80 percent carbon
tetrachloride and 20 percent carbon disulfide, was
used on site on stored grain. Chloroform is a
by-product of carbon tetrachloride production and
also may have been present. In 1982,
contamination was detected in Public Water
Supply Well (PWS) Numbers 1 and 3. PWS 3 was
removed from service and four additional wells
were installed outside the known area of
contamination. In 1988, EPA began contaminant
treatment at the site by installing an air stripping
system, in conjunction with ground-water pumping
and treating and soil vapor extraction systems.
The contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs, including carbon
tetrachloride and chloroform.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes continued operation and maintenance of
the ground-water air stripping system and the soil
vapor extraction system; ground-water monitoring
to delineate the magnitude and extent of
contamination; evaluation of the construction of
PWS 3 to explain the contamination in this well;
sampling existing and new monitoring wells;
developing a ground-water flow and transport
model to determine the correct pumping rate for
the existing ground-water extraction well; and
investigating the potential uses for the treated
water discharged off site. The estimated cost of
this remedial action is $3,550,000, including an
annual O&M cost of $451,000 for 15 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil gas clean-up levels for VOCs will be
reduced to the performance criteria level of 6.5
ug/kg calculated for the site. Soil levels were
below the calculated clean-up levels of 1.1 mg/kg
and 1.7 mg/kg for carbon tetrachloride and
chloroform, respectively. The treated water
discharge will meet state NPDES permit levels of
5.0 ugA for carbon tetrachloride and 3.8 mg/1 for
chloroform. Ground-water clean-up levels will
meet state MCLs, including carbon tetrachloride
5.0 ugA (MCL) and chloroform below 3.8 ug/1
(MCL).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-143
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
WELDON SPRING QUARRY/PLANT/PITS (US DOE), MO
Second Remedial Action (Federal Facility)
September 28, 1990
The 226-acre Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/
Pits (US DOE) site is a former ordnance works
and chemical plant near the City of Weldon Spring
in St. Charles County, Missouri. The site is
divided into two noncontiguous areas: a 217-acre
chemical plant area, comprised of various
buildings, ponds, and four raffinate pits; and a
9-acre quarry, which forms a valley wall at the edge
of the Missouri River floodplain. Since the early
1940s, the site has been used by various
government agencies for chemical and ordnance
processing with chemical and radioactive waste
disposal in the quarry. From 1941 to 1946, the site
was an Army ordnance works used for the
production of trinitrotoluene (TNT) and
dinitrotoluene (DNT) explosives, and the quarry
was used to dispose of the chemical wastes. From
1955 to 1966 the Atomic Energy Commission, the
predecessor to the Department of Energy,
constructed and operated the chemical plant for
processing uranium and thorium. Types of wastes
disposed of on site included uranium and thorium
ore residues (drummed and uncontained),
radioactively contaminated building debris,
processing equipment, and residues of TNT and
DNT from cleanup of the former ordnance works.
Except for partially decontaminating buildings and
dismantling some equipment, the site has not been
used since 1967. In 1990, EPA released a remedial
investigation/feasibility study and proposed plan,
which documented five remedial actions for the
quarry. The first remedial action involves treating
contaminated surface water, fol-lowed by discharge
of treated water to the Missouri River. The
second remedial action, which is documented in
this ROD, addresses interim deposition of bulk
wastes in the quarry to minimize future ground-
water and air contamination and to facilitate
additional characterization of waste and residuals
in and around the quarry. Final decisions for
disposal of wastes will be made in a subsequent
ROD for the chemical plant. Future remedial
actions will address materials remaining in the
quarry walls and floor, ground-water
contamination, and contaminated properties
outside the quarry. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the quarry soil, sludge, and debris
are organics, including PCBs and PAHs;
radioactive materials; and metals, including arsenic
and lead.
The selected interim remedial action for
this site includes excavating an estimated 95,000
cubic yards of chemically and radioactively
contaminated bulk wastes from the quarry and
temporarily storing the wastes on site in the
chemical plant area; and implementing site access
restrictions. The estimated cost for this remedial
action is $11,000,000. There are no O&M costs
associated with this remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not provided.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-144
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
WHEELING DISPOSAL SERVICE, MO
First Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 200-acre Wheeling Disposal Service
site is an inactive industrial and sanitary landfill in
Amazonia, Missouri. On-site disposal features
include nine solid waste trenches, five liquid waste
trenches, two evaporation ponds, a farm chemical
area, three tannery waste areas, and a rinsed-
container area. Surrounding land use is mixed
residential and agricultural. From 1964 until the
landfill was closed in 1986, municipal and
industrial wastes, including tanning sludges,
pesticides, asbestos, laboratory wastes, construction
debris, paint sludges, battery and cyanide waste,
and crushed drums were disposed of in the various
on-site disposal units. EPA and the state
conducted on-site and off-site investigations from
1980 to 1987 that identified the presence of on-site
contamination with no evidence of contaminant
migration off site. The remedial
investigation/feasibility study conducted in 1989
and 1990 confirmed these results. This ROD
addresses both source control and management of
contaminant migration, and is a final remedy. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, ground water, and surface water are
VOCs, including TCE and toluene; other organics,
including pesticides; and metals, including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes upgrading the existing landfill cap with a
revegetated clay and soil cover; monitoring on-site
ground and surface water; abandoning on-site
wells; and implementing institutional controls,
including deed restrictions, and site access
restrictions, such as fencing. The estimated cost of
this remedial action is $1,205,800, including an
annual O&M cost of $42,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Performance criteria for ground water and
surface water will be developed, and may be based
on federal MCLs or ambient water quality criteria,
or state water quality standards. If contaminant
levels exceed these criteria, ground-water treatment
and/or leachate collection and treatment may be
required.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent agricultural use of the disposal area.
C-145
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT DUMP, IA
First Remedial Action - Final
September 28,1990
The 20-acre White Farm Equipment
Dump site is an active landfill near the north
border of Charles City in Floyd County, Iowa. The
site lies within the 100-year floodplain of the
Cedar River in the former location of a sand and
gravel quarry, and borders farmlands to the west,
north, and east with residential areas to the south.
Drainage from the site toward the northwest and
south feeds into adjacent wetland areas. The
Charles City municipal wells, located 700 feet east
of the site, obtain water from the deep, confined
Cedar Valley aquifer. Additionally, six shallow
drinking water wells that draw from an
uncontrolled water table are 1,000 feet
downgradient from the site. Intermittently since
1971, approximately 650,000 cubic yards of wet
scrubber sludges, foundry sands, baghouse dusts,
and other industrial wastes were disposed of on
site. In 1984, to assess the environmental impact
of this disposal, the state required the installation
of four ground-water monitoring wells. Site
assessments in 1985 and 1986 revealed ground-
water contamination and documented that elevated
metal levels were present in the shallow alluvial
aquifer in close proximity to the municipal wells.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs, including
benzene and toluene; and metals, including arsenic,
lead, and chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes regrading and covering the landfill with an
impermeable layer of topsoil and vegetation to
prevent contaminant infiltration, leaching, run-off,
and erosion; ground-water pumping and treating by
air stripping followed by on-site discharge of
treated water; controlling air emissions by carbon
adsorption with off-site disposal of residuals;
monitoring metal contaminant levels and adding a
metals treatment train as needed; ground-water
monitoring; and implementing site access
restrictions and institutional controls, including
deed restrictions. The estimated cost for this
remedial action is $2,352,121, including an annual
O&M cost of $89345 for years 1 to 5 and $35,865
for years 6 to 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
The concentration of benzene in ground
water will be reduced and maintained below 1 ug/1
(state standard).
Institutional Controls
Well installation and property use will be
limited by deed restrictions.
C-146
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
REGION 8
(Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming)
EAST HELENA, MT
First Remedial Action
November 22,1989
The 80-acre East Helena site, in East Helena,
Montana, is a primary lead smelting facility that has
been in operation since 1888. In 1927, the Anaconda
Company constructed a plant adjacent to the lead
smelter to recover zinc from the smelter's waste slag.
Asarco, the owner and operator of the smelter facility,
purchased the zinc plant in 1972 and operated the
plant until 1982. Prickly Pear Creek flows near the site
and contains elevated levels of arsenic and lead. Air
quality and soil investigations also revealed the
presence of contaminated soil in East Helena
residential areas, contaminated process ponds over
shallow ground water near the plant, and elevated
blood-lead levels in school children. A 1984 remedial
investigation identified elevated levels of metal
contamination in soil, livestock, plants, and ground and
surface waters with the sources of on-site
contamination being primary and fugitive emissions
and seepage from process ponds and process fluid
circuitry. The site has been segregated into five
operable units, consisting of the process ponds, the
ground water, the surface water, the slag pile, and the
ore storage areas. This ROD addresses four process
fluid ponds used for process water retention, including
the Lower Lake, the speiss granulating pond and pit,
the acid plant water treatment facility, and the former
Thornock Lake, now dry. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and sediment in the process
ponds are metals, including arsenic and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating and smelting 55,150 cubic yards of
soil and/or sediment from all four process ponds and
multi-media monitoring after individual remedial activ-
ities are implemented at three of the process pond
areas. Process pond remediation activities include
replacing the speiss granulating pond with a tank and
a secondary containment facility and replacing the pit
with a lined facility, replacing the settling system at
the acid plant water treatment facility with a closed
circuit filtration treatment system; in-situ
co-precipitation of the process wastes from the Lower
Lake, replacing the Lower Lake with two steel tanks
to contain process wastes, and constructing a lined
pond for emergency containment of storm runoff. If
pilot-scale testing of in-situ co-precipitation proves to
be impractical, a contingency plan will be
implemented that includes treatment of Thornock
Lake water at an on-site water treatment facility to
remove metals, followed by discharge to a POTW.
The estimated cost for this remedial action is
$9,644,500, including an annual O&M cost of
$611,200.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil and sediment will be excavated to a level
that will ensure that leachate will not exceed federal
drinking water standards. The prescribed standards
for Lower Lake process waters include arsenic 0.02
mg/1, which is lower than EPA's MCL of 0.05 mg/1,
and lead 0.05 mg/1, EPA's MCL. The state water
quality standards for arsenic and lead were waived on
the basis of technical impracticability.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-147
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
MARTIN MARIETTA, DENVER AEROSPACE, CO
First Remedial Action
September 24,1990
The 5,200-acre Martin Marietta, Denver
Aerospace site is in Waterton, Jefferson County,
Colorado. The site completely surrounds 464 acres of
contaminated Air Force property that is being
addressed as a separate Superfund site. Since 1950, the
Martin Marietta Aeronautics Group (MMAG) has
been conducting high technology engineering, design,
development, and manufacturing operations for the
space industry on site. Types of wastes generated
during on-site activities include oils, metals, organic
solvents, wastewater, chemical process sludges, and
VOCs. From 1959 to 1980, untreated, highly
concentrated waste from on-site activities was disposed
of in five on-site ponds, referred to as the Inactive Site
Ponds Area. An estimated 2,100 cubic yards of waste
and 24,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil are
contained in the Inactive Site Ponds Area. From 1957
to 1969, solid wastes and construction debris generated
at the site were disposed of in an 11-acre landfill
known as the Rifle Range Landfill. In addition, waste
was stored in underground storage tanks in an area
referred to as the Chemical Storage Area. Previous
site remediations by MMAG from 1969 to 1985 did not
address contaminant sources or migration, but included
backfilling and regrading of the Rifle Range Landfill;
consolidation of soil and wastes from two on-site
disposal ponds into one pond and covering of the
ponds with soil; and operation of a ground-water
recovery system. EPA investigations have identified
the Inactive Site Ponds and the Chemical Storage
areas, both located to the north of the main facility, as
the two major sources of on-site soil and ground-water
contamination. This ROD addresses remediation of
on-site contaminated soil, waste/debris, and ground
water. The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs, including
TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics, including
PCBs, pesticides, and phenols; and metals, including
chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site has
been divided into three separate areas: the Inactive Site
Ponds Area, the Chemical Storage Area, and the
ground water in the south central portion of the site.
Remediation of the Inactive Site Ponds Area includes
dewatering 1.3 million gallons of water from perched
water zones; excavating and incinerating off siteareas
2,100 cubic yards of organic waste/soil material from
in and around the ponds; thermally treating on site
24,000 cubic yards of organic-contaminated soil;
solidifying and stabilizing the remaining soil
contaminated with inorganics; backfilling
excavatedwith the treated soil, and covering the ponds
with a RCRA-multilayer cap. Remediation of the
Chemical Storage Area includes treating
VOC-contaminated soil using in-situ soil vapor
extraction, incinerating any residual organic-laden
sludge from the thermal extraction treatment system
at the ponds area along with any spent carbon from
the in-situ soil vapor extraction process.
Contaminated ground-water remediation includes on-
site pumping and treating using air stripping, carbon
adsorption, ion exchange, UV photolysis/oxidation,
chemical reduction, and precipitation, followed by on-
site discharge to surface water; and ground-water
monitoring. The estimated cost for this remedial
action is $58,240,000, including an annual O&M cost
of $1,231,500 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Both on-site and off-site ground water will be
treated to meet SDWA MCLs or MCLGs.
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up standards
include benzene 5 ug/1 (MCL), arsenic 50 ug/1 (MCL),
chromium 50 ug/l (MCL), lead 5 ug/1 (MCL), and
TCE 5 ug/l (MCL). Chemical-specific soil clean-up
levels are based on soil action levels and TCLP
treatment standards including toluene 28 mg/kg
(TCLP), PCS 1.0 mg/kg (TCLP), and TCE 0.09 mg/kg
(TCLP).
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-148
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
MONHCELLO MILL TAILINGS (US DOE), UT
First Remedial Action (Federal Facility)
August 22,1990
The 300-acre Monticello Mill Tailings site is
comprised of a 78-acre inactive uranium and vanadium
milling operation and affected peripheral properties in
Monticello, San Juan County, Utah. Surrounding land
use is rural, residential, and agricultural. The site
overlies a shallow alluvial aquifer, and part of the site
lies within the floodplain of Montezuma Creek.
Approximately 18-acres of wetlands adjacent to
Montezuma Creek also have been contaminated by
tailings. In 1940, the site was operated as a vanadium
ore-buying station. Milling of ore began in 1942, and
a vanadium/uranium sludge product was produced on
site from 1943 to 1944. On-site uranium milling
processes began in the mid-forties and continued until
1959. Mill tailings from these operations were
disposed of in four on-site tailings piles that are within
the floodplain of the Montezuma Creek. The mill was
permanently closed in 1960, and the tailings piles were
covered and vegetated. From 1964 to 1965, the entire
plant was dismantled and foundations were partially
buried on site along with contaminated material. On-
site and off-site soil contamination is the result of wind
and surface-water erosion of the contaminated tailings
piles with subsequent deposition elsewhere. In 1972,
15,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil were excavated
and disposed of on the on-site tailings piles. Site
investigations from 1989 to 1990 identified the
presence of on-site and off-site
radioactively-contaminated soil and ground water, and
elevated concentrations of metals within the tailings
piles. This ROD addresses remediation of two
operable units: the 78-acre Millsite area, and the
240-acres of peripheral properties. A subsequent ROD
will address remediation of ground water and surface
water once the source areas have been removed. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
debris are metals, including arsenic, chromium, and
lead; and radioactive materials, including radium266 and
radon.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes dewatering and excavating 1.5 million cubic
yards of tailings, contaminated soil, and process-related
material from the contaminated tailings piles;
consolidating these materials in an on-site repository
that will be built 1 mile south of the existing millsite;
diverting Montezuma Creek to allow for the
relocation of mill tailings and contaminated
floodplain soil, excavating 300,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil from the peripheral properties,
followed by eventual consolidation of the soil within
the repository; backfilling excavated areas with clean
fill; treating surface runoff and
construction/dewatering water collected during
construction using evaporation ponds, reverse
osmosis, or another technology and discharging the
treated water to Montezuma Creek; disposing of any
treatment residuals within the repository or at an off-
site facility; covering the repository with a clay and
multi-media cap; revegetating the millsite and
repository site; monitoring air, ground water and
surface water; and implementing institutional controls
and site access restrictions. The estimated cost for
this remedial action ranges from $64,787,500 to
$70,600,000 (based on the cost of engineering
controls), including an annual O&M cost of $40,846
for 24 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Federal standards for radium226 are 5 pCi/g
above background in the surface 15 centimeters of
soil, and 15 Pci/g above background level for
radium226 in the deeper 15 centimeters-thick layer.
Because the background level at the site is radium226
1.0 +. 0.4 Pci/g, excavation levels were set at 6 Pci/g
for surficial soil, and 16 Pci/g for soil greater than 15
centimeters deep. The federal standard of 20
Pci/m2/sec for radon emissions will also be met.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be implemented at
the site.
C-149
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
MYSTERY BRIDGE AT HIGHWAY 20, WY
First Remedial Action
September 24,1990
The Mystery Bridge at Highway 20 site is an
industrial area with two on-site residential subdivisions
in Natrona County, 1 mile east of Evansville, Wyoming.
A portion of the site lies within the 100- and 500-year
floodplains of the North Platte River and Elkhorn
Creek. Two plants are located at the site: the
DOW/DSI facility, an oil and gas production
enhancement service facility, and the KN plant, a
natural gas fractionation, compression, cleaning,
odorizing, and transmission plant. The site overlies a
contaminated alluvial aquifer that was previously used
as a source of potable water. Probable sources of on-
site ground-water contamination include contaminant
releases from a DOW/DSI truck wash water system,
which is comprised of an oil/water separator, a vitreous
tile drain, and a leach sump system; and an on-site
toluene storage area. In 1965, an underground pipe
burst, releasing 5,000 to 10,000 gallons of absorption
oil from the KN facility into the soil. From 1965 to
1987, a flare pit was used by KN to collect spent
materials and wastes, and an on-site catchment area
was used to collect the contaminated surface runoff and
steam condensate from a dehydration unit. From 1965
to 1987, several small contaminant releases occurred
near the flare pit and catchment area. In 1987, site
investigations revealed the presence of aromatic
hydrocarbons in the soil in this area. Additionally,
ground-water sampling revealed the presence of two
contaminated ground-water plumes originating from
the Dow/DSI the BETX plume and KN (VHO plume)
facilities, respectively. The BETX plume consists of
aromatic hydrocarbons, including toluene and xylenes,
while the VHO plume consists of volatile halogenated
organics and chlorinated organics. From 1988 to 1989,
both DOW/DSI and KN conducted removal actions,
which included remediation of approximately 440 cubic
yards of contaminated on-site soil using vapor
extraction; excavation and landfilling of contaminated
soil and removal of the separator, a waste oil tank, and
part of the vitreous tile drain at the Dow/DSI facility,
and ground-water treatment at the KN plant. This
ROD addresses remediation of the on-site ground-
water emanating from the Dow/DSI and KN facilities;
the VHO and BETX plumes, respectively. Further
cleanup of the remaining source areas will be
addressed in a subsequent ROD. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground water
are VOCs, including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene,
and xylenes.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes pumping and treatment of ground water in
the VHO plume followed by air stripping of ground
water in the more contaminated upgradient portion of
the plume, and natural attenuation in downgradient
portions of the plume; pumping and treatment of
ground-water in the BETX plume using air stripping;
reinjecting the treated ground water from both
plumes into the on-site alluvial aquifer; ground-water
and air monitoring; and implementing institutional
controls, including deed and ground-water use
restrictions. The estimated cost of this remedial
action is $601,739, including an annual O&M cost of
$122,914 for 6 years at the VHO plume, and $50,564
for 1 year at the BETX plume.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on Safe Water Drinking Act MCLs
and include benzene 5 ug/l (MCL), toluene 2000 ug/l
(proposed MCL), and xylenes 10,000 ug/l (proposed
MCL).
