ROD ANNUAL REPORT
FY 1986
EPA
JANUARY 1987
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
Full Text RODs are available to the public through the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) and the Environmental Law
Institute (ELI). Full text RODs also are distributed to each EPA
Region and numerous government agencies and contractors.
This document was prepared by Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
under Delivery Order Bi 6 of EPA Contract No. 68-01-7376.
Preparation of this document was for the Site Policy and Guidance Branch
of the Hazardous Site Control Division.
-------
FY 1986 ROD ANNUAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTIONS PAGES
I. Introduction !_5
II. Records of Decision Abstracts 1-100
III. Records of Decision Summary Table 1-15
IV. Index of Approved Remedial Actions: FY 1982-1985 1-22
V. Records of Decision Key Word List: FY 1982-1986 1-29
-------
I
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
-------
FY 1986 RECORD OF DECISION
ANNUAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The 1986 fiscal year concluded with a total of 84 approved
Record of Decision (ROD) documents. This achievement marked an
increase over last year’s total of 68 RODs. Exhibit 1 (located
at the end of the Introduction) outlines the steady increase in
ROD approvals since the beginning of the Superfund program.
Delegation of ROD approval authority to the Regional
Administrators once again played an important role in the
remedy selection process, as 98% of all FY86 RODS were approved
in the Regions.
Fiscal year 1986 was year of transition for the ROD
process. Revisions to the National Oil arid Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) in November 1985 called for
the consideration of treatment technologies that destroy or
detoxify hazardous substances for permanent reduction of risk.
In implementing the NCP and looking ahead to pending Superfund
reauthorization, the program selected treatment technologies as
a component of source control remedies 18% over FY85. Of the
60 source control RODS signed in FY86, 27 selected treatment
technologies. Incineration was selected for 12 sites. Various
chemical and physical treatment technologies such as
volatilization/soil aeration, solidification, soil
washing/flushing, and biodegradation also were selected to
address source control problems at the remaining 15 sites.
Exhibit 1 (which follows the introduction) lists the 27 RODs
for FY86 and the selected treatment technologies that are
components of source control remedial actions. In addition,
those RODS approved between FY82—85 that selected treatment
technologies are listed on Exhibit 2.
These remedy selections were made with the intent of being
consistent with the provisions of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) which were enacted October 17,
1986. The amendments state a preference for remedies that
reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of hazardous wastes and
the mandate to utilize permanent solutions to the maximum
extent practicable. The new statute also requires remdial
actions to attain the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) of other Federal and more stringent State
environmental laws. The FY86 RODS were designed to comply with
Federal ARARs, since the program had already done this by
policy to the passage of SARA.
The FY86 ROD Annual Report is designed to provide the
Regions and Headquarters with summary data on FY86 RODs, and
consists of the following sections:
-------
• Introduction — highlights specific accomplishments in
the ROD process.
• ROD Summaries — describes site conditions and key
contaminants, selected remedial actions, specific
remedy performance standards and goals, and
institutional controls for each FY86 ROD.
• FY86 ROD Summary Table — summarizes all remedial
actions, capital and operation and maintenance costs,
contaminated media, and operable unit.
• Index of Approved Remedial Actions — summarizes
selected remedial actions and future operable units
for FY82—85 RODS and other approved decision documents.
• ROD Keyword List — provides major key word categories
and their subcategories for all RODs approved to date.
This reference document, which captures the decisions made for
all approved RODS, will enhance FY87 efforts to revise the ROD
Guidance and prepare RODS ifl conformance with the new SARA and
NCP provisions.
