EB85-120996
EPA-600/D-84-265
October 1984
Guidelines for Decontaminating Buildings, Structures,
and Equipment at Superfund Sites
M. P. Esposito, J. McArdle, and J. S. Greber
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio
R. Clark
Battelle Columbus Laboratories
Columbus, Ohio
EPA Contract 68-03-3190
EPA Project Officer
Naomi P. Barkley
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT LATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse be lore completing)
1 REPORT NO.
EPA—600/D—84—265 12.
SION NO
3 RECIP SACCEj 0 9 9 6
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Guidelines for Decontaminating Buildings, Structures
and Equipment at Superfund Sites
5. REPORT DATE
October 1984
6.PERFORMINGORGANIZATION CODE
7 iTH R 5 p 05 j, J. McArdle, J. S. Greber, and
R. Clark*
B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
3 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PEDCo Environmental, Inc. *Battelle Columbus
11499 Chester Road Laboratories
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246 Columbus, OH
IO.f AM ELEMENT NO.
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
68-03-3190
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory-—Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmetital Protection Agency .
Cincinnati,_Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOb COVERED
Inte im — 9/83-6/84
14. SPONSORINGAOENCYCODE
EPA/6O0/l4
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Naomi P. Barkley, Project Officer 513/684-7875
15 AUSTRACT
This paper identifies contaminants most likely to occur in buildings and structure
or on removal equipment at remedial sites. Steps for developing a general decontami-
nation strategy are enumerated. The paper also announces a User’s Guide or handbook
that will be published by the U.S. EPA as the final product of Contract 68—03—3190.
Additional researcn needs concerning builThng decontamination are identified
and the need for documentation and verification of methods currently in use is
stressed..
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS Ib.IDFF.JTIFIERS,OPEN ENDED TERMS
C COSATI rield/croup
18 DI TRI8JTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19 SECURITY CLAS1 (tins Reparvj
UNCLASSIFIED
21 NO OF PAC,ES
15
22 PRICE
EPA Foim 2220—I (Rev. .—77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS ODSOLETE
I
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. ‘ention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recoendatj.on for use.
ii
-------
GUIDELINES FOR DECONTAMINATING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND
EQUIPMENT AT SUPERFUND SITES
M. P. Esposito ,’ J. McArdle, and J.S. Greber
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio
R. Clark
Battelle Columbus Laboratories
Columbus, Ohio
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), the Superfund legislation, established
a dual-phase program for responding to environmental problems caused
by hazardous substances. The “v moval program” involves cleanup or
other actions that are taken in response to emergency conditions, or
on a short-term or temporary basis. The “remedial program” involves
response actions that tend to be long—term in nature and that perma-
nently remedy problem sites.
To be eligible for cleanup under Superfund, a site must be in-
cluded on the National Priorities List (NPL). As of this writing, 406
sites appear on the NPL, which was promulgated by the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) on September 8, 1983. Currently, the EPA
is proposing the addition of 133 new sites to the list.
As the number of sites on the NPL grows and as removal and reme—
dial activities at Superfund sites accelerate, the task of decontami-
nating buildings, structures, and construction equipment will become
increasingly important. These items often represent large capital
1
-------
investments, and the costs of dismantling and disposing of such struc-
tures in a secure landfill can be very expensive. The objective of an
effective decontamination program, therefore, is to return contaminated
buildings, structures, and equipment to active, productive status.
This study had as its goal the development of a general gu de for
government personnel, cleanup contractors, and other individuals
responsible for planning and executing decontamination activities at
Superfund sites.
TECHNICAL APPROACH
As an initial part of the study (begun in the fall, 1983), a
survey of ongoing decontamination activities at 50 Superfund sites
across the country, which were thought to have potentially contaminated
buildings, structures, and equipment, was conducted in order to gather
information on 1) the types of contaminants of most concern and 2)the
methods currently being proposed or u3ed for decontamination of th
buildings, structures, and equipment in place at these sites. Contrac-
tors and numerous other individuals with direct experience in both
Superfund and non—Superfund related programs involving decontamination
of dioxins, explosives, PCBSS, and other toxic wastes from buildings
and equipment were contacted. In addition, a thorough search of
published literature for information on decontamination methods was
conducted through computerized search services.