Institutional Controls
Ground-water use and deed restrictions will
be temporarily implemented at the site.
C-150
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
OGDEN DEFENSE DEPOT (OPERABLE UNIT 2), UT
First Remedial Action (Federal Facility)
September 27,1990
The 1,100-acre Ogden Defense Depot
(Operable Unit 2) site is an active military facility in
Ogden, Weber County, Utah. Land use in the
surrounding area is mixed residential and commercial.
The site overlies a shallow unconsolidated lacustrine
and alluvial aquifer, which is a potential source of
drinking water. In the past, both liquid and solid
wastes have been disposed of at the site. Oily liquid
materials and combustible solvents were burned in on-
site pits, and solid materials were buried on site. Six
different contaminated disposal areas have been
identified and divided into four operable units for
remediation. This ROD addresses operable unit two,
which is comprised of a french drain area, a building
used for pesticide storage, and a parade ground area.
From the early 1970s until 1985, the 8.5 by 20-foot
french drain area, which is comprised of a 2.5 to 4-foot
deep gravel-filled excavation, was used as a loading and
mixing area for pesticides and herbicides, and for
rinsing the empty containers. Rinsate from this activity
was allowed to percolate through the french drain
directly into the ground. The on-site storage building
was used to mix and store pesticides, herbicides, and
paint, although EPA has not detected any
contamination resulting from pesticide storage to date.
In addition, two on-site oil and solvent burning pits
were previously utilized on or near the on-site parade
ground area. Site investigations in 1979, 1981, and
from 1985 to 1986 determined that improper waste
disposal practices were used at the site, and that
ground water was contaminated by VOCs and
pesticides near the french drain area. Subsequent
investigations from 1988 to 1990 further characterized
the ground-water contamination, and also identified
on-site soil contamination, including high pesticide
levels in the french drain area. This ROD addresses
soil at the french drain area and on-site ground-water
contamination. Subsequent RODs will address the
remaining three operable units and will involve contin-
ued investigations and possible remediation of other
on-site areas and media, including buried wastes, a
mustard gas storage area, and the oil burning pit area.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and ground water are VOCs, including benzene,
PCE, and TCE; and other organics, including
pesticides and herbicides.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating approximately 40 cubic yards of
pesticide-contaminated soil from the french drain
area, followed by off-site incineration and disposal at
a hazardous waste treatment facility; backfilling the
excavated area with clean soil and revegetating the
area; pumping and treating approximately 28 million
gallons of contaminated ground water using air
stripping and liquid phase carbon adsorption (if
contaminants are not adequately removed in the air
stripping process); reinjecting or infiltrating treated
ground water on site; and ground-water monitoring.
The estimated cost of this remedial action is $676,000,
including an annual O&M cost of $75,000 to $103,000
for 5 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
The excavation level for soil has been set at
the lowest consistently detected concentration level,
including pesticides/herbicides (chlordane/bromacil) 1
mg/kg. Ground-water clean-up goals are federal
MCLs and include TCE 5 ug/l (MCL) and chlordane
2 ug/l (MCL).
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-151
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
PORTLAND CEMENT (KILN DUST #2 & #3), UT
First Remedial Action
July 19,1990
The 71-acre Portland Cement (Kiln Dust #2
& #3) site is in a primarily industrial/commercial area
of Salt Lake City, Utah, and consists of three separate,
but adjacent, properties known as Site 2, Site 3, and
the West Site. Between 1965 and 1983, the Portland
Cement Co., purchased by Lone Star Industries in
1979, deposited approximately 495,000 cubic yards of
waste cement kiln dust (CKD) on each of the three
properties comprising the site. Waste CKD consists
primarily of heavy metals and other inorganics and is
highly alkaline. Approximately 360 tons of
chromium-bearing refractory bricks were disposed of
with the waste CKD. Unlike Sites 2 and 3, the waste
CKD at the West Site is mixed with soil and debris
including demolition rubble, scrap iron, concrete slabs,
asphalt, and common and the chromium bearing
refractory kiln bricks. The waste CKD also has
produced a contaminant plume which is present in the
shallow ground water beneath the site and some
adjacent properties. This ROD is for the first operable
unit and addresses removal of the waste CKD and
temporary on-site storage of the chromium bricks. A
subsequent operable unit will address any remaining
soil and ground-water contamination and treatment
and disposal of the chromium bricks. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the waste CKD are
metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead, and
other inorganics.
The selected interim remedial action for this
site includes excavation and off-site disposal of 495,000
cubic yards of waste CKD at a noncommercial, indus-
trial landfill, which will be capped; removal of 360
tons of chromium-bearing refractory kiln bricks from
the waste CKD prior to off-site disposal of the waste
CKD, followed by temporary on-site storage; ground-
water monitoring; and implementation of institutional
controls, including well construction and deed
restrictions. The estimated cost for the remedial
action is $12,143,000, including an annual O&M cost
of $5,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Off-site disposal of waste CKD will eliminate
fugitive dust emissions from the site, thereby
contributing to compliance with federal and state air
quality standards. Final soil and ground-water clean-
up levels will be addressed in a subsequent operable
unit.
Institutional Controls
Temporary deed restrictions will be imposed,
prohibiting site development that could disturb waste
CKD and thereby cause fugitive dust emissions.
Restrictions will also be imposed to prohibit the
construction of ground-water drinking wells on or
adjacent to the site.
C-152
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
ROCKY FIATS PLANT (US DOE), CO
First Remedial Action (Federal Facility)
January 5,1990
The 6,550-acre Rocky Flats Plant (US DOE)
site is a federal facility that serves as a nuclear weapons
research development and production complex in
Jefferson County, Colorado. Surrounding land use is
primarily rural residential, although there are some
industrial properties nearby. The site overlies an
alluvial/colluvial aquifer, and a small wetlands area is
present within the facility boundaries. Since 1951, on-
site operations have included the manufacture of
nuclear weapons components from plutonium,
uranium, beryllium, and stainless steel. There are
twelve sites, designated as solid waste management
units, which comprise the 881 Hillside area. In 1987,
EPA identified VOC-contaminated ground water in the
881 Hillside area located in the southeast corner of the
site near a surface stream. Possible sources for this
contamination include chemical and oil waste pits, fuel
oil tanks, and an associated drum storage area, on-site
solvent/oil spills and leaks, and sanitary sewer overflow
discharge. This ROD addresses management of
migration and cleanup of ground water in the 881
Hillside area, and is an interim remedy. Final
remediation of this site will be addressed in a
subsequent ROD. The primary contaminants of con-
cern affecting the ground water are VOCs, including
PCE and TCE; metals, including chromium; and
radioactive materials.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes intercepting contaminated ground water in
the alluvial/colluvial aquifer using a french drain
system; treating the contaminated water in an on-site
treatment plant using filtration followed by UV
peroxide to remove organics, and ion exchange to
remove inorganics; storing the treated water
temporarily on site during effluent quality testing
prior to discharging the treated water to an on-site
interceptor ditch; and ground-water monitoring. The
estimated cost for this remedial action is $4,588,200,
including an annual O&M cost of $258,100 for 30
years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up standards will be the
more stringent of federal MCLs or MCLGs, or state
water quality standards. Chemical-specific goals
include PCE 5 ug/1 (state), TCE 5 ugA (state),
trivalent chromium 0.05 mg/1 (state), and chromium
0.05 mg/l (state).
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-153
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL (OPERABLE UNIT 16), CO
Second Remedial Action (Federal Facility)
February 26,1990
The Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA)
(Operable Unit 16) site is a former U.S. Army
chemical warfare and incendiary munitions
manufacturing and assembly plant in Adams County,
Colorado. From the 1950s until late 1969, the U.S.
Army used the RMA facility to produce the nerve
agent GB (isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate).
From 1947 to 1982, private industries leased major
portions of the plant facilities to manufacture various
insecticides and herbicides. Since 1970, facility
operations primarily have involved the destruction of
chemical warfare materials. Because final remediation
of the RMA site will take many years, 13 interim
remedial actions were determined necessary prior to
implementing the final on-post ROD. Operable unit
16 (M-l Settling Basins area) is one of several areas
being addressed as part of the "Other Contamination
Sources" interim remedial action. The M-l Settling
Basins area occupies 84,500 square feet and consists of
three unlined basins used to treat waste fluids from the
lewisite facility. The basins also may have received
lesser amounts of waste materials, including mercuric
chloride from alleged spills within several on-site
buildings. The basins have been backfilled and are
partly covered with soil or structures. Site
investigations by the Army revealed that the waste
material in the basins is a source of arsenic
contamination in ground water. This ROD addresses
interim remediation of source areas and management
of contaminant migration. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil, sludge, and ground water
are organics, including pesticides, and metals, including
arsenic.
The selected interim remedial action for this
operable unit includes sampling and relocating tanks
from the basin area; constructing a temporary
360-degree subsurface barrier, such as a slurry wall or
sheet pilings, around the basins; performing an in-situ
vitrification demonstration test; treating
approximately 2,600 cubic yards of soil and 6,400
cubic yards of sludge using in-situ vitrification
followed by carbon adsorption to treat off-gasses;
treating the recovered water driven from the sludge
during the vitrification process on site at the
CERCLA Wastewater Treatment System or by
another method to be determined during remedial
design; and conducting ground-water and air
monitoring. The vitrified soil will remain on site,
pending determination of a final remedial action in
the final on-post ROD. No costs were provided for
this remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
The treatment process will be constructed to
provide 99.99 percent destruction and removal of
organics. Treatment standards for effluent from the
off-gas control process and other liquids generated
through dewatering of the area are contained in the
ROD for the CERCLA Wastewater Treatment
System interim remedial action. Air emissions from
the vitrification process will comply with applicable
Clean Air Act emission standards.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-154
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEKFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL (OPERABLE UNIT 17), CO
Eighth Remedial Action (Federal Facility)
May 14, 1990
The Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA)
(Operable Unit 17) site is a former U.S. Army
chemical warfare and incendiary munitions
manufacturing and assembly plant in Adams County,
Colorado. From the 1950s until late 1969, the U.S.
Army used the RMA facility to produce the nerve a-
gent GB (isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate). In
addition, between 1947 and 1982, private industries
leased major portions of the plant to manufacture
various insecticides and herbicides. Since 1970, facility
operations have primarily involved the destruction of
chemical warfare materials. Because final remediation
of the RMA site will take many years, 13 interim
remedial actions were determined necessary prior to
implementing the final remedial action. Operable unit
17 (CERCLA Waste water Treatment System) is
among those interim remedial actions specified. This
ROD addresses the interim remedy to develop and
implement a program to treat contaminated
wastewaters resulting from the assessment and
implementation of response actions at the RMA site.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
wastewaters are VOCs, including benzene, PCE,
toluene, and TCE; other organics, including pesticides;
and metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected interim remedial action for this
operable unit includes constructing a centrally-located
wastewater treatment facility consisting of a sequence
of unit processes, including chemical
addition/precipitation, filtration, ultraviolet
light/chemical oxidation, activated carbon adsorption,
air stripping, and an activated alumina treatment
process; constructing decontamination pads at both
the treatment facility and satellite non-treatment
wastewater facilities; constructing five storage tanks
with 10,000 to 12,000 gallon capacities; and
incorporating off-site discharge of the treated effluent
to the sanitary sewer and off-site disposal of
treatment facility sludges and residuals. No costs
were provided for this remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ARARs,basedon Colorado
Basic Standards for Ground Water (CBSG) and state
MCLs, will be applied to the design of the treatment
system and include arsenic 50 ug/1 (MCL), benzene 5
ug/1 (MCL), chromium 50 ug/1 (MCL), lead 50 ug/1
(MCL), PCE 10 ugA (CBSG), toluene 2,420 ug/1
(CBSG), and TCE 5 ug/l (MCL).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-155
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL (OPERABLE UNIT 18), CO
Third Remedial Action (Federal Facility)
February 26, 1990
The 1,700 acre Rocky Mountain Arsenal
(RMA) (Operable Unit 18) site is a former U.S. Army
chemical warfare and incendiary munitions
manufacturing and assembly plant in Adams County,
Colorado. From the 1950s until late 1969, the U.S.
Army used the RMA facility to produce the nerve a-
gent GB (isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate). In
addition, between 1947 and 1982, private industries
leased major portions of the plant to manufacture
various insecticides and herbicides. Since 1970, facility
operations primarily have involved the destruction of
chemical warfare materials. Because final remediation
of the RMA site will take many years, 13 interim
remedial actions were determined necessary prior to
implementing the final on-post ROD. Operable unit
18 (Motor Pool Area) is one of several areas included
in the Other Contamination Sources interim remedial
action. The U.S. Army acquired the motor pool area
in 1942 and used it for storing diesel fuel, gasoline,
road oil, and flammable liquids in an above-ground
storage tank farm. In addition, during the early 1950s,
several buildings were used for pesticide and herbicide
storage, and later these buildings housed an
agricultural research and bioassay laboratory. The
Army continues to use the area to service equipment,
vehicles, and railroad cars. A diesel fuel spill and
other spills related to piping from underground tanks
have been recorded. In 1985, ground-water monitoring
identified TCE contamination near the motor pool
area and in downgradient water supply wells. Records
indicate that vehicle maintenance operations involved
discharging water and other liquids, and rust residues
through floor drains and pipes into unlined ditches.
This ROD addresses interim remediation of source
areas and management of migration. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and ground
water are VOCs, including benzene and TCE.
The selected interim remedial action for this
operable unit includes conducting a vapor extraction
pilot test; installing and operating an in-situ vapor
extraction system, followed by granular activated
carbon treatment of condensed water vapor with off-
site thermal carbon reactivation; capping the site with
a layer of asphalt to improve the efficiency of the
vapor extraction system; conducting air monitoring,
followed by possible stack treatment by a vapor phase
carbon filter or catalytic oxidizer; and ground-water
pumping, treating, and reinjection in conjunction with
the Rail Classification Yard interim remedial action.
No costs were provided for this remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
No chemical-specific goals were identified for
soil contaminants. Chemical-specific goals for
ground-water treatment that apply at the point of
injection are contained in the ROD for the Rail
Classification Yard interim remedial action and
include benzene 5 ug/1 (MCL).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-156
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL (OPERABLE UNIT 19), CO
Fourth Remedial Action (Federal Facility)
February 26,1990
The Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA)
(Operable Unit 19) site comprises part of the
17,000-acre RMA site, a former U.S. Army chemical
warfare and incendiary munitions manufacturing and
assembly plant in Adams County, Colorado. From the
1950s until late 1969, the U.S. Army used the RMA
facility to produce the nerve agent GB (isopropyl
methylphosphonofluoridate). In between 1947 and
1982, private industries leased major portions of the
plant to manufacture various insecticides and
herbicides. Since 1970, facility operations primarily
have involved the destruction of chemical warfare
materials. Because final remediation of the RMA site
will take many years to complete, 13 other
Contamination Sources interim remedial actions were
determined necessary prior to implementing the final
on-post ROD. Operable unit 19 (Rail Classification
Yard) is one of the areas included in the interim
remedial actions. In 1980, the pesticide
l,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) was detected in
the alluvial ground water near the Rail Classification
Yard of RMA. To prevent off-post migration of
DBCP in the ground water, the Irondale Control
System (ICS) was installed in the Rail Classification
yard in 1981. This system has been effective in
preventing off-post migration. It involves pumping and
treating contaminated ground water, followed by
reinjection. Site investigations by the Army indicate
DBCP contamination in unsaturated soil and sediment,
possibly from leaking rail cars, to be potential sources
of ground-water contamination. This ROD addresses
interim management of migration of the contaminated
ground-water plume. The primary contaminant of
concern affecting the ground water is DBCP.
The selected interim remedial action for this
site includes installing a ground-water
interception/containment system parallel to the
contaminant flowpath; increasing the treatment
capacity of the ICS and constructing pipelines to
convey extracted ground water to the ICS; ground-
water pumping and treating using carbon adsorption
at the ICS followed by reinjection; and conducting
ground-water monitoring. This interim remedial
action will be implemented jointly with the RMA
motor pool area interim remedial action. The
estimated cost of this interim remedial action is
$2,662,000, including an annual O&M cost of
$183,000 for 5 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
The chemical-specific goal for ground-water
treatment of DBCP is 0.2 ug/1 based on the proposed
MCL. Chemical-specific goals for other potential
contaminants are based on MCLs and Colorado Basic
Standards for Ground Water (CBSG) and include
benzene 5 ugA (MCL), toluene 2,420 ug/1 (CBSG),
and TCE 5 ug/1 (MCL).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-157
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL (OPERABLE UNIT 20), CO
Fifth Remedial Action (Federal Facility)
March 20,1990
The 17,000-acre Rocky Mountain Arsenal
(RMA) (Operable Unit 20) site is a former U.S. Army
chemical warfare and incendiary munitions
manufacturing and assembly plant in Adams County,
Colorado. From the 1950s until late 1969, the U.S.
Army used the RMA facility to produce the nerve
agent GB (isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate).
From 1947 to 1982, private industries leased major
portions of the plant to manufacture various
insecticides and herbicides. Since 1970, facility
operations primarily have involved the destruction of
chemical warfare materials. Because final remediation
of the RMA site will take many years, 13 interim
remedial actions were determined necessary prior to
implementing the final on-post ROD. Operable unit
20, the Lime Settling Basins area, is one of several
areas being addressed as part of the Other
Contaminated Sources interim remedial action. The
unlined Lime Settling Basins occupy approximately 5
acres and were used in the 1940s and 1950s to treat
chemical production wastewater, using a precipitation
process to remove metals and to accept wastewater
from pesticide production. The wastewater discharge
produced lime sludge contaminated with metals and
pesticides within the basins. Sludge also was removed
from the basins for drying in an adjacent area.