2
-------
Exhibit 1
Summary of FY 1986 ROD Sites Selecting Treatment
Technologies as Components of Source Control Remedies
TECHNOLOGY REGION SITE NAME, STATE
Incineration (12)1 2 I Baird & McGuire, MA
II Hyde Park, NY
Ill Drake, PA
Westline, PA
IV Coleman Evans, FL
Mowbray Engineering, AL
V Arrowhead Refinery, MN
Fields Brook, OH
LaSalle Electric, IL
Metamora Landfill, MI
Spiegelberg Landfill, Ml
VI Sikes Disposal Pit, TX
1,2
Solidification (7) IV Mowbray Engineering, AL
Peppers Steel, FL
Sapp Battery, FL
V Burrows Sanitation, MI
Fields Brook, OH
Forest Waste, MI
X Queen City Farms, WA
Volatilization/Soil Aeration (4)3 I Tinkham Garage, NH
II CaIdwell Trucking, NJ
Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ
IV Hollingsworth Solderless, FL
Stabilization/Neutralization (3) II Marathon Battery, NY
Ill Bruin Lagoon, PA
VHI Denver RadiurnIROBCO, CO
Soil Washing/Flushing (2) I Tinkham Garage, NH
X United Chrome, OR
Biodegradation (2) III Leetown Pesticide, WV
V Burlington Northern, MN
Land Application/Composting (1) I Tinkham Garage, NH
1 Includes Mowbray Engineering, AL, which will select either incineration or solidification
2 Includes Fields Brook, OH, which selected both incineration and solidification
Includes T;nkham Garage, NH, which will select either soil washing, aeration or composting
Includes Denver RadiurnIROBCO, CO, which may select stabilization
-------
Exhibit 2
Treatment Technologies Selected at FY82-85 ROD Sites
Fiscal Year of
ROD Sicinature Technology Region Site Name. State
FY82 Stabilization/Neutralization iii Bruin Lagoon, PA
FY83
FY84 Offsite Incineration V Berlin & Farro, Ml
Laskiri/Poplar, OH
X Western Processing, WA
Biodegradation vi Old inger, L.A
Stabilization/Neutralization vi Bioecology, TX
FY55 Offsite incineration ii Bog Creek Farm, NJ
Swope Oil, NJ
Vi MOTCO,TX
Tnangie Chemical, TX
VIII Woodbury Chemical, CO
Onsite Incineration ii Bridgeport, NJ
V Acme Solvents, IL
Soil Washing/Flushing II Goose Farm, NJ
X South Tacoma/Well 12-A, WA
Stabilization/Neutralization ii Wide Beach, NY
IV Davie Landfill, FL
Biodegradation v Byron/Johnson Salvage, IL
Volatilization/Soil Aeration I McKin, ME
V Verona Well Field, Ml
VI Tnangle Chemical, TX
-------
Exhib’t 3
FY86 RECORD OF DECISION REMEDY SELECTION
Analysis Region I II Ill IV V VI VII VIII IX X TOTAL % of TOTAL
Total Nuniberof RODs
6
15
15
13
16
6
2
7
1
3
84
Total # of RODs addressing
Final Remedy
2
7
7
13
6
3
1
2
0
2
43
51
# of RODs selecling No
Action Alternative
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
4
5
# of RODs selecting Off site
Disposal of Untreated Wastes
0
3
5
4
2
1
1
1
0
1
18
21
# of RODs selecting Alternate
Water Supply
2
4
3
1
4
2
0
3
0
0
19
23
# of RODs with Permanent or
Temporary Relocation of
Residents
o
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
# of RODs addressing
Contaminated Ground Water
4
9
4
7
5
1
1
1
0
1
33
39
# of RODs using Capping,
Onsite Landhlling,
Containment, Disposal of
Wastes without Treatment
2
5
7
4
2
2
1
4
1
0
28
33
• Includes Iron Mountain Mine, CA. ROD signed 10/3/86
Individual RODs may qualify for multiple analyses
-------
*
NUMBER OF SIGNED RODs PER FISCAL YEAR
100 — —
84
80 — —
- - 68
U)
0
60——
U i
z
0 --
C’)
38
40——
U i
z
-J
I— ——
0
-- 4
0
FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86
FISCAL YEAR
* Includes Action Memos, Enforcement Decision Documents, and Negotiation Decision Documents
-------
I
SECTION II
RECORDS OF DECISION ABSTRACTS
Each ROD and EDD summary presented in this section consists of the following:
• ROD Abstract - summarizing site location and background information,
contaminated media, key contaminants, selected remedial action, and
capital and O&M costs.