From these surveys, a decontaminatjpn data base containing s ate-
of—the-art information on specific cleanup methods and their applica-
tions, as well as guidelines for developing site-specific cleanup
strategies, was developed.
2
-------
RESULTS
The 1983 survey of building/equipment decontamination practices
at Superfund sites revealed that the contaminants of most concern at
these sites include asbestns, acids and alkalis, dioxins, explosives,
heavy metals, cyanides, low—level ionizing radiation, organic solvents,
pesticides, and PCB’s. The methods used to remove these substances
from buildings, structures, and equipment are few in number and rarely
documented in detail. For example, it Is comon practice to steam
clean equipment such as back oes, bulldozers, arid drilling augers, but
testing to verify that the contaminants of concern have been adequately
removed is generally not performed. Contaminated buildings and struc-
tures are seldom cleaned and returned to active use. More often, they
are closed and barricaded to prevent further entry and exposure until
sometime in the future when a sotution regarding their disposition-can
be found. Some buildings are torn down and buried in landfills.
Contaminated underground structures such as tanks, sumps, and sewers
are sometimes filled in place with concrete to prevent their reuse.
Because these findings clearly pointed to the need for basic
guidance material on decontamination methods, the remainder of the
project was devoted to developing a manual, or user’s guide, for this
purpose. The handbook which was developed presents general guidelines
for developing a rationale and strategy (suninarized in Figure 1) for
dealing with the prospect of decontamination, including guidance and
information for selecting the least—costly method(s) that are techno—
lo’ ically feasible and that will effec ve1y reduce contamination to
predetermined levels. Steps in the process include 1) determining the
nature and extent of contamination, 2) developing and implementing a
3
-------
SLUC. 0L UUS mflI a c .g5
IIt,(CT •Cp TI.
l MwSST US
c t $ 171 I’IJICTIOI
1 &V v AAtCS
101121v h
I •!l t4: : .% -:
TI S
I
ShifT ST an.::::L r
T.CC( 5) rca g c,:
NC ;i.*TI iu z:
L(’(L$
,
t•( C •’C a.(a .i&; .
JAc WUV a1 j:a —c
T :iT WA(TW(I T&I T
LCV(tI Ay( ILLI a( C.d(D
I
UPIAL Oa N Olfy cCC T D’!UTIca
1).P1 £ 5 ‘ iSSASv
Figure 1. Flow diagram illustrating sequence of steps for
developing a decontamination strategy.
:ii,’os s
L’ tOTt -
DETERMINE NATURE AND
EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION i
i IDCit:rv ruT i II1 co —
V I I Of Iv D!l S.
T%*iS. £ ( JI ClT
U’as.isau NCO Tw: ;ca
tae iuit rca c t*..
IM*5 PI( IT
I
I
[
DEVELOP
SPEC!FIC
PLAN
A_’ D I.ENEt.T SITE
DECON
v,I?t 1 T(
,l U
EVALUATE DECONTAM!NATION
EFFEcTIVENEsS
“tat c ’Tu -oa & :lITIaT(
C L I
,
L C LICT M3
5J ,us
4
-------
site-specific decontamination plan, and 3) evaluating decontamination
ffectlveness. Step 1 consists of a) querying former employees, b)
searching old business reocrds, inspection reports, and news stories
c) conducting a visual site inspection, and d) collecting and analyzing
samples from the contaminated surfaces or structures. Step 2 is
further broken down into the following activities: a) idennfying the
future Intended use of buildings, structures, and, equipment; b) esta-
blishing decontamination target levels for the contaminants present;
c) identifying and evaluating potential decontaniinatjon methods; d)
selecting the most appropriate method(s) for achieving the decontamin-
ation target levels; e) determining worker health and safety require-
ments (training, medical surveillance, personal protective equipment,
site safety); f) writing the site decontamination plan; g) estimating
costs; and h) hiring the contrac or and initiating cleanup. Step 3
involves a) reinspecting the site for evidence of residual contamina-
tion, b) collecting and analyzing samples from the decontaminated
area, and c) determining whether the target levels for residual contam-
ination have been reached. This step can also include repeating, and
if necessary, modifying the decontamination procedures until satisfac-
tory results are obtained. Descriptions of actual building decontami-
nation efforts at both Superfund and non-Superfund sites are included
as case studies.