Investigations by the Army in 1987 and 1989 have
characterized the nature and extent of contamination
at the Lime Settling Basins Area. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sludge, and
ground water are organics, including pesticides; and
metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected interim remedial action for this
site includes consolidating 26,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sludge located adjacent to the basins
with 80,000 cubic yards of sludge located in the
basins, and containing the sludge and any excavated
contaminated soil with a vegetative soil cover;
hydraulically containing ground water with a slurry
wall or sheet pilings constructed around the perimeter
of the basin area; pumping ground water to maintain
an inward hydraulic gradient across the slurry wall;
treating ground water on site, either at the CERCLA
Wastewater Treatment System or at a separate on-site
treatment facility to remove organic and inorganic
contaminants; and ground-water monitoring. No cost
information was provided for this interim remedial
action.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ARARs for ground-water
treatment will be contained in the ROD for the
CERCLA Wastewater Treatment System interim
remedial action. No chemical-specific ARARs were
given for soil or sludge.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-158
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL (OPERABLE UNIT 22), CO
Sixth Remedial Action (Federal Facility)
May 3,1990
The 17,000-acre Rocky Mountain Arsenal
(RMA) (Operable Unit 22) site is a former U.S. Army
chemical warfare and incendiary munitions
manufacturing and assembly plant in Adams County,
Colorado. From the 1950s to late 1969, the U.S. Army
used the RMA facility to produce the nerve agent GB
(isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate). In addition,
from 1947 to 1982, private industries leased major
portions of the plant to manufacture various
insecticides and herbicides. Since 1970, U.S. Army
facility operations have primarily involved the
destruction of chemical warfare materials. Because
final remediation of the RMA site will take many years
to complete, 13 interim remedial actions were
determined necessary prior to implementing the final
on-post ROD. Operable unit 22, the Complex
Disposal Trenches, is one of several areas being
addressed as part of the Other Contaminated Sources
interim remedial action. These disposal trenches are
located in the 107-acre Site 36-17N in the center of the
RMA During the 1940s and 1950s, this area was the
primary disposal area for solid chemical waste,
contaminated tools and equipment, rejected
incendiaries, and empty munitions casings. This waste
was decontaminated, placed in on-site pits, and burned,
using fuel oil to ensure complete decontamination.
Salvageable materials such as metal were sold as scrap
after burning, and nonsalvageable materials were
buried in on-site pits. Investigations by RMA in 1988
and 1989 identified on-site contaminated soil and a
variety of buried waste, including scrap metal, concrete
rubble, wood, charcoal, drums of waste chemicals, and
glass vials containing unknown liquids. Ground water
under the site also was determined to be
contaminated. The main source area for the
contaminant plume, however, appears to be from
upgradient trenches located south of Site 36-17N.
Ground-water contaminant sources are the subject of
another ROD. The selected interim remedial action
is designed to prevent taking measures that may be
incompatible with final decisions. Therefore, this
ROD will not address the primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and ground water.
Remediation of contaminated media will be a
component of the final site remedy.
The selected interim remedial action for this
site is no further action with the installation of
ground-water wells for further site characterization;
and ground-water monitoring. A reevaluation
procedure will identify the need for any additional on-
site remedial actions. No costs were provided for this
interim remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-159
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL (OPERABLE UNIT 23), CO
Seventh Remedial Action (Federal Facility)
May 3,1990
The 17,000-acre Rocky Mountain Arsenal
(RMA) (Operable Unit 23) site is a former U.S. Army
chemical warfare and incendiary munitions
manufacturing and assembly plant in Adams County,
Colorado. From the 1950s to late 1969, the U.S. Army
used the RMA facility to produce the nerve agent GB
(isopropyl methylphosphonofiuoridate). From 1974 to
1982, private industries leased major portions of the
plant to manufacture various insecticides and
herbicides. Since 1970, the U.S. Army facility
operations primarily have involved the destruction of
chemical warfare materials. Because final remediation
of the RMA site will take many years, 13 interim
remedial actions were determined to be necessary prior
to implementing the final on-post ROD. Operable
unit 23, the Shell Section 36 Trenches, is one of several
areas being addressed as part of the Other
Contaminated Sources interim remedial action.
Approximately 31 trenches occupy an 8-acre area of
Section 36 in the central portion of the RMA From
1952 to 1965, liquid and solid waste, including bulk or
drummed process intermediates, off-specification
product, laboratory sample filters, and other debris
from the manufacture of pesticides, was disposed of in
the trenches. Investigations by the Army from 1987
through 1989 have identified ground-water
contamination in a surficial unconsolidated sand aqui-
fer underlying the site. A plume of dense
non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) also was
detected, and is believed to have originated from the
Shell Section 36 trenches. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil and ground water are
VOCs, and other organics, including pesticides.
The selected interim remedial action for this
operable unit includes constructing a subsurface
barrier around the perimeter of the site, such as a
grout curtain tied into an impermeable clay layer
located beneath the sand aquifer to effectively contain
ground water and DNAPLs; covering the trench area
with a vegetative soil cover to reduce precipitation
infiltration; and investigating further the DNAPL
plume, which is located downgradient of the trench
area. The estimated cost for this remedial action is
$1,500,000. O&M costs were not provided.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
C-160
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SAND CREEK INDUSTRIAL, CO
Second Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The Sand Creek Industrial site is a chemical
manufacturing facility in Commerce City, Adams
County, Colorado. Land use in the area surrounding
the site is primarily industrial and residential with 13
residents on site. Production wells north and
downgradient of the site supply drinking water to the
county. The Sand Creek Industrial site lies in the
vicinity of three other Superfund sites: Woodbury
Chemical, Chemical Sales, and Rocky Mountain
Arsenal. Beginning in the 1960s, the Colorado Organic
Chemical Company (COC) conducted pesticide
manufacturing operations on site. Disposal and on-site
storage areas include a landfill and acid pits. On-site
fires in 1968 and 1977, as well as improper pesticide
storage practices, resulted in pesticide-contaminated
soil, ground water, and surface water. In 1978, COC
removed some contaminated soil, and in 1984, COC
removed drummed wastes, excess product, additional
contaminated soil, and implemented site access
restrictions, including fencing. The site has been
divided into six operable units to facilitate remediation.
A 1989 ROD addressed operable unit one, which
included remediating some of the subsurface soil. This
second ROD addresses operable unit five, and includes
the final response action for the 14,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil present on site at the COC area.
Subsequent RODs will address the remaining
contamination, including the landfill, acid pits, and
ground water. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil are organics, including pesticides; and
metals, including arsenic and chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating approximately 14,000 cubic yards
of surface soil above the health-based action levels,
treating the soil on site using soil washing and
subsequently backfilling the treated soil on site;
grading and revegetating the site; incinerating off site
the soil washing wastewater; and ground-water
monitoring. The estimated cost for this selected
remedial action is $4,490,734, including an estimated
annual O&M cost of $20,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Remediation goals are based on health-based
action levels or RCRA treatability variance action
levels, whichever is more stringent. Health-based
action levels were established for soil based on a 10"6
cancer risk and include dieldrin 0.155 mg/kg and
heptachlor 0.553 mg/kg. Treatability variance action
levels were established for arsenic (90 to 99 percent
reduction), chromium 0.5 to 0.6 mg/1 (TCLP),
chlordane (90 to 99 percent reduction), 2,4-D (90 to
99 percent reduction), and 4,4-DDT 0.5 to 20 mg/1
(Total Waste Analysis).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-161
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SHARON STEEL (MIDVALE TAILINGS), UT
First Remedial Action
September 24,1990
The Sharon Steel (Midvale Tailings) site is a
former ore milling operation facility in Midvale, Utah.
Land use in the area is residential, urban, agricultural,
and commercial. On-site and off-site features include
a mill site, a tailings area, and an off-site residential
community that relies on drinking water supply wells
located within a 3-mile radius of the site. From 1906
to 1971, the facility was operated as a custom mill,
receiving ore from many sources, then concentrating
and extracting a variety of metals. Tailings from these
operations were deposited into on-site uncovered
tailings piles, which have an estimated volume of
14,000,000 cubic yards. Previous investigations by the
state in 1982 identified elevated levels of metals within
the tailings piles. It is estimated that over 242,000
cubic yards of soil in the residential community were
contaminated by wind-blown tailings from the on-site
pile at the mill site area. In addition, investigations
have identified that the shallow aquifer directly under
the mill site also is contaminated. This ROD addresses
remediation of off-site soil in the residential areas. A
future ROD will address contaminant source and
ground-water remediation. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil are metals, including
arsenic, cadmium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating 242,000 cubic yards of contamin-
ated soil with lead levels greater than 500 mg/kg and
arsenic levels greater than 70 mg/kg to a maximum
depth of 2 feet, followed by temporary disposal of the
soil on site for future treatment with the on-site
tailings; filling and revegetating excavated areas;
temporarily relocating residents as necessary; and
indoor cleaning if required. The estimated cost for
this remedial action is $22,650,000, including an
annual O&M cost of $72,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil contaminated with concentrations greater
then the action levels of lead 500 ug/kg and arsenic 70
mg/kg will be excavated and disposed of on site.
Institutional Controls
A building permit must be obtained for
future construction, including removal or replacement
of pavement or foundations. This requirement will be
imposed to reduce the level of contaminant exposure.
A "citizens repository" may be created to provide a
place for residents to dispose of soil during these
future activities.
C-162
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SILVER BOW CREEK, MT
First Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The Silver Bow Creek site is a mining and
processing area in the Upper Clark Fork River Basin,
Deer Lodge County, southwestern Montana. This
ROD documents the selected interim remedial action
for the Warm Springs Ponds operable unit, 1 of 11 for
the site. It covers approximately 2,500 acres just above
the beginning of the Clark Fork River. Several on-site
creeks (e.g., Warm Springs, Silver Bow, Mill, Willow)
and a stream bypass (Mill-Willow Bypass) serve as
principal headwaters to Clark Fork River. Three
settling ponds (i.e., Warm Springs Ponds), an area
between the northern most pond and the Clark Fork
River's beginning point, and a series of wildlife ponds
are located in close proximity to the streams.
Contamination at the site is the result of over 100
years of mining and process operations in the area.
Mining, milling, and smelting wastes were dumped
directly into Silver Bow Creek and transported
downstream to the Clark Fork River with final
deposition downstream as far as 130 miles. The three
settling ponds cover over 4 square miles and were built
to allow the wastes from mining, milling, and smelting
operations that were deposited in Silver Bow Creek to
settle out before discharge to the Clark Fork River.
An estimated 19 million cubic yards of tailings and
heavy metal-contaminated sediment and sludges have
collected in the ponds. An estimated 3 million cubic
yards of contaminated tailings remain upstream of the
ponds, along the banks of Silver Bow Creek. Principal
threats from the site include the possibility of pond
berm failure due to flood and earthquake damage that
could release millions of cubic yards of tailings and
sediment to the river. Furthermore, the creeks are
contaminated with dissolved metals, and exposed soil
and tailings are contaminated with elevated levels of
several metals. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, sediment, ground water, and surface
water are metals, including arsenic, cadmium, copper,
lead, and zinc.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes raising and strengthening all pond berms;
increasing the capacity of settling Pond 3 to receive
and treat (using metals precipitation) flows up to a
100-year flood level, and constructing new inlet and hy-
draulic structures to prevent debris from plugging the
settling Pond 3 inlet; upgrading the treatment
capability of Ponds 2 and 3 to treat all flows up to the
100-year peak discharge, and constructing spillways
for routing flood water into the bypass channel;
flooding (wet-closure) all dry portions of settling
Pond 2; reconstructing the Mill-Willow Bypass
channel, and removing all remaining tailings and
contaminated soil from the bypass, followed by
consolidating these with dry tailings and contaminated
soil within the dry portion of settling Pond 1 and
settling Pond 3, capping and revegetating the closure
areas; dewatering wet portions of settling Pond 1,
covering the area with a RCRA-type cap and
revegetating; constructing interception trenches to
collect contaminated ground water in and below
settling Pond 1, then pumping the water to settling
Pond 3 for treatment; establishing surface- and
ground-water quality monitoring systems; and
implementing institutional controls and site
restrictions. Decisions concerning remediation of
contaminated soil, tailings and ground water in the
area below settling Pond 1 will be made within 1 year,
pending evaluation of various wet- and dry-closure
alternatives and public review. Until these decisions
are made, soil clean-up levels can not be determined.
Three chemical- and location-specific ARARs
pertaining to water quality standards and potential
solid waste disposal requirements will be waived in
this remedy. The estimated cost for this remedial
action is $57,416,000, including an estimated annual
O&M cost of $379,000 for 5 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
All exposed tailings and contaminated soil in
the Mill-Willow Bypass have already been removed
and placed in the closure area behind the settling
Pond 3 berm. Final soil clean-up levels will be set
within 1 year of this ROD. Ground-water pumping
and discharge for treatment in the pond system will
comply with state standards, with the exception of
arsenic (0.02 mg/1) and lead (0.05 mg/1). State sur-
C-163
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFVND Fiscal Year 1990
face-water concentrations of arsenic and mercury Institutional Controls
require an ARAR waiver based on technical impractic-
ability and the fact that this is an interim remedy. The Restrictions will be enacted to prevent
replacement criteria are arsenic 0.02 mg/1 and mercury residential development, swimming, and human
0.0002 mg/1 at the beginning of the river. consumption of fish from the site.
C-164
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
WHITEWOOD CREEK, SD
First Remedial Action - Final
March 30,1990
The Whitewood Creek site is a mine tailings
deposit area near the town of Whitewood in Lawrence,
Mead, and Butte counties, South Dakota. Situated
along 18 miles of Whitewood Creek, the 2,018-acre site
consists of woodlands, farmland, and residential homes.
From 1877 to 1977, arsenic-rich tailings from gold and
ore mining and milling operations, conducted by the
Homestake Mining Company, were discharged directly
into Whitewood Creek. The tailings, which consist of
finely ground rock, residual metallic and non-metallic
compounds not extracted from the ore, and trace
compounds used during the extraction process, were
deposited downstream from the mine. The largest
tailings deposits at the site are found along the
floodplains of Whitewood Creek and the Belle Fouche
and Cheyenne Rivers. Since 1977, however, material
from the ore milling process has been treated prior to
backfilling residual material into the mine, and process
water also has been treated prior to discharge into
Whitewood Creek. The tailings are the major source
of contamination at the site affecting on-site residential
soil and continuing to leach metals to surface and
subsurface waters. A 1989 remedial investigation
revealed that some residential properties contain
arsenic levels that presented health risks. Residential
soil contains arsenic contamination as a result of a
building in the tailings area, windblown tailings, and
the use of arsenic-contaminated soil as a soil
conditioner and a driveway base. Approximately 12
residences are estimated to have arsenic-contaminated
soil exceeding 100 mg/kg. The total number of affected
residences, however, will be determined during the
remedial design phase. This ROD addresses the
arsenic-contaminated soil in the residential areas. The
primary contaminant of concern affecting the soil is
arsenic.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes removing and/or covering frequently used
areas with arsenic levels above 100 mg/kg with clean
surface soil (arsenic less than 20 mg/kg) and disposing
the arsenic-contaminated soil off site, if approved by
EPA, and revegetating the remediated area; soil
sampling at all remediated areas to confirm that
arsenic levels are below 100 mg/kg; implementing
institutional controls, including land and access
restrictions; conducting an annual education program
to inform site residents of the potential health
hazards associated with exposure to tailings, soil, and
downgradient ground water; refining knowledge of the
extent of the contamination and delineating the
100-year floodplain of Whitewood Creek; and surface-
water monitoring. EPA is invoking ARAR waivers
based on the technical impracticability of remediating
contaminated ground and surface waters. The
estimated cost for this remedial action is $882,813,
including an annual O&M cost of $12,000 for years 1
to 5 and $6,000 for years 6 to 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
Contaminated surface soil in frequently used
residential areas will be excavated if arsenic levels
exceed 100 mg/kg (based on 10"4 target risk level).
Institutional Controls
Land use and access restrictions will be
implemented. Ground-water well installation
restrictions have been already implemented and will
continue to be enforced.
C-165
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
REGION 9
(American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Nevada)
APPLIED MATERIALS, CA
First Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The 9-acre Applied Materials site is an active
equipment manufacturing facility in Santa Clara, Santa
Clara County, California. The site is located within the
San Tomas Aquino floodplain, and land use in the area
is primarily light industrial, commercial, and
residential. Shallow ground water at the site is a
potential drinking water source. On-site operations
include manufacturing vapor deposition equipment for
use by the semiconductor industry. In 1983, Applied
Materials discovered that several leaks and/or spills
from three on-site underground tanks near Building 1
had contaminated on-site soil and shallow ground
water with VOCs and other organics. In 1984 and
1985, as part of interim on-site clean-up activities,
Applied Materials excavated and removed underground
tanks, piping, and more than 60 cubic yards of
contaminated soil, and installed an air stripping unit on
site to treat VOC-contaminated ground water. This
ROD provides a final remedy for contaminated on-site
ground water at the Building 1 area. Remediation of
on-site contaminated soil will be addressed in a
subsequent ROD. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs,
including PCE, TCE, and 1,1,1-TCA
The selected remedial action for this site
includes on-site pumping and treating of contaminated
ground water using an existing air stripping unit,
followed by on-site discharge of the treated water to
surface water; ground-water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls, including deed
restrictions. The estimated cost for this remedial
action is $715,000. No O&M costs were provided for
this remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up levels will meet state
and federal drinking water MCLs and include PCE
0.005 ug/1 (MCL), TCE 0.005 ug/1 (MCL), and
1,1,1-TCA 0.0032 ug/1 (MCL). It is estimated that the
time needed to restore ground water to beneficial use
will be 50 years.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
limit site activities and ground-water use until safe
drinking water levels are achieved.
C-166
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
COALINGA ASBESTOS MINE, CA
Second Remedial Action - Final
September 21,1990
The 557-acre Coalinga Asbestos Mine site, a
former asbestos processing area and chromite mine,
comprises part of the Johns Manville Coalinga
Asbestos Mill site in western Fresno County,
California. This rural mountainous area is used
primarily for recreational purposes. From 1962 to
1974, asbestos ore from several local mines was
processed and sorted on site, and the resulting asbestos
mill tailings were periodically bulldozed into an
intermittent stream channel. Subsequently, from 1975
to 1977, a chromite milling operation was conducted
on site. Tailings often were washed downstream during
periods of stream flow, and the resuspension of
asbestos fibers from the tailings into the air produced
a significant inhalation hazard. As a result of these
activities, approximately 450,000 cubic yards of mill
tailings and asbestos ore remain on site within a large
tailing pile. Other site features include an asbestos ore
storage/loading area, an abandoned mill building, an
inactive chromite mine, filled-in chromite settling
ponds, and debris. In 1980 and 1987, state
investigations indicated that the site was contributing
a significant amount of asbestos to the surface water.
This site will be remediated as two operable units.