• Performance Standards or Goals - describing qualitative/quantitative
cleanup critena.
• Institutional Controls - descnbing site ordered restnctions.
• Key Words - highlighting alternative technologies, contaminated media,
key contaminants, and rnasor key word categones for the RODs. A list of
RODs by key words is presented in the last section of this document.
J
-------
RECORDS OF DECISION ABSTRACTS
FY 1986
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE NAME/STATE PAGE
**REGION
Auburn Road, NH 1
Baird & McGuire, MA 2
Industri-plex, MA 3
Kellogg-Deering Well Field, CT 5
Tinkham Garage, NH 6
Winthrop Landfill, ME 8
** REGION II
Brewster Well Field, NY 10
Caidwel]. Trucking, NJ 11
Combe Fill North Landfill, NJ 13
Combe Fill South Landfill, NJ 14
Florence Landfill, NJ 15
Hyde Park, NY 16
Kentucky Avenue Well Field, NY 17
Lang Property, NJ 18
Marathon Battery, NY 19
Metaltec/Aerosystemg, NJ 20
Price Landfill, NJ 21
Rockaway Borough Well Field, NJ 23
Sharkey Landfill, NJ 24
Syncon Resins, NJ 25
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1, NY 26
**REGION III
Army Creek Landfill, DE 27
Blosenskj Landfill, PA 28
Bruin Lagoon, PA, 29
Chisman Creek, VA 30
Delaware City PVC, DE 31
Drake Chemical, PA 33
Industrial Lane, PA 34
Lansdowne Radiation, PA 35
Leetown Pesticide, WV 37
Limestone Road, MD 38
Middletown Road, MD 40
Millcreek, PA 41
Taylor Borough, PA 43
Tybouts Corner Landfill, DE 44
Westline Site, PA 46
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page Two
SITE NAME/STATE PAGE
**REGION IV
A.L. Taylor, KY 48
Coleman Evans, FL 49
Distler Brickyard, KY 50
Distler Farm, KY 51
Gallaway Ponds, TN 53
Hipps Road Landfill, FL 54
Hollingsworth, FL 56
Lees Lane Landfill, KY 57
Mowbray Engineering, AL 58
Pepper’s Steel, FL 59
Pioneer Sand, FL 60
SCRDI Dixiana, SC 61
Sapp Battery, FL 62
**p Q V
A & F Materials, IL 63
Arcanuin Iron and Metal, OH 64
Arrowhead Refinery, MN 65
Burlington Northern, MN 66
Burrows Sanitation Site, MI 68
Byron Johnson Salvage Yard, IL 69
Fields Brook, OH 70
Forest Waste, MI 71
Lake Sandy Jo, IN 72
LaSalle Electrical, IL 73
Metamora Landfill, MI 74
New Brighton/Arden Hills/St. Anthony, MN 75
Novaco Industries, MI 76
Reilly Tar & Chemical, MN 77
Seymour, IN 78
Spiegelberg Landfill, MI 79
**p } VI
Cecil Lindsey, AR 80
Geneva Industries, TX 81
Odessa Chromium I, TX 82
Odessa Chromium II, TX 83
Sikes Disposal Pits, TX 84
United Creosoting Site, TX 85
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page 3
SITE NAMEJSTATE PAGE
**REGION VII
Des Moines TCE, IA 87
Ellisville Site Area, NO 88
**P GION viii
Denver Radiuin/ROBCO, Co 90
Denver Radium Site Streets, Co 91
Libby Ground Water, MT 92
Marshall Landfill, Co 93
North Dakota Arsenic Trioxide, ND 94
Smuggler Mountain, CO 95
Union Pacific Railroad, WY 96
**P GION IX
Iron Mountain Mine, CA 97
**P GION X
Queen City Farms, WA 98
Toftdahl Drums, WA 99
United Chrome, OR 100
-------
AUBURN ROAD, NH
First Remedial Action
September 17, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Auburn Road Landfill site, located in the Town of Londonderry, New
Hampshire, consists of approximately 200 acres which contain four docurriented
hazardous waste disposal areas. Prior to the 1960s, activities at the site
consisted of sand and gravel excavation. Between 1964 and 1974, the New
Hampshire Division of Public Health issued permits to the Town of
Londonderry to operate separate sections of the Thomopoulus property as
disposal sites currently referred to as the Town Dump, the Tire Dump, the
Septage Lagoon, and the Solid Waste Landfill. Although authorized for
disposal of only municipal refuse, tires and demolition debris, all four
source areas contain evidence of disposal of industrial wastes including
numerous exposed and partially buried 55—gallon steel drums. In August 1979
the State of New Hampshire specifically prohibited the disposal of drums,
and later the same year, the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission found VOC contamination of surface water and ground
water. In January 1980, landfill operations were terminated on the entire
site. Ground water, used as a drinking water source for approximately 275
homes and 260 mobile homes — all within a one—mile radius of the site, is
the principal medium of concern. The primary contaminants of concern
include: VOCs including TCE, extractable organics, heavy metals, and
inorganics.