The manual contains process descriptions for 21 decontamination
methodologies including both traditionaj -and developmental techniques
(asbestos abatement, absorption, demoll”-n, dismantling, dusting/
vacuuming/wiping, encapsulation, gritbiasting, hydroblasting/water-
washing, painting/coating, scarification, RadKleen, solvent washing,
5
-------
steam cleaning, vapor-phase solvent extraction, acid etching, bleaching,
flaming, drilling andspaIling , K-20, microbial degradation, and
photochemical degradation), and describes their potential applica-
bility to various combinations of contaminants and materials. Poten-
tial cleanup methods are identified In a two-dimensional matrix (see
Table 1) matching contaminants (asbestos, acids, alkalis, dioxins,
explosives, heavy metals and cyanides, low—level radiation, organic
solvents, pesticides, PCB’s, and all contaminants in liquid form) with
materials/surfaces (all wall, ceiling, and floot surfaces; glass;
plastic; metal; wood; brick; concrete; aluminum; and equipment arid
auxiliary structures). Finally, tue manual describes safeguards for
protecting the health and safety of decontamination workers during
site operations. Topics covered include personnel training, medical
surveillance, personal protectiv equipment, and site safety.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
As a result of this paper study, it has become clear that all
future owners of decontaminated buildings and structures on Superfund
sites should be advised of the nature of the contamination that was
present, the cleanup methods used, and levels of any residual contami-
nants. Ensuring the transfer of such- information from one site owner
to the next will require a method for permanently recording this
information. Regulations requiring the addition of such information
to the property deed, as is required in the deed of all RCRA-permitted
fac lities, may be a workable solution.
The handbook which was developed- Tll provide much of the guid-
ance needed by site cleanup personnel for decontaminating buildings,
6
-------
TABLE 1. POTENTIAL DECONTAMINATION METHODS FOR VARIOUS CONTAMINANT/MATERIAL
COMBINATIONSa
fo deco ta.lnatl. . 1.lt.o4 .
&abit abat,.a ..1 • 7. Abrici . l ,llblasIl
14 Miasilie. I. H,d ,obl.,IIn ..t,n.. . hing
1. DesmIctios 3. Pacstin 1caa1in;
4. • 0’ . ...i la i ID kar$IicaII ,n
1. DaitI’.i ca.i 9 1 .Ipin 1 II. i ldIll i..
I i .ca . .iata , .
$ (1.1 cell ii the ..t,i. ..p ic,.ci a ip.cific C$stIli. .an1/iabiI at, c in.ti. . Iii CO .Iaia.i 5. 11.1 1
Cl1 l1lOndl 9 ii d,Co .t..lnatio , 1.11 .41 *1.1* elIte, 1a,e bees did Iii 9e ip.c4ll ia(...ctisni. 0 ’
ha., lIe ..l, .tial I , . s .d. c i .. baled en • .allabl, iaf,. %l.s I. It, pabll Ih14 iIt. .I,’e. (aU
1. 1 1.daI9p (a, be .114 aIo . or Is coeJi.ncliss . 1 111 $1 1 1 Or 1. I Si the 111.1, proCedarel.