This ROD addresses the remedial action for operable
unit two, the Johns Manville Coalinga Asbestos Mill
Area. The primary contaminant of concern affecting
the surface water is asbestos.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes consolidating contaminated soil and asbestos
ores within the tailing pile; grading and revegetating
the tailing pile to reduce erosion and increase
stability; diverting surface water away from the tailing
pile; improving an existing sediment trapping dam by
constructing a concrete spillway; dismantling the mill
building; paving the mill access road; and
implementing engineering controls, institutional
controls, including deed restrictions, and site access
restrictions, such as fencing. The estimated cost for
this remedial action is $1,947,000, including a total
O&M cost of $815,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
A specific clean-up level for asbestos was not
determined due to uncertainties in sampling
parameters; however, the selected remedial action will
reduce the excess lifetime cancer risk to the level of
104 to 10-6.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented at the
site.
C-167
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
INTEL (SANTA CLARA IH), CA
First Remedial Action - Final
September 20,1990
The Intel (Santa Clara III) site includes a plant
that performs quality control testing of chemicals and
electrical testing of semiconductors in Santa Clara,
Santa Clara County, California. The site is in a
predominantly industrial area, and overlies a major
regional source of ground water, the Santa Clara Valley
ground-water basin. In 1982, the state conducted a
leak detection program that identified VOC
contamination in an on-site shallow aquifer. Possible
sources for the contamination may include the
accidental dumping of solvents into an acid
neutralization tank, accidental spills near an above-
ground solvent storage facility, and cleaning of
solvent-contaminated pipes during plant construction.
It has been determined that no on-site source is
presently contributing to ground-water contamination.
Since 1985, Intel has been pumping and treating
ground water using granular activated carbon as an
initial remedial measure. This ROD addresses a final
solution for restoring ground water to its beneficial
use. The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the ground water are VOCs, including TCE.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes installing an additional extraction well on site;
continuing to pump and treat ground water using an
existing granular activated carbon adsorption system,
with regeneration of carbon filters off site; discharging
treated water to on-site surface water; conducting a
treatability study to evaluate the effectiveness of
pulsed pumping techniques that enhance the removal
of contaminants adsorbed to soil and allow for aquifer
equilibration; ground-water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls, including deed
restrictions to limit ground-water use. The estimated
cost for this remedial action is $594,400. O&M costs
were not provided.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up goals will reduce the
excess lifetime cancer risk for carcinogens from 10"4
to 10"*, and will reduce the hazard index for
non-carcinogens to a value of 1 or less.
Chemical-specific goals include TCE 5 ug/1 (state
MCL).
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented until safe drinking water levels are
achieved.
C-168
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
INTERSIL, CA
First Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 12-acre Intersil site contains two industrial
properties, Intersil, Inc. and Siemens Components, Inc.,
in Cupertino, California. Since 1978, Siemens has
manufactured semiconductor products for
optoelectronic applications at the site. Former
underground waste-handling facilities, which have been
removed, included five unvaulted waste solvent tanks
and an unvaulted acid dilution basin. Solvents
currently are stored above ground and wastewater is
treated in an acid neutralization system. From 1967 to
1988, Intersil operated as a semiconductor assembly
facility. Two vaulted and one unvaulted underground
acid neutralization systems, now excavated, were used
in the operation. Both facilities used various organic
solvents and commercial mixtures. Contamination, a
result of releases from the underground waste handling
facilities at both plants, has been detected in soil and
ground water beneath the site. A contaminant plume
affecting off-site ground water also has been detected.
In 1983, Siemens began on-site soil vapor extraction
and, in 1986, began pumping and treating on-site
ground water. Intersil began on-site ground-water
treatment and soil vapor extraction in 1987. This
ROD outlines the final remedy addressing on-site
source areas, and on-site and off-site contaminated
ground water. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs,
including PCE, TCE, and toluene; and other organics,
including phenols.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes enhancement and/or expansion of on-site and
off-site ground-water pumping and treating systems
that use air stripping, and the soil vapor extraction
systems that use carbon adsorption at the Siemens
and Intersil facilities; excavating 40 cubic yards of soil
contaminated with greater than 10 mg/kg semi-volatile
organics at the Siemens facility, followed by off-site
disposal; pumping and treating off-site ground water
using air stripping; discharging all treated ground
water to on-site surface water; and monitoring soil
vapor and ground water. The estimated cost for this
remedial action is $18,750,000. O&M costs were not
provided.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up standards werechosen
as the more stringent of federal or state MCLs, or
state recommended drinking water action levels
(RDWALs). Chemical-specific goals include PCE 5
ug/1 (state MCL), TCE 5 ug/1 (state MCL), and
toluene 100 ug/1 (RDWAL). Soil clean-up goals have
been set at 1 mg/kg total VOCs for vapor extraction,
and 10 mg/kg total semi-volatile organics (including
phenols) for soil excavation and off-site disposal.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-169
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
J.H. BAXTER, CA
First Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The J.H. Baxter site, in Weed, Siskiyou
County, north-central California, consists of the 33-acre
J.H. Baxter facility and the adjacent 870-acre Roseburg
Forest Products facility. These properties continue to
be used for wood treatment operations and lumber
product manufacturing. The site is surrounded by
pasture and woodland areas with residential areas to
the north and west. Man-made and natural wetlands
exist within the site boundaries, and Beaughton Creek
runs through the eastern portion of the site. Since
1937, wood treatment operations at the site have
involved a variety of chemicals including ammonical
copper-zinc-arsenate, creosote, and PCP. Numerous
waste products have been generated, including tank and
retort sludges, process water, storage area drippings,
and spilled raw preservative compounds. Prior to 1983,
when the state ordered the J.H. Baxter facility to cease
all waste disposal practices, on-site waste management
involved on-site disposal and discharge, spray irrigation
of wastewater on site, storage in tanks and ponds, and
discharge of wastewater into the bermed area around
a 500,000 gallon tank, once used for creosote storage
and currently used for process water storage. These
disposal practices and leakage from storage tanks led
to soil and sediment contamination. Water that was
collected by the lumber operations drainage system was
discharged to Beaughton Creek until 1987 when a
carbon adsorption system was installed to treat the
extracted ground water. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, sediment, ground water, and
surface water are organics, including PAHs and dioxins;
and metals, including arsenic.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavation of 41,000 cubic yards of contami-
nated soil, followed by biological treatment for soil
with organic contaminants, chemical fixation for soil
with inorganic contaminants, biological treatment and
chemical fixation for soil with both inorganic and
organic contaminants, and on-site disposal of treated
soil in lined cells; leachate collection and treatment;
ground-water pumping, followed by biological
treatment, chemical precipitation, and polishing, prior
to on-site discharge of treated ground water;
implementation of institutional controls; and long-
term ground-water, surface-water, and air monitoring.
All sediment in the site drainage system with
detectable levels of wood treatment chemicals will be
excavated and treated with stabilized soil. No remedy
for the Beaughton Creek sediment is proposed unless
additional data indicate the need for further action.
Surface-water contamination will be controlled
through soil remedial actions that will reduce contact
between the contaminated soil and surface water.
The estimated cost for this remedial action is
$37,829,100, including an annual O&M cost of
$1,207,600 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific clean-up goals for soil
remediation include arsenic 8 mg/kg (background),
carcinogenic PAHs 0.5 mg/kg (10* risk level and
detection limit), and dioxin 1 ug/kg (detection limit).
Chemical-specific goals for ground-water remediation
are based on MCLs or non-zero MCLGs, state MCLs,
the 10"5 to 10"6 risk range, or whichever is more
restrictive, and include arsenic 5 ug/1 (10~5 to 10"6 risk
range), PAHs 5 ug/1 (detection limit), and dioxin
0.000025 ug/kg (103 to 10'6 risk range).
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be required for all areas
where treated waste has been deposited.
C-170
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC, CA
First Remedial Action
September 28,1990
The Louisiana-Pacific site is an active wood
processing plant and landfill in Oroville, Butte County,
California. The plant and landfill are 0.5 mile apart,
separated by another Superfund site, the Koppers
Company site. The plant lies within the Feather River
floodplain. The river is located 0.5 mile west of the
site. Area land use is agricultural, residential,
commercial, and industrial. The plant rests on mine
tailings created by dredge mining activities conducted
from 1900 until 1969. Since 1970, plant activities have
included log storage, lumber production, and hardboard
manufacturing. Wood wastes have been disposed of on
site at the landfill. Possible sources of contamination
at the site include discharge of wastewater and plant
process wastes from the site, and contaminants
migrating from the adjacent Koppers site. Between
1970 and 1984, a fungicide spray containing
pentachlorophenol (PCP) was used on site to prevent
fungal discoloration of cut lumber. In 1973, state
investigations discovered PCP and various other
contaminants in downgradient ground water and
surface water, and in sawdust and wood waste at the
plant and landfill. This ROD documents an interim
remedy and the need to collect additional data on
arsenic and formaldehyde levels on and near the site.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil
and ground water are VOCs, including toluene;
organics, including formaldehyde; and metals, including
arsenic, lead, and zinc.
The selected interim remedial action for this
site includes on-site ground-water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls, including deed
and well permit restrictions, and site access
restrictions, such as fencing. The estimated cost of
this remedial action is $193,000. There are no
significant O&M costs associated with this remedial
action.
Performance Standards or Goals
EPA has determined that before final
remedial action goals for the site can be set,
additional information is necessary to determine
background arsenic levels in soil, and formaldehyde
and arsenic levels in ground water. Therefore, no
chemical-specific goals are provided for this remedial
action.
Institutional Controls
Deed and well permit restrictions will be
implemented to eliminate exposure to on-site
contaminants.
C-171
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
OPERATING INDUSTRIES, INC., LANDFILL, CA
Third Remedial Action - (Amendment)
September 28,1990
The 190-acre Operating Industries, Inc.,
Landfill site is an inactive municipal landfill in
Monteray Park, California. Surrounding land use is
primarily industrial, however, 53,000 residences are
located within 3 miles of the site. On-site disposal
activities began in 1948, and continued until 1984.
Wastes accepted at the landfill included household and
organic refuse, scrap metal, non-decomposable inert
solids, and liquid wastes. The landfill was capped with
a soil cover after operations ceased. Two 1987 RODs
addressed site control, monitoring, and leachate
management. A third ROD, signed in 1988, addressed
landfill gas migration control and documented the
implementation of an active landfill gas collection and
treatment system. Since that time, continued settling
of on-site landfill wastes and the occurrence of
subsurface fires have decreased the integrity of the
existing landfill cap. As a result, oxygen and
precipitation have intruded landfill wastes. This ROD
amends the original 1988 landfill gas migration control
ROD to include an upgraded landfill cap. A final
comprehensive site remedy will be addressed in a
subsequent ROD. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the air are VOCs, including benzene,
PCE, TCE, and toluene.
The amended selected remedial action
includes capping the landfill to reduce surface gas
emissions, to prevent oxygen intrusion and surface
water infiltration, and to provide for erosion control;
installing landfill gas extraction wells around the
perimeter and on the top of the cap; collecting and
treating landfill gas by incineration; and dewatering
saturated landfill zones. The estimated cost for this
amended remedial action ranges from $125,300,000 to
$181,300,000 (based on the range of costs for the gas
control system and landfill cover), including an annual
O&M cost of $3,700,000 to $4,100,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
A destruction and removal efficiency of 99.99
percent for each organic landfill gas component will
be achieved in accordance with RCRA requirements.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-172
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SOLVENT SERVICE, CA
First Remedial Action - Final
September 27,1990
The 3-acre Solvent Sendee (SSI) site is an
active treatment, storage, and disposal facility in San
Jose, California. Land use in the vicinity of the site is
industrial and commercial. Since 1983, SSI has been
operated as a treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
Mixed and segregated solvents have been recycled by a
variety of methods, including distillation, separation,
and blending. Approximately 99 percent of the
recoverable solvents are recycled and then reused and
consumed by industry. After VOCs were detected in
the ground water, the California Water Quality Control
Board adopted Waste Discharge Requirements,
requiring further site investigations and
implementation of interim remedial measures. In 1988,
and then again in 1989, the Board adopted Revised
Waste Disposal Requirements, requiring completion of
the pollution investigation, final installation of soil
clean-up measures, and submittal of an RI/FS and
RAP. Interim remedial actions conducted during the
1980s included the removal of underground storage
tanks; paving storage, unloading, and spill containment
areas; placing berms in the treatment and storage
areas; and changing operational procedures to
minimize the risk of additional contamination. SSI
currently is operating a containment/extraction system
for the ground-water plume. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and ground
water are VOCs, including benzene, PCE, TCE,
toluene, and xylenes.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes capping the entire site with asphalt;
operating a steam injection and vacuum extraction
system for the removal of VOCs from soil; extracting
ground water via three excavation trenches and five
ground-water extraction wells, and treating the ground
water using bio-treatment, carbon adsorption, and air
stripping; soil and ground-water monitoring; and
implementing deed restrictions. The estimated cost
for this remedial action is $948,000 with an annual
O&M cost of $1,172,000.
Performance Standards or Goals A soil
remediation goal of 1 ppm total VOCs has been set
to protect the ground water from future VOC
leaching. Inorganic soil clean-up goals have not been
established due to uncertainty surrounding the natural
occurrence of metals in soil in the South Bay area.
Ground-water remediation goals include benzene 1
ug/1 (state MCL), PCE 5 ug/1 (state MCL), TCE 5
ug/1 (state MCL), toluene 1,000 ug/1 (federal MCL),
and xylenes 1,750 ugA (state MCL).
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
control residential development of the property until
clean-up standards for soil and ground water are
achieved.
C-173
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
STRINGFELLOW, CA
Fourth Remedial Action
September 30,1990
The Stringfellow site is an inactive hazardous
waste disposal facility in Riverside County, California,
approximately 50 miles east of Los Angeles. The site
is divided into four zones: the on-site/upper mid-
canyon area, which includes a 17-acre, inactive
industrial disposal area in the southern portion of the
Jurupa Mountains (Zone 1); the mid-canyon area
(Zone 2); the lower canyon area (Zone 3); and the
community of Glen Avon (Zone 4). From 1956 to
1972, approximately 34 million gallons of industrial
waste from metal finishing, electroplating, and DDT
production activities were disposed of in unlined
evaporation ponds located throughout Zone 1. Some
of the wastes from these ponds migrated into the
ground-water system and were transported 2 miles
downgradient (under Zones 2 and 3) to form a ground-
water plume beneath the Glen Avon community (Zone
4). Between 1975 and 1980, the state removed
approximately 6.5 million gallons of unspecified liquid
waste and DDT-contaminated material from the site.
In 1980, EPA removed approximately 10 million
gallons of contaminated water, reinforced containment
barriers, and improved a truck loading area. Further
removal actions included installing french drain system
fences; removing all remaining surface liquids; partially
neutralizing and capping the wastes; installing
monitoring wells, surface channels, and a gravel drain
network; and constructing a surface barrier and
leachate collection system downgradient from the
original evaporation ponds. In 1983, the first ROD
provided an interim remedial measure, addressed
additional fencing of the site, and implemented erosion
control and off-site disposal of the extracted leachate.
In 1984, a second ROD addressed construction of an
on-site pretreatment plant for contaminated ground
water; and in 1987, a third ROD specified installation
of a ground water extraction system in the lower can-
yon area (Zone 3), as well as surface channels to
direct surface-water runoff. This fourth ROD
addresses the contaminated ground water in Zone 1
(an interim measure) and in Zone 4, and proposes
treatability studies to remediate the source material in
Zone 1. A future ROD will specify the source
treatment methods as well as a remedy for any
remaining ground-water contamination in Zone 1.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
ground water include VOCs such as TCE.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes dewatering the bedrock in the original
disposal area (Zone 1), treating the ground water at
the existing pretreatment plant, and discharging off
site to a POTW facility; pumping and treating ground
water in Zone 4 using air stripping or granular
activated carbon and reverse osmosis, followed by on-
site reinjection or disposal in an industrial sewer;
conducting field tests on reinjection of treated ground
water into Zones 2 and 3; and performing treatability
tests on soil vapor extraction at Zone 1. The
estimated cost of this remedial action is $115,000,000,
including unspecified O&M costs.
Performance Standards or Goals
No remediation goals have been determined
in this ROD for Zone 1 ground-water contamination,
because this is an interim measure. Chemical-specific
goals for ground water in Zone 4 include TCE 5.0
ug/1 (SDWA MCLs).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-174
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
WATKINS-JOHNSON (STEWART DIVISION), CA
First Remedial Action - Final
June 29,1990
The Watkins-Johnson site is an active research
and development, manufacturing, and industrial
complex in Santa Cruz County, 5 miles north of Santa
Cruz, California. The Watkins-Johnson Company has
owned and operated the complex since 1963,
conducting such activities as: metal machining,
degreasing, metal plating, and photo laboratory
activities. During these activities, a variety of organics,
inorganics, and metals were used. In 1984, regional
authorities found TCE and TCA in the Watkins-
Johnson wastewater disposal system. Further
investigations revealed soil contamination at the site
and ground-water contamination in the Santa
Margarita aquifer underlying the site. The aquifer has
been designated a sole-source aquifer used for drinking
water, and is comprised of a perched zone and a
regional zone. The aquifer is easily accessible for
drinking water supplies and for contamination from the
ground surface. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs,
including PCE and TCE; and metals, including silver.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes soil vapor (vacuum) extraction, with
pretreatment of extracted vapors using granular
activated carbon (GAC) prior to ambient discharge;
capping and grading contaminated soil areas to
minimize the potential for mobilization of soil
contaminants to the ground water; installing infiltration
leachfields to prevent off-site migration of ground-
water contaminants in the perched zone; installing
gravity drains to transfer the contaminated
ground water from the perched zone to the regional
aquifer zone for subsequent extraction; ground-water
pumping and on-site treatment to remove
contamination from both the perched and regional
zones using GAC adsorption with off-site
regeneration of spent carbon; discharging the treated
water on site for industrial and consumptive use and
to recharge the perched zone, or off site to surface
water; and ground-water monitoring. The estimated
cost for this remedial action is $2,156,243, including
an estimated annual O&M cost of $167,820.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water treatment standards for both
the perched and regional zones were based on
chemical-specific SDWA MCLGs or the more
stringent of SDWA MCLs or MCLGs and state
MCLs, thereby achieving a residual risk of W4 to
10"6. Chemical-specific goals for ground water
include PCE 0.005 mg/l (PMCL) and TCE 0.005 mg/1
(MCL). Soil remediation will ensure that soil no
longer poses a threat to the ground water; however,
no chemical-specific goals have been set for the soil.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be developed and
implemented during the remedial design/remedial
action.