The selected interim remedial action consists of extending the current
water service provided by the Manchester Water Works to 17 homes along
Auburn Road and to approximately 260 mobile home units in the Whispering
Pines Mobile Home Village. Further remedial actions will address source
control and further management of migration alternatives. The estimated
present worth cost for this remedy is $2,372,000 with estimated annual O&M
of $57,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Not Applicable.
KEYWORDS : Alternate Water Supply; Drinking Water Contaminants; Ground
Water; Ground Water Monitoring; Heavy Metals; Inorganics; O&M; Organics;
Sediments; Soil; Surface Water; TCE; VOCs.
—1—
-------
BAI RD & MCGUI RE, MA
First Remedial Action
September 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACTS
The Baird & McGuire site encompasses approximately twenty acres in
Holbrook, Norfolk County, MA. Wetlands occupy approximately 44 percent of
the site with approximately 66 percent of the site lying within a 100—year
flood plain. Baird & McGuire, Inc. (BMI) operated a chemical mixing and
batching company from 1912 to 1983. Between 1954 and 1977 the company was
fined at least 35 times by the EPA for ntixnerous violations. Consultants to
the Town of Holbrook reported that BMI’s disposal practices from 1959 to
1962 were the source of ground water and wetlands contamination. In
February 1982 a citizen’s complaint of an oily substance on the Cochato
River initiated a site inspection which reported surface water, ground
water, and wetlands contamination. In March 1983 heavy rains caused a
breach of the creosote collection lagoon resulting in an EPA—initiated
Immediate Removal Action. This action included: the removal of
approximately 1,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils, construction of a
clay cap, installation of a ground water interception/recirculation system,
and erection of limited fencing. In May 1983, Holbrook revoked BMI’s
permit to store chemicals and ordered it to dismantle the existing storage
facilities. In June 1985, EPA announced initial remedial measures which
included building demolition, tank farm demolition and removal, removal and
disposal of underground tanks, relocation of the twelve inch municipal
water main and construction of temporary capping. Dioxin, detected in
surficial soil samples in July 1985, prompted an EPA—initiated second
removal response involving the installation of 5700 feet of fencing and
extensive soil, ground water, surface water, and air sampling. The primary
contaminants of concern include: VOCs, organics, PAHs, dioxin, pesticides,
and metals.
The selected remedial action includes: excavation in “hot areas” to
remove approximately 191,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils; onsite
incineration of excavated soils; ground water extraction and onsite
treatment with discharge to an onsite aquifer; restoration of wetlands at
excavated areas; construction of levees; relocation of the Unnamed Brook;
ground water monitoring; and air quality monitoring. The estimated capital
costs are $44,386,000 with 30—year O&M costs of $4,132,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Specific performance standards/goals not
outlined in the ROD.