I?. 111.19
is. 0.illi 1 s..d sialliss
I I. 1.10(0.119
70 UIcro iel 4. 5V 1 11 1I1.
71 Phel,i..i,sl de lIldIttIS
Iete’ial/,arfac,
III . 111 c,lIisg. i’d
ii i , , i. .Iaci I
ala . ,
Pl a ic
helal
1Q04
Co.l..Ieant
libeitos
1.1.1.3
1.3.4.1
131,3
1.3.1.1
1.3.4.3
Scidi
3, 1. 1.1.
II
3.1.6.1.14
3.l.a.I.la
7
1
ClI.IIi
3.4.1.1
3.4.6.1
IS
7.11
7.11
Dli.ini
3.4.1.6.3.
i i
3.45.6.9.11
IS
7.13
7.11
(.Ililflllel
3.4.6.1.13
1.16
1.1 5. 16
7.1.11.11.
I I
1.11.16.10
I ea. 7
1. 1.11
and i,.nld.
3.4.1.6.5.
3.11
31.1.1.3.3.11
I I
7.11
7.15
( o.. .ts.,I
r14latiee
3.1.1.6.1
I
II I
7.5.11
7.13
0r3.sIc
ieI.,.Ii
3.1.1.1
3.1.1.1
IS
7. 13
7.11
P,,Iictd,s
1.5.1.1.11
II
11. 1 1
1.13.16
7.15.11.10
•CI1
3.6.3.4.3
1.13.1.1
Ii
7. 11
7. 11. 13
L I I it..
tectr s is
Ilq..ia I. ..
7
3
0
1
1
Inch
Coihili.
1 ,i it lid l . 1lIilr
1t ’,Ctanel (b.,lIlci,n ,.
•li ct,Ic.i tnanilo...,,
1.4 CapacIt, . , 1 . 1 I.
.islIls*iam dccl i. etc
1.1.1.3
1.3. 1,3
1.5
7
7. 10. 11
1.1.11.1 1
13
7. 1 5
7.10.13.11
1.6.11.1?
II
1.13
7.10.11.10
1.3. 1.11.
11.13.71
1.3.11.17.
20
7.1.10.11.
II.I?.IS.
l0
4.1.1.11.
17.13.11
I
1.11
1.10.15.11
4.5.6.7.1.
11.17.13
1. 1. 13 7.13
1.7.1.10. 1.10.13.11
11.11.11
4.1.1.11. 1. 1.11.
11.13 11.1)
1. 13. 73
1.10.13.11
11.10
4.1.11.
11.13
1.13.11
1.10.13.1 1.
I I
4.1.6.1:.
17.13.11
2
j
•
I? SolvinI . 11119
I I. 3Q 1 1. (101149
I I VipOrOblil o1.est ,.tn ti,S
IS. Acid 111119
I I. Sleachie
-------
structures, and equipment. However, additional research is needed to
bridge gaps in the state of the art in four key information areas.
First, and perhaps most importantly, sampling methods for determining
the type and degree of contamination existing on building/structure/
equipment surfaces, both before and after cleanup efforts, are poorly
developed, documented, and verified. Similarly, subsurface sampling
techniques (such as corings) for determining the depth of contamiiiation
in porous substances (such as concrete or wood floors) have not been
adequately developed and documented. Although “wipe tests” are often
referred to in site records, the actual methodology used is rarely
described in enough detail to allow simulation or reproduction by
cthers, and the technique itself is known to be inadequate for quanti-
tatively transferring contaminants from surfaces to wipes or swabs.
Additional research In this areais badly needed.
second, many of the decontamination techniques described in the
manual were developed specifically by the U.S. Army’s Installation
Restoration Program. Their applicability to contaminant/material
combinations encountered at Superfund sites has not been fully ex-
plored. Even where decontamination techniques are indicated for cer-
tain contaminant/material combinations, the more detailed methodology
descriptions should be consulted for ny future work that may be
required before the metnods are selected.
Third, the effectiveness of many decontamination methods current-
ly in use has not been verified and d Cumented. For example, the
degree to which steam cleaning removes dioxin-contaminated soil parti-
cles from drilling augers has not been established. Decontamination
8
-------
methods that have not previously been applied to specific containinant/
substrate combination but show a strong potential applicability
should be validated in pilot investigations. Additions/deletions to
the matrix should be made accordingly. New decontamination technolo-
gies that become available also should be evaluated and -added to the
matrix.