C-175
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
REGION 10
(Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington)
FMC YAKIMA PIT, WA
First Remedial Action
September 14,1990
The FMC Yakima Pit site is a former pesticide
formulation facility in central Yakima County,
Washington. The site consists of a 58,000 square foot
fenced area on the northeastern portion of a 10-acre
property. From 1951 to 1986, pesticide dusts and
liquids were manufactured on site, and between 1952
and 1969, wastes containing pesticides were disposed of
in an on-site pit. Raw material containers, soil
contaminated by leaks or spills from process
equipment, broken bags, and off-specification materials
were disposed of in the excavated pit and covered with
dirt. After 1969, waste materials were disposed of off
site. Beginning in the 1970s, liquid products were
formulated on site, a process that used solvents,
emulsifiers, and stabilizers. Spills, leaks, and other
accidental releases of these liquid formulation materials
are believed to be sources of soil and concrete
contamination. A 1988 remedial investigation
confirmed hot spots of DDT and other pesticide
contamination in the former disposal pit. Investigation
results led to two removal actions in 1988 and 1989,
which included excavating, removing, and disposing of
850 tons of contaminated soil from the waste pit. This
ROD addresses the contamination that remains in the
formulation areas and former disposal pit, including
900 cubic yards of pesticide- and metal-contaminated
soil and 1,460 square feet of pesticide-contaminated
concrete structures. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and debris are organics,
including pesticides; and metals, including chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating and incinerating contaminated soil
on site; dismantling the contaminated portions of
buildings and, if necessary, repairing those buildings
when removal affects safety or structural integrity;
incinerating contaminated concrete structures on site
or disposing off site at a RCRA Subtitle C-permitted
hazardous waste facility, depending on volume;
analyzing ash from the incinerated soil and debris
prior to on-site disposal to determine if the ash meets
clean-up goals or if off-site disposal is necessary if the
ash remains contaminated; and ground-water
monitoring to confirm source removal. The estimated
cost for the remedial action is $1,755,000, including
an annual O&M cost of $33,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil will be excavated to health-based levels
which are based on a W6 cancer risk and a hazard
index of 1.0. Health-based surface concentrations
were determined for contaminated concrete building
structures based on a 10"6 cancer risk and a hazard
index of 1.0. Health-based excavation and clean-up
goals were provided for pesticides and metals,
including chromium 1.0 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
C-176
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
FORT LEWIS LOGISTICS CENTER, WA
First Remedial Action - Final (Federal Facility)
September 25,1990
The 650-acre Fort Lewis Logistics Center site
is a military storage and maintenance facility in Pierce
County, Washington. Surrounding land use is mixed
residential and commercial. The site overlies a surficial
aquifer, and a deeper bedrock aquifer that is used as a
water supply to over 85,000 people in the area. The
Logistics Center is an industrial complex that includes
warehouses, motor pools, maintenance facilities, and an
equipment disposal yard. From the 1940s to the mid-
1970s, solvents including TCE and PCE were used as
degreasers during maintenance activities. The solvents
were frequently combined with waste oil and disposed
of at several locations within the Logistics Center. Site
investigations from 1985 to 1988 detected VOC
contamination in on-site monitoring wells and off-site
private wells. As a result, affected residents were
connected to a public water supply. This ROD
addresses restoration of the contaminated surficial
ground-water aquifer, and provides a final remedy for
the site. Confirmation soil sampling and further
characterization of the deep aquifer contamination will
be evaluated as part of this remedial action. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs, including PCE, TCE, and DCE.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes pumping and on-site treatment of ground
water, using air stripping to remove VOCs;
discharging the treated water on site to infiltration
trenches, including one trench located upgradient to
facilitate flushing of secondary contaminant sources;
long-term monitoring of ground water; conducting
confirmation soil sampling; investigating the deep
aquifer contamination for possible remediation; and
implementing institutional controls. The estimated
cost for this remedial action is $9,068,000, including
an annual O&M cost (exclusive of maintenance) of
$517,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up standards are based
on federal MCLs and include PCE 5 ug/1, TCE 5 ug/1,
and DCE 70 ug/1.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be implemented on
site and in downgradient off-site areas affected by the
contaminant plume.
C-177
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
SILVER MOUNTAIN MINE, WA
First Remedial Action - Final
March 27,1990
The 5-acre Silver Mountain Mine site is an
abandoned mine dump in Okanogan County, north-
central Washington. Land in the site vicinity is used
primarily for cattle grazing. The nearest well, 2 miles
away, is used for cattle watering and irrigation. The
nearest residence is 3 miles south of the site.
Operations at the mine were initiated in 1902 to
extract silver, gold, and copper from soil and ore.
From 1980 to 1981, a cyanide leach heap of previously
mined material was constructed in an attempt to
extract silver and gold. The heap consisted of 5,300
tons of ore on top of a 20 ml plastic liner. About
4,400 pounds of sodium cyanide were mixed with water
and sprayed on the top of the heap. The cyanide-laden
effluent was then collected in a leachate pond at the
base of the heap. The heap leaching operation was
abandoned in late 1981 without cleanup of
contaminated material. In addition, approximately
5,200 tons of unprocessed mixed material (mine dump)
lie to the west of the leach heap. In 1982, the state
took action to treat the cyanide at the site using
sodium hypochlorite to partially neutralize the leachate
pond and heap. In 1985, the state conducted a site
stabilization effort, which included removing liquids
from the leachate pond and installation of a 33 ml
plastic cover over the heap and pond. Empty cyanide
drums also were removed, and a fence was installed.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil
and mined material in the leach heap, mine dump,
mine drainage area, and bedrock are metals, including
arsenic (naturally occurring); and other inorganics,
' including cyanide. Ground water beneath the site
contains relatively high levels of dissolved anions and
cations as well as metals and cyanide associated with
the mine dump material. Low ground-water quality
and quantity, however, make it an unlikely drinking
water source. Ground water, therefore, will not be
addressed by this remedial action.
The selected remedial action for this site
includes consolidating all contaminated soil and mine
dump material with the leach heap, followed by
grading and contouring the consolidated 5,740 cubic
yards of contaminated materials; capping the heap
and consolidated materials with a soil/clay cap;
plugging the mine entrance, removing a mine
drainage pipe that supplies the animal water supply
tank, and installing a new well for an alternate animal
water supply; implementing institutional controls,
including deed restrictions; and ground-water
monitoring. The estimated cost for the remedial
action is $635,600, including an annual O&M cost of
$39,650 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
All material contaminated with
concentrations of arsenic greater than 200 mg/kg
(based on a hazard index equal to 1 and a cancer risk
level of 10"4) or cyanide greater than 95 mg/kg (based
on a hazard index equal to 1) will be consolidated and
covered. Ground-water treatment will not be
implemented unless monitoring detects concentrations
exceeding standards set for six contaminants,
including cyanide 154 ugA (based on a health
advisory) and arsenic 6 ug/1 (based on 10"4 cancer risk
level) at the point of compliance, which has been
established 100 to 200 feet downgradient from the
edge of the leach heap.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent disturbance of the consolidated, capped
material.
C-178
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
TELEDYNE WAH CHANG ALBANY (TWCA), OR
First Remedial Action
December 28,1989
The Teledyne Wah Chang Albany (TWCA)
site, in Millersburg, Oregon, is an active plant used to
produce nonferrous metals and products. The site
consists of a 110-acre plant site, containing the plant's
former sludge ponds, and a 115-acre farm site,
containing four active wastewater sludge ponds.
Portions of the TWCA site are within the Willamette
River's 100- and 500-year floodplain. The Wah Chang
Corporation began operating a U.S. Bureau of Mines
zirconium metal sponge pilot plant under contract with
the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in 1956.
Additional facilities were subsequently built near the
plant beginning in 1957 to produce nonferrous metals
and products. The Lower River Solids Pond (LRSP)
and Schmidt Lake sludge pond, which stored
wastewater generated from the plant operations, are
being addressed by this remedial action. The 3-acre
LRSP received sludge from TWC's on-site wastewater
treatment plant from 1967 to 1979 and currently holds
approximately 75,000 cubic yards of sludge. Schmidt
Lake, which covers 0.6 acres, accepted approximately
10,000 cubic yards of sludge from 1974 to 1979. The
sludge in both the LRSP and Schmidt Lake contains
heavy metals, organic compounds, and trace levels of
radionuclides. Because the ponds contain radioactive
materials and are a potential source of ground-water
contamination, TWCA decided to clean up the ponds
without waiting for the full site remedial investigation
to be completed on the entire site. This interim
action addresses the contaminated sludge in the LRSP
and Schmidt Lake. Contaminated soil in the sludge
ponds will be addressed as part of an overall site
remedy. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the sludge ponds are organics; metals,
including chromium, zirconium, and lead; and
radioactive materials.
The selected remedial action for this interim
remedy includes excavation of 85,000 cubic yards of
sludge with partial solidification of the sludge,
followed by off-site disposal in a permitted solid waste
landfill. The estimated cost for this remedial action
is $10,716,000, with no O&M costs.
Performance Standards or Goals
The selected remedy will attain federal and
state ARARs. Individual contaminant goals were not
specified for this interim remedial action.
Institutional Controls
The off-site disposal facility will comply with
solid waste disposal permit requirements to ensure
that the sludge mixture is isolated from the
surrounding environment.
C-179
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Appendix
D
Progress Toward Meeting
Superfund-Related
Statutory Requirements
In response to a recommendation of the
Lautenberg-Durenberger Report on Superfund
Implementation: Cleaning up the Nation's Cleanup
Program, EPA includes the following matrix, which
charts the progress of EPA and other government
organizations in meeting statutory requirements
imposed by SARA The matrix lists all Superfund-
related administrative and program implementation
(rather than site-specific) requirements by statutory
section, describes the mandated activity, indicates if the
activity has been completed, and briefly describes what
has been done to meet the requirement. If the
activity has not been completed, its status is reported.
EPA and the other government organizations have
made significant progress towards meeting their
statutory requirements. The matrix indicates that 32
of the 39 applicable one-time requirements with
specific deadlines have been completed, and one is
not yet due. Furthermore, 10 of the 12 requirements
due annually or biannually have been completed, and
one is not yet due. Also, 20 of the 27 requirements
with no specific deadline have been completed.
D-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
CERCLA
Section^
102(a)
Statutory
Deadline
12/31/86^
102(a)
12/31/86^
102(a)
04/30/88^
104(c)(9)
10/17/89
Requirement
EPA to promulgate final
regulations establishing
reportable quantities (RQs) for
all hazardous substances for
which proposed RQs were
published prior to March 1,
1986.
EPA to propose regulations
establishing RQs for all
hazardous substances for which
proposed RQs were not
published prior to March 1,
1986.
EPA to promulgate final
regulations establishing RQs
for all hazardous substances for
which proposed RQs were not
published prior to March 1,
1986.
States to provide assurances of
availability of hazardous waste
treatment or disposal facilities.
Status
09/29/86, 08/14/89 - EPA
promulgated final RQs for all
hazardous substances (except for lead
metal and methyl isocyanate) for
which proposed RQs were published
prior to March 1,1986 (51FR 34534,
54 FR 33426,54 FR 33418). Internal
EPA review of the rulemaking to
propose RQs for the two remaining
substances was completed September,
1991; EPA expects to finalize these
RQs in late 1992.
Completed 03/16/87 - EPA proposed
RQs for all hazardous substances for
which proposed RQs were not
published prior to March 1,1986 (52
FR 8140). EPA proposed RQs for
radionuclides (52 FR 8172).
08/14/89 - EPA promulgated final
RQs for all hazardous substances
(except for 14 lead-containing wastes,
lead acetate, and lead phosphate) for
which proposed RQs were not
published prior to March 1,1986 (54
FR 33418, 54 FR 33426). 05/24/89 -
EPA promulgated final RQs for
radionuclides (54 FR 22524). Internal
EPA review of the rulemaking to
propose RQs for the 16 remaining
substances was completed September,
1991; EPA expects to finalize these
RQs in late 1992.
Completed 03/19/90 -- All 50 states
and the District of Columbia have
submitted plans; 12/29/88 -- EPA
issued guidance to state officials on
providing assurances.
^ Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA.
& Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment
D-2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCIA
Section17
Statutory
Deadline
104(i)(2)(A) 04/17/87
104(i)(2)(B) 10/17/88
104(i)(2)(B) 10/17/8^
Requirement
Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
and EPA to produce list of 100
hazardous substances most
commonly found at National
Priority List (NPL) sites that
pose significant human health
risks.
ATSDR and EPA to produce
list of a total of 200 hazardous
substances most commonly
found at NPL sites that pose
significant human health risks.
ATSDR and EPA to add no
fewer than 25 hazardous
substances to list of those most
commonly found at NPL sites
that pose significant human
health risks.
ATSDR and EPA to revise list
of hazardous substances most
commonly found at NPL sites
that pose significant human
health risks.
Status
Completed 04/17/87 - EPA published
list of 100 hazardous substances (52
FR 12866).
Completed 10/20/88 - EPA published
list of 200 hazardous substances (53
FR 41280).
Completed 10/26/89.10/17/90 - EPA
published lists of 25 hazardous
substances (54 FR 43615, 55 FR
42067).
Not yet due.
-' Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA.
-' Due annually on this date through 1991.
-1 Not less often than once every year after 10/17/91.
D-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCLA
Section^
Statutory
Deadline
10/17/87^
Requirement
ATSDR to prepare
lexicological profiles on each of
the hazardous substances on
the list of those most
commonly found at NPL sites
that pose significant human
health risks.
10/17/90
ATSDR to revise and republish
toxicological profiles as
necessary, but no less often
than once every three years.
Status
Completed 10/15/87 - 25 profiles
were announced in the Federal
Register (FR) (52 FR 38340).
04/06/89,06/28/89,12/01/89 - Notices
of availability of IS final profiles
published (54 FR 14037,54 FR 26417,
54 FR 49816). 12/17/90 - Notice of
availability of all 25 final profiles
published (55 FR 51775).
Completed 12/20/88 - 25 profiles
were announced in the FR (53 FR
51192); 08/14/90 - notice of
availability of final profiles published
(55 FR 33172).
Completed 10/17/89 - 30 profiles
were announced in the FR (54 FR
42568); 06/13/91 - Notice of
availability of final profiles published
(56 FR 27261); 06/26/91 - Notice of
availability of correction to final
profiles published (56 FR 29308).
Completed 10/16/90 -- 30 profiles
were announced in the FR (55 FR
41881); ATSDR expects final profiles
to be available fall 1991.
06/28/90 - ATSDR initiated steps to
revise 20 profiles. ATSDR expects 19
updates to be available 10/17/91;
revised TCDD profile should be
available fall 1991.
-1 Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA
& Profiles for original 100 hazardous substances on list must be completed at a rate of no fewer than 25 per year,
by 10/17/90. Profiles for hazardous substances added subsequently must be completed within three years after
addition to list.
D-4
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCLA Statutory
Section^ Deadline Requirement
ATSDR, in consultation with
EPA and the Public Health
Service, to assess whether
adequate information is
available on the health effects
of those hazardous substances
most commonly found at NPL
sites that pose significant
human health risks.
ATSDR, in cooperation with
the National Toxicology
Program (NTP), to assure the
initiation of a program of
research designed to determine
the health effects (and
techniques for development of
methods to determine such
health effects) of substances for
which adequate information is
not available (or under
development).
EPA to promulgate regulations
for the payment and recovery
of costs of health effects
research programs established
under CERCLA section
104(i)(5)(D) 10/17/87
ATSDR includes assessments in the
"Adequacy of the Database" section of
the lexicological profiles, required by
CERCLA section 104(i)(3). Subse-
quently, ATSDR refines these assess-
ments. First set of 25 profiles did not
identify data needs, however, profile
updates will include assessments.
Completed 09/11/89 - ATSDR
published "Decision Guide for
Identifying Substance-Specific Data
Needs Related to Toxicological
Profiles."
03/28/90 - ATSDR published the
results of a pilot exercise which
identified priority data needs for
specific substances.
December 1990 -- ATSDR proposed
plan to EPA and NTP for initiation
of the Substance-Specific Research
Program.
Completed 03/08/90 - EPA believes
that the revised National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) satisfies the
statutory requirement (NCP Subpart
B 300.160(d); (55 FR 8666)); see also
preamble to proposed rule (12/21/88,
53 FR 51402).
^ Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA
-1 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCLA
Section^
Statutory
Deadline
104(i)(6)(A) 12/10/88^
10/17/88
(every two
years)
Requirement
ATSDR to complete health
assessments for facilities
proposed for the NPL prior to
SARA's date of enactment.
ATSDR to complete health
assessments for facilities
proposed for the NPL after
SARA's date of enactment.
ATSDR to submit report to
EPA and Congress on ATSDR
activities.
Status
Completed 12/08/88 - Health
assessments performed for 951
facilities.
Ongoing ~ ATSDR has completed
health assessments at 251 sites. In
addition, ATSDR has revisited 4 sites
and completed 10 petitioned health
assessments. ATSDR's policy is to
perform health assessments for all
facilities proposed for the NPL within
one year of the date of proposal.
Completed 08/23/89. 08/31/90 --
Volumes I and II of first biannual
report submitted to EPA and
Congress. Second report currently in
draft form; ATSDR expects to
publish final report in fall 1991.
-1 Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA
y Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
-1 Health assessments to be completed within one year of date of proposal on NPL.
D-6
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCLA
Section17
Statutory
Deadline
105(b)
04/17/88
04/17/88
10/17/88
Requirement
ATSDR to assemble, develop
as necessary, and distribute to
the states, and upon request to
medical colleges, physicians,
and other health professionals,
educational materials
(including short courses) on
the medical surveillance,
screening, and methods of
diagnosis and treatment of
injury or disease related to
exposure to hazardous
substances.
EPA to revise the NCP.
EPA to promulgate
amendments to the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS).
EPA to establish effective date
for the amended HRS.
Status
Completed 09/13/89 -- ATSDR
created Division of Health Education
to implement ongoing program.
FY90 - ATSDR developed 40,000
case studies in environmental
medicine which were distributed
through states, counties, and
professional organizations; ATSDR
negotiated and implemented 20 state
cooperative agreements for physician
education training in environmental
medicine; and ATSDR developed
state training course materials and
provided support to conduct training
(2,800 health professionals trained).
FY91 - ATSDR funded the
Association of State and Territorial
Health Officials to implement state
courses in risk communication.
Completed 02/02/90 -- EPA
Administrator signed revised NCP;
03/08/90 - EPA published revised
NCP (55 FR 8666).
Completed 12/14/90 -- EPA published
revised HRS (55 FR 51532); 12/23/88
~ EPA published proposed revisions
(53 FR 51962).
Completed 12/14/90 -- HRS took
effect 03/14/91, 90 days after
publication in Federal Register.
y Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA.
-' Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-7
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCLA
Section^
107(f)(2)(A)
Statutory
Deadline
107(f)(2)(B)
107(k)(6)
109(d)
Annually
Requirement
EPA to designate in the NCP
federal natural resource
trustees.