KEY WORDS : Alternative Technology; Dioxin; Excavation; Ground Water;
Ground Water Monitoring; Ground Water Treatment; Flood Plain; Incineration;
Levees; Heavy Metals; O&l ; Organics; PAHs; Pesticides; Soils; VOCs;
Wetlands.
—2—
-------
INDUSTRI -PL X, MA
First Remedial Action
September 30, 1986
The Iridustri—plex site is a 245—acre industrial park located in Woburri,
Massachusetts. Various manufacturing facilities operated on the site from
1853 to 1968. During these years the site has supported manufacturers of
sulfuric acid (and related chenu.cals), animal hide glue, arsenic
insecticides, acetic acid, dry colors arid munitions; and producers of
organic chemicals including phenol, benzene and toluenes. Prior to 1934,
waste materials appear to have been randomly disposed of over a wide area.
The wastes were used to fill lowlands, wetlands and shallow ponds, and as
construction material to build dikes and levees to contain liquid wastes.
After 1934 wastes were deposited directly on top of the existing deposits
and reached heights in excess of forty feet above natural grade. The
presence of hazardous substances was detected in 1979 when the current owner
of the site, Mark Phillip Trust, began developing portions of the site. As
site development began to encroach on the buried animal glue manufacturing
wastes, a very strong and pervasive “rotten egg’ odor was released. Despite
repeated citizen complaints and notices of violations issued by the MDQE,
the Trust continued its development of the site. Portions of stockpiled
wastes sloughed off, releasing hydrogen sulfide gases to the atmosphere and
toxic metals and soils to the pond and wetlands. Large areas of the
contaminated soils are exposed at the surface thereby allowing individuals
and animals to come in direct contact with arsenic, chromium and lead.
Other contaminants of concern include berizene and toluene.
The selected remedial alternative for this site includes the following
actions. For approximately 1,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils and
sludges: site grading; installation of a permeable soil cover cap over
certain areas; implementation of institutional controls; water quality
monitoring; and post closure maintenance consistent with RCRA regulations.
For ground water: an interim remedy of pumping “hot spot” areas and ground
water treatment to control odors; development of a multi—service ground
water response plan to address the aquifer; air stripping to remove VOCs and
discharge to the upgradient portion of the aquifer; and ground water
monitoring. For air: stabilization of the side slopes of the East and West
Hide Piles; installation of a gas collection layer; installation of a
synthetic membrane cap to establish impermeability: treatment of gaseous
emissions with either activated carbon or thermal oxidation with the final
treatment selection to be decided after the impermeable cover has been
installed; implementation of air quality monitoring program; and routine
maintenance. The estimated capital cost for the entire remedial action is
$12,302,300, or $12,612,000 depending on air treatment with annual O&N of
$285,500, or $311,000 depending on air treatment.
—3—
-------
INDUSTRI-PLD , MA
First Remedial Action
(Continued)
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Soils: eliminate direct contact threat of
soils with arsenic > 300 ppm; lead ) 600 ppm; chromium > 1000 ppm. Ground
water: treatment to MCLs to attain SDWA standards. Air: remedy to achieve
NAAQS and unit cancer risk levels.
INSTITUTIONAL COST : Possible modification of the City of Woburn’s zoning
regulations and use of State authority to further assist in the control and
future use of the affected properties.
KEY WORDS : Air nissions; Air Stripping; Arsenic; Chromium; Direct Contact;
Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; Ground Water Treatment; Institutional
Controls; O&M; PRP; RCRA Part 264; Soils; Sludge; Toluene; VOCs; Wetlands.