Fourth, a formal, systematic approach for deterinining acceptable
levels of contaminants remaining in and on building and equipment
surfaces does not currently exist. As a result guidance on the “how
clean Is clean?’ issue and the establishment of target levels could
not be included in this manual and must continue to be addressed on a
case—by—case basis.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory 1 Solid and Hazardous W ste
Research Division, Cincinnati, Ohio under Contract No. 68-03-3190.
Ms. Naomi P. Barkley was the Project Officer. Others contributing to
the work were Ann Crone and Mike Hessling of PEDCo, and Ann Langham,
Cindy McCandlish, Scott Brown, and John B. Hallowell of Battelle.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Act II — How Clean is Clean? Hazardous Waste Report, 5(9):13, 1983.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Final Report on Evaluation of Encapsu—
lants for Sprayed-on Asbestos—Containin _I4a’terjals in Buildings.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No.
68—03—2552, 1979.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Final Report on Evaluation of Encapsu-
lants for Sprayed-On Asbestos-Cont3ining Materials in Buildings. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1979.
9
-------
Benecke, P., et al. Development of Novel Decontamination and Inerting
Techniques for Explosives-Contaminated Facilities. Phase I — Identifi-
cation and Evaluation bf Concepts. Vois. 1 a,id 2. DRXTH-TE—CR-83a]1,-
July 1983.
Bromley, J., D. C. Wilson, and E. T. Smith. Remedial Measures Follow-
ing Accidental Release of Dioxin. Chemosphere, 12(4/5):.687-703, 1983.
CH M Hill. Hazardous Waste Site Investigation Training Course Guide.
November 1983.
Crosby, D. G. Methods of Photochemical Degradation of Halogenated
Dioxins in View of Environmental Reclamation. In: Accidental Exposure
to Dioxins. Human Health Aspects. Academic Press, Inc., New York,
1983.
Dempsey, K. B. Biotechnology Aids Disposal. Plants, Sites and Parks,
September/October 1982, pp. 1-8+.
Di Domenico, A., et al. Accidental Release of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodiben-
zo-p-dioxin (TCDD) at Seveso, Italy. I. Sensitivity and Specificity
of Analytical Procedures Adopted for TCDD Analysis. Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety, 4:283—297, 1980.
Di Domenico, A., et al. Accidental Release of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodjben-
zo-p-dioxin (TCDD) at Seveso, Italy: III. Monitoring of Residual
TCDD Levels in Reclaimed Buildins. Ecotoxicology and Environmental
Safety, 4:321—326, 1980.
Di Domenico, A., et al. Accidental Release.of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodiben -
zo-p-dioxin (TCDD) at Seveso: Assessment ofEnvironmental Contamination
and of Effectiveness of Decontamination Treatments. CODATA Bulletin,
29:53-59, 1978.
Furhman, D. Decontamination Operations at Gateway Army AnTnunition
Plant. DRXTH-AS-CR—83250, November 1983.
Ghezzi, I. Potential 2,3,7,8—Tetrachlorodibenzo—p—dioxjn Exposure of
Sevc-so Decontamination Workers. Scandanavian Journal of Work Environ-
ment and Health, 8(Suppl. 1):176—179,-1982.
Haines, R.V., and W. W. Kelley. Frankford Arsenal Decontamination!
Cleanup Operation — Cleanup and Demolition of the 400 Area. Rockwell
International. Pub. No. N505T1000054, November 1980.
Hawthorne, S. H. Solvent Decontamination of PCB Electrical Equipment.
In: IEEE Conference Proceedings, Vol. IA—18, July 1982.