States to designate state natural
resource trustees and notify
EPA of such designations.
Comptroller General to
conduct a study of options for
a program for the management
of the liabilities associated with
hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal sites after
their closure.
EPA to prescribe criteria (by
regulation) for paying an award
to any individual who provides
information leading to the
arrest and conviction of any
person for a violation subject
to criminal penalty under
CERCLA.
Inspector General of federal
agencies, departments, or
instrumentalities to conduct
audits and submit audit reports
to Congress of all uses of the
Hazardous Substances Trust
Fund in the prior fiscal year.
Status
Completed 11/20/85 -- EPA
designated in section 300.72 of the
NCP federal natural resource trustees
(50 PR 47912); 03/08/90 - Section
300.72 of the NCP was revised and
renumbered as section 300.600 (55
FRS666).
As of December 1990, the
Department of Interior had confirmed
that 44 states and three territories
had officially designated natural
resource trustees.
Completed 06/01/90 - General
Accounting Office (GAO) published
report entitled "Hazardous Waste -
Funding of Post-Closure Liabilities
Remains Uncertain" (GAO/RCED-
90-64).
Completed 05/05/88 - EPA issued an
interim final rule (IFR) prescribing
criteria for citizen awards for
information on criminal violations
under Superfund (53 FR 16086).
06/21/89 - EPA published a final rule
identical to the IFR (54 FR 26142).
Completed September 1988.
September 1989. September 1990.
October 1991 - EPA submitted
FY87, FY88, FY89, and FY90 reports
to Congress.
V Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA
-1 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-8
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCLA
Section^
lll(o)
Statutory
Deadline
01/17/87
11300
01/01/88^
01/01189%
Requirement
EPA to develop and implement
procedures to adequately notify
concerned local and state
officials of limitations on the
payment of claims for response
costs incurred for sites on NPL.
EPA to prescribe appropriate
forms and procedures for
response claims filed under
CERCLA.
EPA to promulgate regulations
that will establish procedures
for public participation in the
development of the adminis-
trative record.
EPA to complete preliminary
assessments (PAs) of all
facilities contained on the
CERCLA Information System
(CERCLIS) as of SARA's date
of enactment.
Following completion of PAs,
EPA to complete site
inspections (Sis) at facilities
contained in CERCLIS as of
SARA's date of enactment, as
necessary.
Status
Completed 02/05/87 - EPA published
notice of regulatory limitations on
response claims (52 FR 3699).
09/13/89 - EPA published proposed
regulations to establish procedures to
inform certain persons of limitations
on payment of response claims (54
FR 37892); EPA expects to publish
final regulations in late 1991.
09/13/89 - EPA published proposed
regulations to establish response
claims procedures (54 FR 37892);
EPA expects to publish final
regulations in late 1991.
Completed 03/08/90 -- Regulations
included in revised NCP Subpart I
(55 FR 8666).
Completed 01/01/88.
Two regions met statutory schedule;
remaining eight regions plan to meet
goal by January 1992.
-' Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA.
y Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
-' Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-9
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCLA
Section^
Statutory
Deadline
10/17/90
10/17/89
10/17/90
10/17/91
10/17/89
10/17/91
Requirement
Following completion of PAs
or Sis, EPA to complete
evaluation of each facility listed
in CERCLIS as of SARA's
date of enactment, as
warranted.
EPA to start 275 remedial
investigations/feasibility studies
(RI/FSs).
EPA to start total of 450
RI/FSs only if 275 starts
deadline not met.
EPA to start total of 650
RI/FSs only if 275 starts
deadline not met.
EPA to start 175 remedial
actions (RAs).
Status
Following completion of PAs or Sis,
EPA will take appropriate steps to
mitigate the threat at facilities based
on the policy of addressing worst sites
first.
Completed May 1989.
Not applicable - Prior deadline met.
Not applicable - Prior deadline met.
Completed 10/17/89. -- The status of
achieving this statutory requirement is
currently being re-evaluated based on
remedial action progress that has
been made at 178 sites since the
10/17/89 deadline.
EPA to start total of 375 RAs. Not yet due.
EPA to promulgate regulations
for issuing Technical Assistance
Grants.
03/24/88 - Interim final rule (IFR)
published (53 FR 9736); 12/01/89 --
amendments to IFR published (54 FR
49848); EPA expects to publish final
rule in fall 1991.
I/ Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA.
- Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-10
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCIA
Section*/
Statutory
Deadline
09/30/89^
120(c)
120(c)
Every six
months
Requirement
EPA to develop guidelines and
promulgate regulations on the
indemnification of response
action contractors.
Comptroller General to report
to Congress on application of
CERCLA's provisions for the
indemnification of response
action contractors.
EPA to establish Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket and make
available for public inspection.
EPA to publish updates of
Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket.
Status
10/06/87 - EPA issued interim
guidance (OSWER Directive
#9835.5); 10/31/89 - EPA published
proposed guidance and request for
comments (54 FR 46012); final
guidance is expected to be issued in
late 1991. EPA expects to publish
final regulations March 1992.
Completed 09/26/89 -- GAO
published report entitled "Contractors
Are Being Too Liberally Indemnified
by the Government" (GAO/RCED-
89-160).
Completed 02/12/88 - Notice of
initial list of 1,095 federal facilities
published (53 FR 4280). Public may
review and copy specific documents in
the Docket by contacting the Federal
Facilities Docket Hotline.
Completed 11/16/88. 12/15/89.
08/22/90. 9/27/91 - EPA published
first four updates (53 FR 46364, 54
FR 51472, 55 FR 34492, 56 FR
49328).
^ Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA
% Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
& Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-ll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCLA
Section^
120(d)
Statutory
Deadline
04/17/88
120(d)
04/17/89
Requirement
EPA shall take steps to assure
conducted for each facility on
the Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket
Following PAs, EPA to evalu-
ate federal facilities with
criteria established in
accordance with section 105
under the NCP for determining
priorities among releases; those
facilities which meet the
criteria are to be included on
the NPL.
EPA and states to publish
timetable and deadlines for
completion of RI/FSs at federal
facilities listed on NPL.
Status
Completed 04/17/88 - EPA took
steps to assure that federal agencies
complied with this process prior to
statutory deadline. EPA informs
federal agencies of the requirement to
gather information on sites and
assists agencies in collecting and
analyzing such information. PAs have
not yet been completed at all federal
facilities.
EPA evaluates federal facilities where
appropriate in light of resource
constraints and other demands. As of
February 25, 1991, 116 federal
facilities have been added to the NPL
(55 FR 35502); a substantial number
of additional sites have been
evaluated and determined not to be
appropriate for the NPL; 07/29/91 -
EPA published proposed update to
the NPL, which contains proposed
additional federal facilities (56 FR
35840).
Schedules for completion of RI/FSs at
federal facilities are routinely
developed pursuant to interagency
agreements (lAGs), or are published
by EPA and the state when IAG
negotiations are unsuccessful As of
March 1991, lAGs have been signed
for 82 of the 116 federal facility sites.
-7 Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA
- Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-12
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCLA
Section^
120(e)(2)
120(e)(2)
Statutory
Deadline
10/17/87
Not later than
six months
after listing of
federal facility
onNPL
Within 180
days after
EPA review
ofRI/FS
Not later than
IS months
after comple-
tion of RI/FS
Requirement
Federal departments, agencies,
or instrumentalities to begin
RI/FS for federal facilities
listed on NPL prior to SARA's
date of enactment
Federal departments, agencies,
or instrumentalities to begin
RI/FSs for federal facilities
listed on NPL.
Federal departments, agencies,
or instrumentalities to enter
into lAGs with EPA for
completion of RAs for federal
facilities listed on NPL.
Federal departments, agencies,
or instrumentalities to begin
RAs for federal facilities listed
on NPL.
Status
Not applicable -- No federal facilities
were listed on NPL prior to SARA's
date of enactment.
07/22/87 - First federal facilities
listed on NPL (52 FR 27620); as of
May 1991, for all operable units,
CERCLIS reports that EPA had 54
RI/FS starts before final NPL listing,
63 RI/FS starts within 6 months of
final NPL listing, and 169 additional
RI/FS starts for a total of 286 post-
SARA RI/FS starts. In addition,
although CERCLIS defines RI/FS
start as a signed IAG, 31 CERCLA
sites without lAGs have ongoing
RI/FS-type work.
EPA policy is to enter into an IAG
with federal facilities (listed on the
NPL) during the RI/FS stage, prior to
the RA stage. As a result, RA lAGs
are completed well in advance of the
statutory mandate. At the end of
FY90, 70 lAGs had been signed.
At the end of FY90, EPA had started
19 post-SARA RAs. Furthermore,
11 sites started on-site work within 15
months of the ROD. In addition,
there are currently 95 removal actions
that are either ongoing (34),
completed (34), or planned (27).
There are also 96 expedited response
actions that are either ongoing (42),
completed (28), or planned (26).
i; Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend
CERCLA.
D-13
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCIA
Section^
120(e)(3)
120(e)(5)
120(h)(2)
Statutory
Deadline Requirement
Submit with Federal agencies to review
annual budget alternative agency funding to
provide for costs of RAs.
Agencies to submit statement
of the hazard posed by facilities
and identify consequences of
failure to begin and complete
RAs.
Annually Federal agencies, departments,
or instrumentalities to submit
reports to Congress on
progress in implementing
CERCLA federal facility
requirements.
04/17/88 EPA, in consultation with the
General Services Administra-
tion, to promulgate regulations
on the form and manner of
notice required whenever any
federal department, agency, or
instrumentality enters into a
contract to sell or transfer
property owned by the United
States on which a hazardous
substance was stored, disposed,
or released.
^ EPA to report to Congress a
list of facilities for which a 5-
year review is required, the
results of all such reviews, and
any actions taken.
Status
Completed January 1987. January
1988. January 1989. January 1990.
January 1991 — Included in annual
budget submissions to Congress.
Completed May 1989. April 1990.
September 1990. February 1992 --
EPA's reports included in FY87,
FY88, FY89, and FY90 Reports to
Congress, required under CERCLA
Section 301(h)(l).
Completed 04/16/90 -- Final rule
published (55 FR 14208).
Completed May 1989. April 1990!
September 1990. February 1992 --
Reports included in EPA's FY87,
FY88, FY89, and FY90 Reports to
Congress, required under CERCLA
Section 301(h)(l).
-1 Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA.
-1 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-14
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCLA
Section*/
121(0
Statutory
Deadline
&
122(e)(3)(A)
123(d)
10/17/87
126(c)
Submit with
FY88 budget
request
Requirement
EPA to promulgate regulations
providing for State involvement
in initiation, development, and
selection of remedial activities.
EPA to issue procedures for
special notice regarding
negotiation with potentially
responsible parties (PRPs).
EPA to develop guidelines for
preparing nonbinding
preliminary allocations of
responsibility.
EPA to promulgate regulations
for reimbursement to local
governments for costs incurred
in responding to the release or
threatened release of a
hazardous substance, pollutant,
or contaminant.
EPA to submit report to
Congress on hazardous waste
sites on Indian lands.
Status
Completed 03/08/90 - Regulations
included in revised NCP Subpart F
(55 FR 8666).
Completed 10/19/87 - EPA sent
procedural guidelines to Regional
Administrators from Assistant
Administrator for OSWER (OSWER
Directive #9834.10); 02/23/88 -
Guidelines also published as Interim
Guidance on Notice Letters,
Negotiations, and Information
Exchange. 02/07/89 - EPA published
Appendix C to the Interim Guidance
(Model Notice Letters) (OSWER
Directive #9834.10).
Completed 05/28/87 - EPA published
interim final guidelines (52 FR
19919).
10/21/87 - Interim final rule
published (52 FR 39386); EPA
expects to publish final rule
December 1991.
Completed 11/06/87 ~ Report
submitted to Congress.
y Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA
^ Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-15
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCIA
Section^
Statutory
Deadline
04/17/87
301(g)
10/17/87
01/01/88^
301(h)(2)
Requirement
Department of Interior to issue
regulations for the assessment
of damages for injury to,
destruction of, or loss of
natural resources resulting
from a release of oil or a
hazardous substance.
Comptroller General to submit
report to Congress on the
results of the insurability study.
EPA to submit annual report
to Congress on CERCLA
implementation.
EPA Inspector General (IG) to
review EPA's Report to
Congress required under
CERCLA Section 301(h)(l).
Status
Completed 02/22/88 -- Final
regulations published (53 FR 5166).
Completed 10/16/87 -- GAO
published report entitled "Issues
Surrounding Insurance Availability"
(GAO/RCED-88-2).
Completed May 1989. April 1990,
September 1990. February 1992 -
EPA submitted FY87, FY88, FY89,
and FY90 Reports to Congress.
Completed May 1989. April 1990.
September 1990. February 1992 --
Report of IG review included in
EPA's FY87, FY88, FY89 and FY90
Reports to Congress required under
CERCLA Section 301(h)(l).
y Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA.
y Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
- Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-16
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCIA
Section^
306(a)
Statutory
Deadline
9f
St
Requirement
Department of Transportation
(DOT) to list and regulate
hazardous substances, listed or
designated under CERCLA
section 101(14), as hazardous
materials under the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act.
EPA to issue regulations
describing manner of notice of
citizen suits.
Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to
establish and support a basic
hazardous substance research
and training program.
HHS to appoint an advisory
council to assist in
implementing and coordinating
activities for the hazardous
substance research and training
program established under
CERCLA section 311(a)(l).
Status
Completed 08/21/89 - DOT, through
the Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA), amended
Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR) by revising the "List of
Hazardous Substances and
Reportable Quantities* (54 FR
34666).
11/07/90 -- RSPA published
additional revisions to the list in the
HMR (55 FR 46794).
01/26/89 - Proposed rule published
(54 FR 3918); 12/31/90 - final rule
entered OMB review; EPA expects to
publish final rule fall 1991.
Completed 09/14/87 -- HHS published
notice of availability of final National
Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) Hazardous Sub-
stances Basic Research and Training
Plan (52 FR 34721). HHS previously
initiated steps to establish program,
including: 11/28/86 - HHS published
draft program description (51 FR
43089); 12/15/86 - HHS held first
public meeting to solicit comments.
Completed spring 1987 - HHS
appointed NIEHS Advisory Council
on Hazardous Substances Research
and Training; 07/20/87 - Advisory
Council first convened.
-' Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA
^ Specific deadline not stated in statute.
-' Requirement to be completed by November 17,1986 or at the time each substance is listed or designated as
hazardous under CERCLA, whichever is later.
D-17
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCLA
Section17
Statutory
Deadline
07/17/87
311(b)(5)(B) 01/11/87%
Requirement
HHS, through NIEHS, to issue
a plan to implement the
hazardous substance research
and training program
established under CERCLA
section 311(a)(l).
EPA to carry out a program of
research, evaluation, testing,
development, and demon-
stration of alternative or
innovative technologies.
EPA to publish annually a
solicitation for innovative or
alternative technologies
suitable for full-scale
demonstration at Superfund
sites.
EPA to initiate or cause to be
initiated at least 10 field
demonstration projects of
alternative or innovative
treatment technologies.
Status
Completed 09/14/87 - Notice of
availability of final version of the
NIEHS Hazardous Substances Basic
Research and Training Plan published
(52 FR 34721).
Completed December 1986 ~ EPA
published the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Strategy and Program Plan
(EPA/540/G-86/001). Program is
ongoing.
Completed January 1986. January
1987. January 1988. January 1989.
January 1990. January 1991 -
Solicitations published.
FY87 - 1 site demonstration
completed; FY88 - 6 site
demonstrations completed; FY89 - 7
site demonstrations completed; FY90
- 4 site demonstrations completed.
FY91 - As of June 1991, 3 site
demonstrations had been completed
and one is ongoing. EPA expects to
complete up to 10 site
demonstrations by the end of FY91.
-1 Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA
-1 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
^ First solicitation due January 17,1987; subsequent solicitations to be published no less often than once every
12 months.
^' Due in fiscal years 1987,1988,1989, and 1990.
D-18
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCLA
Section*/
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement
In carrying out the SITE
program established under
CERCLA section 311(b)(l),
EPA to conduct a technology
transfer program and establish
and maintain a central
reference library on relevant
information.
" EPA to make grants to
universities to establish and
operate not fewer than five
hazardous substance research
centers.
Submit with EPA to submit report to
annual budget Congress on progress of the
request SITE program established
under CERCLA section
Status
Completed December 1986 -- EPA
publishes program reports and
documents (e.g., demonstration
reports, bulletins) through the Center
for Environmental Research
Information.
09/01/87 - EPA established the
electronic Bulletin Board System
(BBS), including a "SITE
Conference."
05/08/89 -- EPA established the
Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center (ATTIC). EPA
has recently eliminated the SITE
Conference from the BBS; important
program information will now be
available through ATTIC. Additional
technical information is exchanged
through various other activities that
support the SITE program.
Completed FY89. FY90. FY91 -- EPA
made $1 million grants to each of five
Hazardous Substance Research
Centers.
Completed February 1988. March
1989. March 1990. September 1991 -
FY87, FY88, FY89, and FY90 SITE
program reports submitted to
Congress.
^ Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA
^ Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-19
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
CERCLA
Section^
312(e)
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement
EPA to conduct habitability
and land use study of the Love
Canal Emergency Declaration
Area, and to work with New
York State (NYS) to develop
recommendations based upon
the study results.
Status
Completed 07/28/88 -- Study
submitted to NYS Commissioner of
Health; September 1988 --
Commissioner issued follow-up
report
07/10/89 - Love Canal Land Use
Advisory Committee issued
recommendations.
May 1990 - Love Canal Area
Revitalization Agency published final
generic environmental impact
statement.
June 1990 - Agency published the
Love Canal Area Master Plan.
-' Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA
- Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-20
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
SARA
Section^
Statutory
Deadline
01/17/87
118(0
03/01/87^
1180)
04/17/87
10/17/87
02/01/87^'
Requirement
EPA to grant $7.5 million to
New Jersey for removal and
temporary storage of radium
contaminated soil.
Comptroller General to submit
report to Congress on study of
shortages of skilled personnel
in EPA.
ATSDR to submit report to
Congress on the nature and
extent of lead poisoning in
children from environmental
sources.
EPA to submit report to
Congress on joint use of
vehicles for transportation of
hazardous substances.
Status
Completed 01/15/87 - Grant made to
New Jersey.
Completed 10/26/87 -- GAO
published report entitled "Improve-
ments Needed in Work Force
Management" (GAO/RCED-88-1).
Completed 07/12/88
submitted to Congress.
Completed 04/20/87
submitted to Congress.
Report
EPA to submit report to Completed 02/23/90
Congress on radon site submitted to Congress.
identification and assessment.
Report
Report
EPA to conduct a
demonstration program to test
methods and technologies of
reducing or eliminating radon
gas and radon daughters where
it poses a threat to human
health.
