-
,-
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

-------