Johnson, W. R. Frankford Arsenal Decontamination/Cleanup Operation -
Standing Operating Procedures for Cleanup of Heavy Metals and Explosive
Residues and Radiological Contamination of Buildings at Frankford
Arsenal. Rockwell International. Pub. No. N5050P000009, April 1980.
10
-------
Johnson, W. R. Frankford Arsenal Decontamination/Cleanup Operation -
Standing Operating Procedures for Cleanup of Heavy Metals and Explosive
Residues From Buildings at Frankford Arsenal. Rockwell international.
Pub. No. N5050P000014, August 1980.
Jones, W. E. Engineering., and Development Support of General Decon
Technology for the U.S. Army t s Installation Restoration Program. Task
5, Facility Decontamination. Defense Technical Information Center,
Alexandria, Virginia. Pub. No. 49-5002-0005, July 1982.
Marion, W. J., and Thomas, S.• Decommissioning Handbook. DOE/EV/10128-
-1, November 1980.
Natale, A., and H. Levins. Asbestos Removal and—Control. An Insiders
Guide to the Business. Sourcefinders, Voorhees,-New Jersey, 1984.
New York State Office of General Services. TheJinghamton State
Office Building Clean-up: A Progress Report Update. Albany, New
York. - January 1983.
Noe, L. Reclamation of the TCDD-Contaminated Seveso Area. In:
Accidental Exposure to Dioxins. Human Health Aspects. Academic
Press, Inc., New York, 1983.
Personal communication from V. G. Rose, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, San Francisco, California, to S. Brown, Battelle Columbus
Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio, on....April 17, 1984.
Pocctiiari, F. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p—dioxin Decontamination.
In: Chlorinated Phenoxy Acids and Their Dioxins. Mode of Action,..-
Health Risks and Environmental Effects. Ecological. Bulletin, 27:67-70,
1978.
Rockwell International. Final Report for the Frankford Arsenal Decon-
tamination/Cleanup Program. DRXTH-FE—CR-800, December 1980.
Roos, K. S., and P. A. Scofield. Health and Safety Considerations:
Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites. In: National Conference on Manage-
ment of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Washington, D.C., October
31 - November 2, 1983. Hazardous Mat rials Control Research Institute,
Silver Spring, Maryland, 1983.
State of Georgia. Department of Natural Resources, Environmental
Protection Division. Luminous Superfund Project Report: Remedial
Action for the Removal of Ra-226 Contamination at the Luminous Proces-
ses, Inc. Site in Clarke County, Georgia. August 1982.
Strahl, H. Frankford Arsenal Decontamination/Cleanup Operation -
Standing Operating Procedures for Cleanup of Explosive Residues From
Buildings at Frankford Arsenal. Rockwell International. Pub. No.
N505P000018, October 1980.
11
-------
Tuttle, R. J. Frankford Arsenal Decontamination/Cleanup Operation —
Cleanness Criteria for Release for Unrestricted Use. Rockwell Interna-
tional. Pub. No. N5O5SRR000002, October 1980.
Tuttle, R. J. Frankford Arsenal Decontamination/Cleanup O eration —
Radiological Inspection for Release for Unrestricted Use. Rockwell
International. Pub. No. NSO5SRR000004, December 1980.
U.S. Environmental ProtTection Agency (Region III). Federal On-Scene
Coordinator’s Report. Chemical Metals Industries, Inc., Baltimore,
Maryland. Imediate Removal Project. Philadelphia. Undated.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for Controlling Friable
Asbestos-Containing Material in Buildings. EPA—560/5-83—O02, March
1983. -
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of- Emergency and Remedial
Response, Hazardous Response Support Division. Interim Standard
Operating Safety Guides. Revised September 1982.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII-. CERCLA Fund Request
for Imediate Removal: Sontag Road Area Superfund Site (Draft). July
22, 1983.
Wolfe, H. R., et al. Some Problems Related to Cleanup of Parathion-
Contaminated Surfaces Following Spillage. In: Proceedings of the
1976 National Conference on Can-trol of Hazardous Material Spills.
EPA-600/5-76-002, 1976.
12
------- |