Completed September 1985 -- EPA
established Radon Action Program.
Since the enactment of SARA, EPA
has focused its program efforts to
meet the statutory mandate.
EPA to submit report on radon Completed 06/12/87. 01/18/89.
mitigation demonstration 02/26/90. 01/15/91 - Four reports
program. have been submitted to Congress.
^ Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA
^ Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
& Specific deadline not stated in statute.
^ Due annually by this date.
D-21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
SARA
Section^
Statutory
Deadline Requirement
04/17/87
Department of Energy (DOE)
to carry out program at the
Liquified Gaseous Spills Test
Facility. Program to test and
evaluate technologies which
may be utilized in responding
to liquified gaseous and other
hazardous substance spills that
threaten human health or the
environment.
EPA to enter into contracts
and grants with a nonprofit
organization in Albany County,
Wyoming, to carry out program
established under CERCLA
section 118(n)(l).
11/17/86
Status
Completed 06/30/87 - Memorandum
of Understanding developed among
DOE, EPA, and Department of
Transportation (DOT).
1990 — Collaborative research effort
between DOE and the Silicone
Health Council to study hazardous
material foams.
1990 - Collaborative effort among
DOE and other organizations (under
an IAG) to conduct a study on
materials for chemical protective
suits.
1990 - Collaborative effort between
DOE and Center for Chemical
Process Safety to conduct field test of
gas dispersion model.
Completed 1988 - EPA entered into
contract with the Western Research
Institute (WRI) to carry out
technology transfer program
requirements under CERCLA
sections 118(n)(2)(A), (B), and (D).
Original contract has expired;
however, DOE is in the process of
entering into another contract with
WRI to continue the work under the
original contract, and to address the
other requirements under CERCLA
section 118(n)(2), as time permits.
Completed 11/17/86 - All three
RODs signed comply; no consent
decrees lodged during this period.
EPA Administrator to certify in
writing that Records of
Decision (RODs) or consent
decrees covering remedial
action, signed within 30 days of
enactment of SARA, comply to
the maximum extent practicable
with section 121 of CERCLA.
-1 Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA.
# Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-22
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
(continued)
SARA
Section^
126(a)
126(£)
205(b)
205(h)
Statutory
Deadline Requirement
10/17/87 Department of Labor (DOL)
to promulgate standards for the
health and safety protection of
employees engaged in
hazardous waste operations.
Not later than EPA to promulgate worker
90 days after protection standards identical
promulgation to those contained in the
of DOL final OSHA regulations established
regulations by DOL under CERCLA
section 126(a).
07/17/87 States to develop and submit to
EPA inventories of all
underground storage tanks
containing regulated
substances.
01/17/88 Comptroller General to submit
report to Congress on study of
the availability of pollution
liability insurance, leak
insurance, and contamination
insurance for owners and
operators of petroleum storage
and distribution facilities.
Each fiscal Secretary of Defense to submit
year report to Congress on progress
in implementing Department of
Defense Environmental
Restoration Program.
Status
Completed 03/06/89 - DOL published
standards (54 FR 9294).
Completed 06/23/89 - EPA published
final standards (54 FR 26654).
Completed 07/17/87 - All SO states
submitted inventories to EPA.
Completed 01/15/88 -- GAO
published report entitled "Insuring
Underground Petroleum Tanks"
(GAO-RCED-88-39).
Completed March 1988. March 1989.
February 1990. March 1991 - FY87,
FY88, FY89, and FY90 reports
submitted to Congress.
y Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA precede requirements of SARA that do not amend CERCLA,
D-23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
Appendix
E
EPA Annual Report to Congress:
Progress Toward Implementing
CERCLA at EPA Facilities
As Required by
CERCLA Section 120 (e) (5)
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction E-2
2.0 EPA Progress in Meeting Requirements of CERCLA Section 120
During Fiscal Year 1990 E-2
3.0 State-By-State Status of EPA Facilities Subject to Section
120 of CERCLA E-3
Exhibit E-l • E-4
E-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
1.0 Introduction
Section 120(e)(5) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1986, requires each department, agency, or
instrumentality responsible for compliance with section
120 of CERCLA to furnish an annual report to
Congress concerning its progress in implementing the
requirements of that section.
Requirements of CERCLA Section 120(e)(S)
The annual reports to Congress required by
section 120(e)(5) of CERCLA are to include, but need
not be limited to, each of the following items:
(A) A report on the progress in reaching
interagency agreements under CERCLA
section 120(e)(2);
(B) The specific cost estimates and budgetary
proposals involved in each interagency
agreement;
(C) A brief summary of the public comments
regarding each proposed interagency
agreement;
(D) A description of the instances in which no
agreement was reached;
(E) A report on progress in conducting remedial
investigations and feasibility studies required
by CERCLA section 120(e)(l) at National
Priority List (NPL) sites;
(F) A report on conducting remedial actions at
NPL sites; and
(G) A report on progress in conducting remedial
actions at facilities which are not listed on the
NPL.
The annual report is also required to contain
a detailed description, on a state-by-state basis, of the
status of each facility subject to this section, including
a description of the hazard presented by each facility,
plans and schedules for initiating and completing
response actions, enforcement status (where
applicable), and an explanation of any postponement
or failure to complete response actions.
Environmental Protection Agency Program
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has given high priority to maintaining compliance
with CERCLA requirements at its own facilities. To
ensure compliance, EPA uses its Environmental
Compliance Program to heighten regulatory
awareness, identify potential compliance violations,
and coordinate appropriate corrective action
schedules at its laboratories and other research
facilities.
As part of EPA's commitment to
environmental compliance, the Environmental
Compliance Program has instituted an environmental
auditing program to accomplish many of its
compliance objectives. Audits are conducted at EPA
facilities to identify potential regulatory violations of
federal (including CERCLA), state, and local statutes.
By performing these detailed facility analyses, EPA is
better able to assist the facilities in complying with
environmental regulations.
2.0 EPA Progress in Meeting
Requirements of CERCLA Section
120 During Fiscal Year 1990
EPA is required to report on progress in
meeting the requirements of CERCLA section 120 in
terms of interagency agreements, remedial
investigation/feasibility studies at NPL sites, and
remedial actions at NPL and non-NPL sites.
• EPA does not have any facilities listed on the
National Priorities List (NPL). As a result,
EPA has not entered into any Interagency
Agreements (lAGs) for remediation that
would require reporting under CERCLA
sections 120(e)(5)(A), (B), (C), or (D).
• EPA did not have any facilities placed on the
NPL during fiscal 1990, and has not been
involved with remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS) or remediation
activities that would require reporting under
CERCLA sections 120(e)(5)(E) and (F).
E-2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
» For purposes of CERCLA section
120(e)(5)(G), only the following facilities with
past releases or documented contamination
will be included in the discussion.
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center,
Virginia
The EPA Environmental Photographic
Interpretation Center (EPIC) is located on the Army's
Vint Hills Farm Station in Warrenton, Virginia. The
Army, as owner of the facility, has conducted a PA/SI
and a contamination survey. The status of NPL
ranking and subsequent remedial action is being
reached. EPIC has submitted a PA per direction from
the Environmental Compliance Program to ensure that
its past activities are disclosed for congressional and
public review.
Region 2 Environmental Service Division Laboratory, New
Jersey
The Region 2 laboratory occupies several
buildings on the Raritan Depot installation in Edison,
New Jersey. Originally, the Department of Defense
(DOD) owned the site and used it for munitions
testing and storage. The General Services
Administration (GSA) took possession of the property
in 1961 and in 1988 transferred 165 acres to EPA
Although residual contamination from past DOD and
GSA activities persists at the facility, EPA has not
stored, released, or disposed of any hazardous
substances on the property. Some pre-Superfund waste
was temporarily stored at the site, but was properly
disposed of off site.
EPA Region 2 has completed the listing site
inspection needed to rank the facility under the HRS
II. Currently, sample analysis is being conducted to
compile an HRS II score. If placed on the NPL, the
facility will be remediated as required by EPA Region
2. If NPL placement does not occur, the facility will
be remediated, as mandated by CERCLA, in
compliance with all state and local clean-up criteria.
Guy Breeze Laboratory, Florida
The Gulf Breeze facility submitted its
preliminary assessment on April 17, 1988. Testing
revealed that the contaminant concentrations are
below the levels of concern. The Preliminary
Assessment indicated that no formal site inspection or
removal action is required.
Region 10 Environmental Services Division Laboratory,
Washington
During the 1970s, Washington State
University provided a research plot for use by EPA's
Office of Research and Development. EPA utilized
the plot to study pesticide degradation. The research
was terminated in 1980. The Agency has completed
a PA of the research plot, and an SI has been
initiated. Very little contamination was identified.
After the SI and data analysis, EPA will investigate
remedial action if necessary.
3.0 State-by-State Status of EPA
Facilities Subject to Section 120 of
CERCLA
EPA has identified 14 of its facilities that it
believes are subject to the requirements of CERCLA
section 120. These facilities along with an indication
of the type of problem and progress of activities
required by CERCLA are presented by state in
Exhibit E-l.
E-3
-------
>'
" f
V
AR
CO
FL
DL
MD
MO
MO
NT
OH
OH
OH
RI
VA
WA
Status
Combuitian Research Facility
National Enforcement Investigation Center
Gulf Breeze Laboratory
Region S Enviionmemal Service! Division Laboratory
Region 3 Environmental Service* Division Laboratory
EPA Mobile Incineration at Denny Fanm
Region 7 Environmental Service! Division Laboratory
Region 2 Environmental Service* Division Laboratory
AWBERC Facility
Center Hill
Testing and Evaluation Facility
Narragaruett Environmental Research Laboratory
Environmental Photographic IntenJieUtio
Center/Vint Hills Facility
No contaminatian
No contaminatian
No significant contamination
No contamination
No contamination
No contaminatian from mobile
incinerator
No contaminalioji
Contamination Present
• PA submitted M/89.
• PA submitted 04/88.
• PA submitted 04/88; Regional review of PA precluded initiation of
additional SI activities.
• PA submitted 04/88.
• PA fubmined 04/88.
Region 10 Environmenul Servicos Division Labonrtoty Min
• PA submitted 04/88.
• PA/51 completed by DOD for the Rinun Depot No contaminatian
caused by EPA.
• EPA Region 2 completed SL Sampling data is being used to rank
according to HRSII.
• PA submitted 04/88.
• PA submitted 04/88.
• PA submitted 04/88.
• PA submitted 04/88.
• Suspected contamination due to past disposal activities of Army and
EPA.
• EPA will implement appropriate clean-up action upon DOD completion
oftheRI/FS.
• PA submitted by EPA for EPIC Army has submitted PA/51 for the
entire Vint Hills facility.
nutation due to EPA activites • Suspected contamination fiom Navy activities before EPA owneahip.
• PA submitted, SI completed; no contamination posing a potential threat
to human health T*!** vwwntKP****** inamriM
No contaminatian
No contaminatian
No contamination
No contamination
Minor Contaminatian due to
EPA Activities
SOURCE: This information was compiled for the Report by Environmental Health and Safety Division of EPA.
[
C/5
t
»•*
i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
Appendix
F
Report of the
EPA Inspector General
F-l
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB I | 1992
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Special Report E1SFFM1-0015-2100237
Review of the Superfund Annual Report To Congress For Fiscal Year 1990
John C Martin
Inspector General
William 1C Reilly
Administrator (A-100)
Summary of Results
We have completed a review of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (Agency) report to Congress
on Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal
Year 1990 (Annual Report). We found that the
Annual Report included the information required
by the applicable statute as interpreted by the
Agency. We believe that, for the most part, the
Annual Report was reasonable and accurate.
However, we found that Agency officials did not
always rely on the Agency's primary Superfund
information system when preparing the Annual
Report. Either another information source was
used or the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) data was manually
updated because of a lack of CERCLIS data
integrity. This lack of data quality resulted in an
extensive and time consuming manual quality
assurance/quality control review before the data
could be used in the Annual Report.
We also had concerns about the section of the
Annual Report related to the Superfund
InnovativeTechnology Evaluation (SITE) program.
We believe that section did not reflect a significant
change in Agency policy dealing with SITE
demonstrations.
Finally, in a separate audit report, we plan to
address the lack of timeliness of the Annual
Reports. The FY90 Annual Report was due to
Congress on January 1,1991, and has not yet been
issued.
Scope and Objectives
The objective of our review was to determine
whether the Annual Report is reasonable and
accurate, as required by Section 301(h)(2) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Except as noted below, our work was performed in
accordance with the Government Auditing
Standards (1988 revision) issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States. Our
review was limited to verifying the reasonableness
and accuracy of information in the Annual Report.
We did not perform extensive tests to determine if
internal controls are adequate.
We began our review by examining an early draft
of the Annual Report dated January 23,1991, and
completed our review in December 1991 by
evaluating the final changes made to the Annual
Report. During the review, we compared selected
information in the Annual Report to the source
from which it came, or to other sources that
should contain the same information. Further, we
compared related information from different parts
of the Annual Report to check internal
consistency. In addition, we followed up on
actions taken by Agency officials in response to
our reviews of prior Annual Reports.
As part of our review, we also evaluated
accomplishments claimed in CERCLIS by Regions
F-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
4 and 5 during FY90. We had performed a similar
evaluation of these Regions' accomplishments for
our review of the FY88 Annual Report.
Therefore, we were able to identify any
improvement in CERCLIS data integrity for these
two Regions. We also reviewed accomplishments
in Regions 4 and 5 because they are two of the
largest Regions in terms of the number of sites.
Our audit work on CERCLIS data integrity was
limited to and consisted of validating CERCLIS
accomplishments, verifying selected CERCLIS
information in the Annual Report, and follow up
on prior reports' suggestions and concerns.
We determined the appropriateness of the sampled
accomplishments claimed by Regions 4 and 5 by
comparing the supporting documentation to the
requirements in Agency program guidance. We
began reviewing these accomplishments in January
1991, and completed the review in June 1991. We
notified officials in Regions 4 and 5 of our
concerns so that they could address them. Specific
recommendations addressing our concerns will be
included in subsequent reports.
We also learned that the General Accounting
Office was performing an audit of the Outyear
Liability Model, the Agency's instrument for
estimating the cost of cleanup of sites on the
National Priorities List. Therefore, we did not
review the model during our review of the
Agency's FY90 Annual Report.
Throughout the course of our review, we brought
a number of concerns to the Report Coordinator's
attention. He satisfactorily addressed all of these
concerns, except the ones discussed in this report.
Nothing else came to our attention as a result of
the specified procedures we conducted that would
disclose any additional weaknesses. However, we
believe the weaknesses identified extended beyond
our sample of Region 4 and 5 accomplishments.
Integrity Concerns Hamper Using the
Program's Primary Information System
Agency officials did not rely on data from the
program's primary information system, the
CERCLIS, when preparing the Annual Report.
The system contained data needed to comply with
several of the statutory requirements for the
Annual Report. However, when some of the
sections of the Annual Report were prepared,
either another information source was used or the
CERCLIS data was revised because of a lack of
confidence in CERCLIS data integrity. The lack
of CERCLIS data integrity resulted in EPA and
EPA contractor officials spending extensive time
manually reviewing the data (quality assurance and
quality control), before it could be readied for the
Annual Report. Data integrity has been a
continuing problem so we tested the integrity of
data entered into CERCLIS by two EPA Regions.
Regional officials were asked to enter information
related to FY90 actions by October 19, 1990.
Agency staff in the Regions were also responsible
for ensuring the integrity of the information they
entered in CERCLIS. Since CERCLIS is a
dynamic system and the data continually changed,
it was "frozen" on October 19 for the FY90 Annual
Report. An accuracy check of the "frozen" data
was completed by Agency officials on November
11,1990. Thus, CERCLIS data that should have
been accurate was available by the middle of
November 1990. However, because of additional
concerns about the integrity of the CERCLIS data,
the information did not directly become the
Annual Report appendixes. Instead, the data was
used to manually update the exhibits from the
FY89 Annual Report. During this quality
assurance process, several inconsistencies were
identified and addressed by Agency officials. The
inconsistencies were not resolved until April 1991.
Based on our testing, we later identified seven
additional errors in these appendixes related to
sites in Regions 4 and 5. We reported these errors
to Regional personnel and to the Report
Coordinator, and during our review of the final
draft of the Annual Report, we found that the
seven errors were corrected by the Report
Coordinator.
As another example regarding our data integrity
concerns, the Agency did not rely on CERCLIS for
the number of removal action starts to be reported
in the Annual Report. Instead, figures were
supplied by the Emergency Response Division
(ERD). The Agency could not rely on CERCLIS
because ERD officials had not entered the data
promptly. As of December 19,1990, ERD had not
entered 37 removal action starts in CERCLIS. As
F-4
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1990
a result, CERCLIS did not reflect actual FY90
activity. (We did not test the additional 37 starts to
determine if they were valid FY90
accomplishments.)
In conclusion, CERCLIS should be accurate so
that the Agency may rely on its main Superfund
data management system. However, we are
concerned that the Agency cannot rely upon
CERCLIS for readily available information for the
Annual Report. We are also concerned that this
continuing lack of CERCLIS data integrity results
in an extensive and time-consuming manual quality
control process.
SITE Demonstrations Were Funded by
the Agency
Among the completed SITE demonstrations
identified in the Annual Report were two funded
by the Agency which reflected a change in the
Agency's policy related to the SITE program.
Initially, Agency projects were excluded from the
demonstration program. According to the
December 1986 "SITE Strategy and Program Plan"
(EPA/540/G-86/001; OSWER 9380.2-3), the
primary purpose of the SITE program was to
enhance the development and demonstration, and
thereby establish the commercial availability, of
innovative technologies at Superfund sites as
alternatives to the containment systems presently
in use. For projects selected under the program,
EPA would work with the inventor (or developer)
to conduct a demonstration. However, the Agency
intended that the private sector participant would
conduct the demonstration with the Agency
evaluating the results. Regarding demonstrations
funded by the Agency, the program plan stated on
page 15:
New technologies are now developed in
EPA's ongoing research programs in
ORD [Office of Research and
Development]. These are often
demonstrated by EPA but are not part of
the SITE program. The SITE program
demonstrations focus on privately
developed technologies. (Emphasis
added.)
Demonstrations funded by the Agency, which were
previously excluded, are now being identified by
the Agency with the SITE program. For example,
one of the two Agency demonstrations listed in the
Annual Report was on debris washing. Although
it was completed in December 1989, it did not
appear in the Agency's SITE program internal
status report for FY90. The October 10, 1990,
SITE quarterly status report, for the period ending
September 1990, listed the other EPA
demonstration but not the debris washing. Thus,
the debris washing demonstration was completed
during the first quarter of FY90, but not identified
with the program until after the fiscal year ended.
In a memorandum to us dated May 23, 1991, the
Director, Superfund Technology Demonstration
Division, stated that the policy change was to make
the SITE program more flexible and responsive to
both EPA regions and private developers. In
addition to bringing private technology vendors to
a Superfund site, the SITE program would include
demonstrations of Agency developed technologies
as well as evaluations of technologies already
selected by the Agency for field studies and clean-
up actions. He believed the program expansion
was "within the letter and, certainly, within the
spirit of the legislation."
However, it concerns us that neither the Annual
Report nor the SITE Program report to Congress
identified the policy change regarding Agency
demonstrations, although both reports now
describe the Agency demonstrations as part of the
SITE program.
F-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
Appendix
G
List of Sources
The following is a list of reference sources that were used in the preparation of this Report. Sources for data
used in graphics within the text are cited on the graphics and also listed below. Other references were used for
background information and also for fiscal year accomplishment data.
Statutes
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, P.L. 96-510 (11 December 1980), 42
U.S.C. § 9601 et. se£.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, P.L. 94-580 (21 October 1976), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et. seq.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, P.L. 99-499 (17 October 1986), 42 U.S.C. § 11001 et. seq.
Rulemakings
"Federal Facilities Added to the National Priorities List;" 52 FR 27620 (July 22,1987).
"Technical Assistance Grants to Groups at National Priorities List Sites," Interim Final Rule with Request for
Comments, 53 FR 9736 (March 24, 1988).
"Cooperative Agreement arid Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions," Interim Final Rule with
Request for Comments, 54 FR 4132 (January 27, 1989).
"Response Claims Procedures for the Hazardous Substance Superfund;" Proposed Rule, 54 FR 37892 (September
13, 1989).
"Taylor Borough Superfund Site NPL Deletion;" Notice of Intent to Delete a Site from the National Priorities List
(NPL), 54 FR 40889 (October 4, 1989).
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites ~ Final Rule Covering [sic] Sites Subject to the
Subtitle C Corrective Action Authorities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;" Final Rule, 54 FR
41000 (October 4,1989).
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites ~ Final Rule 10/04/89;" Final Rule, 54 FR 41015
(October 4, 1989).
G-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites; Proposed Update No. 10;" Proposed Rule, 54
FR 43778 (October 26, 1989).
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites," Final Rule, 54 FR 48184 (November 21,1989).
"Technical Assistance Grants to Groups at National Priorities List Sites," Amendments to the Interim Final Rule
with Request for Comments, 54 FR 49848 (December 1, 1989).
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites;" Final Rule, 55 FR 6154 (February 21,1990).
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites; Deletion of a Site;" Notice of Intent to Delete
Sites; Request for Comments, 55 FR 7507 (March 2,1990).
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan," Final Rule, 55 FR 8666 (March 8,1990).
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites;" Final Rule, 55 FR 9688 (March 14, 1990).
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update;" Notice of
Deletion of a Site from the National Priorities List, 55 FR 22030 (May 31, 1990).
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites;" Final Rule, 55 FR 35502 (August 30,1990).
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List;" Notice of Intent
to Delete Whitehall Municipal Wells Site from the National Priorities List; Request for Comments, 55 FR
38816 (September 21, 1990).
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; the National Priorities List; Request for
Comments;" Notice of Intent to Delete a Site from the National Priorities List; Request for Comments, 55
FR 39179 (September 25,1990).
"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List," Final
Rule, 48 FR 40658 (September 8, 1983).
"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List,"
Final Rule, 49 FR 37070 (September 21, 1984).
"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; the National Priorities List,"
Proposed Rule, 49 FR 40320 (October 15, 1984).
"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List,"
Final Rule, 50 FR 6320 (February 14,1985).
"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List,"
Proposed Rule, 50 FR 14115 (April 10, 1985).
"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List,"
Final Rule, 50 FR 37630 (September 11, 1985).
"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List,"
Proposed Rule, 50 FR 37950 (September 18,1985).
G-2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites - Final Update No. 5," Final Rule 54 FR 13296
(March 31, 1989).
Memoranda
Memorandum; Subject: Final Guidance on Implementation of the "Consistency" Exemption to the Statutory
Limits on Removal Actions; From: Jonathan Z. Cannon, Acting Assistant Administrator; To: Regional
Administrators, Regions I-X, OSWER Directive No. 9360.0-12A1, June 12, 1989.
Memorandum; Subject: Draft Guidance on CERCLA § 106(a) Administrative Orders for Removal Actions; From:
John Cross, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement; To: Oil and Hazardous Materials Coordinators, Regions
I-X, June 19, 1989.
Memorandum; Subject: Unaddressed NPL Sites, From: J. Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator; To: Regional
Administrators, Regions I-X; OSWER Directive 9200.2-01, July 6, 1989.
Memorandum; Subject: Use of Removal Approaches to Speed Up Remedial Action Projects; From: Jonathan
Z. Cannon, Acting Assistant Administrator; To: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X; OSWER Directive
9355.0-25A; July 6, 1989.
Memorandum; Subject: Action Memorandum Guidance and Removal Procedures Strategy; From: Timothy Fields,
Jr., Director, Emergency Response Division; To: Addressees, July 18, 1989.
Memorandum; Subject: Performance of 5-Year Reviews and Their Relationship to the Deletion of Sites from the
National Priorities List (NPL) (Superfund Management Review: Recommendation No. 2); From: Jonathan
Z. Cannon, Acting Assistant Administrator; To: Regional Administrators I-X; October 30, 1989.
Memorandum; Subject: Accelerated Response at NPL Sites Guidance (Superfund Management Review:
Recommendation No. 22); From: Don R. Clay, Assistant Administrator; To: Regional Directors; OSWER
Directive No. 9200.2-02; OSWER; December 15, 1989.
Memorandum; Subject: Interim Guidance on Addressing Immediate Threats at NPL Sites (Superfund
Management Review: Recommendation No. 22); From: Don R. Clay, Assistant Administrator; To: Regional
Directors; OSWER Directive No. 9200.2-03; OSWER; January 30, 1990.
Memorandum; Subject: Planning for Sufficient Community Relations; (Superfund Management Review: #43A);
From: Henry L. Longest II, Director, OERR; To: Hazardous Waste Management Regional Directors;
OSWER Directive 9230.0-08; OERR; March 7, 1990.
Memorandum; Subject: Superfund Responsiveness Summaries; (Superfund Management Review: #43.A); From:
Henry L. Longest II, Director, OERR; To: Hazardous Waste Management Regional Directors; OSWER
Directive 9203.0-06; OERR; June 4, 1990.
Memorandum; Subject: The Role of Community Interviews in the Development of a Community Relations
Program for Remedial Response; From: Henry L. Longest II, Director, OERR; To: Hazardous Waste
Management Regional Directors; OSWER Directive 9230.0-15; OERR; June 15,1990.
G-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
Memorandum; Subject: Summary Report on the Superfund Response Agreements Seminar; From: Jan H. Baker,
Chief of the Superfund State Involvement Section, OERR; To: Murray Newton, Chief of State and Local
Coordination Branch; July 27, 1990.
Memorandum; Subject: Community Relations: Use of Senior Environmental Employees in Superfund (Superfund
Management Review: Recommendation 43.K, L); From: Henry L. Longest II, Director; OERR; To:
Hazardous Waste Management Regional Directors; OSWER Directive No. 9230.0-09; OERR; August 31,
1990.
Memorandum; Subject: The Proposed Method to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Community Involvement in
Superfund; (Superfund Management Review: Recommendation #43.A); From: Henry L. Longest II, Director,
OERR; To: Hazardous Waste Management Regional Directors; OSWER Directive 9230.0-19; OERR;
September 18,1990.
Memorandum; Subject: Analysis of Regional Superfund Enforcement Units; Management and Organization
Division, Office of Administration, Office of Administration and Resources Management; September 23,1990.
Memorandum; Subject: Using State and Local Officials to Assist in Community Relations; (Superfund
Management Review: Recommendation #43.K, L); From: Henry L. Longest II, Director, OERR; To:
Hazardous Waste Management Regional Directors; OSWER Directive 9230.0-17; OERR; September 28,1990.
Memorandum; Subject: Making Superfund Documents Available to the Public Throughout the Cleanup Process,
and Discussing Site Findings and Decisions as They are Developed; (Superfund Management Review: #43.G,
H, Q, R, T); From: Henry L. Longest II, Director, OERR; To: Hazardous Waste Management Regional
Directors; OSWER Directive 9230.0-16; OERR; November 5, 1990.
Memorandum; Subject: Innovative Methods to Increase Public Involvement in Superfund Community Relations;
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation #43.A); From: Henry L. Longest II, Director, OERR;
To: Hazardous Waste Management Regional Directors; OSWER Directive 9230.0-20; OERR; November 30,
1990.
Memorandum; Subject: Minimizing Problems Caused by Staff Turnover; (Superfund Management Review:
Recommendation #43.M, N, O); From: Henry L. Longest II, Director, OERR; To: Hazardous Waste
Management Regional Directors; OSWER Directive 9230.0-13; OERR; December 19,1990.
Memorandum; Subject: Incorporating Citizen Concerns Into Superfund Decision-Making; (Superfund
Management Review: Recommendation #43.B); From: Henry L. Longest II, Director, OERR; To: Hazardous
Waste Management Regional Directors; OSWER Directive 9230.0-18; OERR; January 21,1991.
Reports
"A Management Review of the Superfund Program," Publication 9201.01-A, May 1989.
"A Management Review of the Superfund Program," Implementation Plan, Publication 9201.02-A, September 1989.
Superfund Program Report-Regional Branch Chiefs, Quarterly Update, OERR.
FY88 ROD Summary Report, HSCD/OERR, March 1989.
G-4
-------
Pro&ess Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
FY89 ROD Annual Summary Report, HSCD.
FY90 ROD Annual Summary Report, HSCD.
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1987, OERR, April 1989.
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1988, OERR, April 1990.
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1989, OERR, October 1990.
Guidance Documents
Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.0-4A, OERR, June 1986.
Preliminary Assessment Guidance for Fiscal Year 1988, OSWER Directive 9345.0-01, OERR, January 1988.
Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: The Proposed Plan and the Record of Decision (Review
Draft), OERR, March 1988.
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA (Draft), OSWER
Directive 9355.3-01, OERR, March 1988.
Interim Guidance on Administrative Records for Selection of CERCLA Response Actions, OSWER Directive
9833.3A, OERR, March 1,1989.
Completion and Deletion Status of National Priorities List Sites, HSCD/OERR, September 1, 1989.
Completion and Deletion Status of National Priorities List Sites, HSCD/OERR, September 1,1990.
Interim Final Guidance on Indian Involvement in the Superfund Program, OSWER Directive 9375.5-02, October
18,1989.
Revised Interim Final Guidance on Indian Involvement in the Superfund Program, OSWER Directive 9375.5-02A,
November 1989.
Superfund Removal Procedures Action Memorandum Guidance, OSWER Directive 9360.3-01, OERR, September
1990.
Other Sources
Management of Construction in the Superfund Program (Training booklet), HSCD, July 31, 1986.
"The New Superfund: Protecting People and Their Environment;" EPA Journal, Office of Public Affairs,
January/February 1987.
"Superfund: Looking Back, Looking Ahead;" Reprinted from EPA Journal, Office of Public Affairs, April 1987.
Pre-Remedial Strategy for Implementing SARA, OSWER Directive 9345.2-01, OSWER, February 12,1988.
G-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPEBFUND Fiscal Year 1990
"Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket;" EPA initial list of Federal Facilities Under CERCLA
Section 120(c), 53 FR 4280 (February 12, 1988).
Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook (Interim Version), OSWER Directive 9230.0-3B, OERR, March
1988.
"EPA revises policy for listing RCRA sites on NPL," Hazardous Intelligence Materials Reports, August 5, 1988.
"Superfund Program Status: Regional Branch Chiefs Quarterly Update;" OSWER, October 24, 1988.
"Availability of Final Versions of Toxicological Profiles," Notice, 54 FR 14037 (April 6, 1989).
"Availability of Final Versions of First 25 Toxicological Profiles," Notice, 54 FR 26417 (June 23, 1989).
"Availability of Final Versions of Toxicological Profiles," Notice, 54 FR 49816 (December 1,1989).
"Hazard Ranking System (HRS) for Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Releases; Field Test Report," Notice of
Availability of Data and Request for Comment, 54 FR 37949 (September 14, 1989).
"Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket;" First six-month update of list of Federal Facilities Under
CERCLA Section 120(c) and revisions to initial list, 53 FR 45364 (November 16, 1988).
"Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket," Notice of Second Update of the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Pursuant to CERCLA Section 102(c), 54 FR 51472 (December 15,
1988).
"1989-1993 Training Strategy;" OSWER.
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice of
Deletion of Site from the National Priorities List, 53 FR 51780 (December 23, 1988).
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice of
Deletion of Site from the National Priorities List, 54 FR 2124 (January 19, 1989).
"Presque Isle Superfund Site; National Priorities List Deletion," Notice of Deletion of Site from the National
Priorities List, 54 FR 6521 (February 13, 1989).
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice of
Deletion of Site from the National Priorities List, 54 FR 7424 (February 21, 1989).
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice of
Deletion of Site from National Priorities List, 54 FR 7548 (February 22, 1989).
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice of
Deletion of Site from National Priorities List, 54 FR 7549 (February 22, 1989).
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice of
Deletion of Site from National Priorities List, 54 FR 11203 (March 17, 1989).
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice of
Deletion of Site from National Priorities List, 54 FR 11949 (March 23, 1989).
G-6
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice of
Deletion of Site from National Priorities List, 54 FR 23212 (May 31, 1989).
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice of
Deletion of Site from National Priorities List, 54 FR 38994 (September 22,1989).
Agency Review of SARA Capacity Assurance Plans, OSWER Directive 9010.00A, October 16,1989.
Solicitations for Research Grant Proposals -1990, Exploratory Research Grants, EPA/60019-89/074, August 1989.
Superfund Technical Assistance Grant Program Status Report, October 17, 1989.
Technical Assistance Grant Awards Data, August 17,1990.
Technical Assistance Grant Status Data for FY88, FY89, FY90 Data, October 3,1990.
FY1990 Annual Report of the Research Grants Program, U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, January
1991.
Small Business Innovation Research Program - 1990: Abstracts of Phase I and II Awards, U.S. EPA Office of
Research and Development.
"Highlights of Superfund Grants Programs," ORD, September 1989.
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program, EPA Research Symposium, EPA 540/889/002, April
10-12, 1989.
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) -- Technology Profiles, U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, November 1990.
Political Subdivision-Lead for Remedial Response, OSWER Directive 9375.5-03, May 1,1989.
State and Local Involvement in the Superfund Program, OSWER Directive 9375.01/FS, Fall 1989.
Status of State Involvement in the Superfund Program FY80 to FY89, U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, April 1990.
Operating Instructions for 40 CFR Part 30 Subpart O, Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts
for Superfund Response Actions, OSWER Directive 9375.5-XX.
"Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions;" Final Rule, 55 FR
22994, June 5, 1990.
An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, Prepared for U.S. EPA Hazardous Site Control
Division, Publication 9375.6-OA, August 1989.
Conference of State Superfund Programs: The Managers' Challenge of the 1990s -- Issues Summaries and Agenda,
U.S. EPA Hazardous Site Control Division; Publication 9375.6-08A, July 1990.
Remarks for Don Clay, EPA/Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO)
Superfund State Managers Conference, U.S. EPA, Hazardous Site Control Division, July 31,1990.
G-7
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
The History of the Core Program Concept," Prepared for the Conference on: State Superfund Programs: The
Managers' Challenge for the 1990s, Presented by Jan A. Baker, Chief, Superfund State Involvement Section,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, July 1990.
Active Superfund Contractor Listing FY 1988-1989, EPA Office of Administration.
EPA Superfund Budget Documents.
EPA Superfund Budget Analysis Resource System.
List of FY88 Requests, Superfund Docket and Information Center.
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan.
CERCLA Information System.
Congressional Budget Submissions.
EPA Contract Laboratory Program, Sample Management Office.
Final Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System.
Removal Tracking System, Emergency Response Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Strategic Planning and Management System.
1989 Report to Congress on Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (March 1990), "Highlights of Superfund
Grants Program; ORD.
"National Priorities List, Supplementary List and Supporting Material," OERR, 53 FR 3811, October, 1989.
"Approval of Long-Term Contracting Strategy for Superfund," (Superfund Management Review: Recommendation
E.2), August 31, 1990. EPA/9242.6-07.
"Closing the NPL Book Under the Original HRS," November 1990, EPA/9320.7-04FS.
"The Revised Hazard Ranking System: An Improved Tool for Screening Superfund Sites," November 1990, EPA
9320.7-01FS.
"Superfund Progress: Environmental Indicators," Fact Sheet, Publication 9200.5-007/FS, OERR, November 1990.
"Superfund: Reporting Progress Through Environmental Indicators;" OERR, Publication 9200.5-07.
"Report Summarizes Recent Trends in Superfund Program," Hazardous Materials Intelligence Report (ISSN 0272-
9628), World Information Systems, November 30,1990, pp. 1-2.
Superfund Management Review - End of Year Report; Contribution of the Office of Research and Development.
Superfund Management Review Implementation Plan, September 1990.
Superfund Environmental Progress, November 1990. EPA/540/8-90/010.
G-8
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1990
"How to Obtain Superfund Information - Quick Reference Fact Sheet," Publication #9200.5-405/FS,
OERR/HSCD, January 1990.
' * U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893:60654 ' G-9
-------
Mailing List for the
FY91 Supertund Annual Report to Congress
The FY90 Superfund Annual Report to Congress has been sent to you, as requested. If you
would like to be on the mailing list to receive the FY91 Superfund Annual Report to Congress,
please complete this mailing form.
Name:
Title:
Company/
Affiliation:
Street:
City:
State:
Zip:
Which one of the following categories best describes your
occupation/affiliation?
G Congress Q Regulated Industry
G Federal Government
Department/Agency
Q Educational Institution
Q State/Local
Government
G Consulting Firm
G Public Interest Group Q Student
G Trade Association G Other (specify)
G Private Individual
How many individuals
typically use your copy
of this report?
G one
Q 2-10
G 11-50
G more than 50
Which of the following two categories best describes your use of the Report?
Q Reference for the Superfund program
G Analysis of program status
G General environmental information
G Superfund program statistics
G Analysis of budget issues
G Site-specific reference
G Analysis of Superfund program issues
G Other (specify)
Please provide any comments on the Report's content or format that would increase its
usefulness to you or your organization.
To mail this form, simply:
1 Fold into thirds (along the dotted lines), so that the address on the reverse shows on the outside;
2. Tape (do not staple) it closed;
3. Add a first dass postage stamp; and
4. Drop it in the mail.
-------
Apply
Postage
Hera
Policy and Analysis Staff
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (OS-240)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
------- |