—4—
-------
KELLOGG-DEERING WELL FIELD, CT
First Remedial Action
September 25, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Kellogg—Deering Well Field site, also known as the Smith Well Field,
is a iC—acre public supply well field in southwestern Fairfield County,
along the western bank of the Norwalk River, Norwalk, CT. The well field is
owned and operated by the Norwalk First Taxing District Water Department
(NFTD) serving approximately 45,000 people. The primary source of public
water supply to the NFTD is surface water from four reservoirs, with ground
water as a secondary source. In 1975, trichoroethene (TCE) was discovered
in the ground water. Between 1975 and 1980 the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection performed onsite sampling and initiated
investigations at several local industries to locate potential source
areas. In June 1986, the EPA completed a remedial investigation which
identified various potential source areas. The potential primary source of
ground water contamination seems to be located at the eastern edge of the
study area. Contaminants are migrating with the ground water from areas of
high concentration toward the well field. The movement is partially
influenced by the pumping of the production wells. TCE is the primary
contaminant of concern. Other identified contaminants include: PCE,
1—2—DCE, methylene chloride, xylenes, and benzene.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: the o eration of
an existing air stripping facility as well as the associated monitoring
requirements. Ground water treated by the air stripper will be subsequently
discharged into the existing conventional water treatment plant and
distribution system. Further remedial actions will address ground water
source control. The estimated capital cost associated with this remedy is
$69,751 with annual O&M costs of $52,836.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Ground water treatment will achieve a 99
percent TCE removal efficiency which corresponds to a 106 excess cancer
risk.
KEYWORDS : Air Stripping; Drinking Water Contaminants; Ground Water; Ground
Water Monitoring; Ground Water Treatment; O&M; TCE; VOC5.
—5—
-------
TIN1 iAM GARAGE, NH
First Remedial Action — Final
September 30. 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The TinJtharn Garage site encompasses 375 acres of residential and
undeveloped land in Londonderry, NH. Approximately 400 people reside within
a condominium complex on the western boundary of the site. Additional
housing includes private, one-family homes within site boundaries to the
north. An unnamed tributary and an attached intermittent stream branch
through the condominium complex and discharge into Beaver Brook, which
discharges to the Merrimack River further south. The 100—year flood plain
forms an approximately 2—acre wetland at the tributary’s confluence with
Beaver Brook. The flood plain widens considerably south of the complex
forming a 66—acre wetland. In addition, a 57—acre wetland exists to the
southeast of the site. Some residents within the site continue to use the
bedrock aquifer for drinking water purposes. Ground water in the bedrock
discharges to the tributary via surface and ground migration. Between 1978
and 1979, waste disposal activities behind Tinkham garage included the
direct surface dumping of liquids and sludge from tank truck washings. In
April 1978 citizen complaints of foam and odors in a small unnamed brook
resulted in a site cleanup and the excavation of a diversion trench to
direct surface run—off. The RI, completed in January 1986, documented
contamination from volatile and extractable organic compounds associated
with ground water in overburden and bedrock aquifers, surface water ai ’id in
soil located in the field behind Tinkham garage and in the condominium
complex. Specifically, contaminated soil within the complex was associated
with the individual domestic waste leaching fields for a number of buildings
within the complex. Two other source areas existed within the complex: a
refuse area for disposal of soils excavated from the leach fields; and a low
lying contaminated swale area in close proximity to the unnamed tributary.
The swale is suspected to be another site of direct discharge of liquid
wastes to the ground surface. The primary contaminants of concern include:
VOCs, organic sludges and metals.
The selected remedial action includes: excavation of approximately
10,800 cubic yards of contaminated soils behind Tinkharn garage; field work
and analytical modeling to determine the need for the removal of additional,
potentially contaminated soi1 in the condonuruuin complex; onsite treatment
of all excavated contaminated soils by either aeration, composting or soil
washing; regrading and revegetation of excavated source areas after treated
soils have been returned to their original locations; reconstruction of any
removed leach fields; restoration of wetlands where contaminated soils are
excavated; extraction and offsite treatment of contaminated groundwater at
Derry. NH publicly owned waste water treatment works, which may lead to
offsite pretreatment; and ground water monitoring on— and offsite. The
estimated capital cost is $2,058,000 with annual O&M of $874,000.
—6—
-------
TIMG{AM GARAGE, NH
First Remedial Action — Final
(Continued)
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : PCE and TCE concentrations in both soil
source areas and in ground water will be used as indicator compounds for
remediation. Remediation will be evaluated in terms of the underlying
assumption that treatment to target levels will result in non—hazardous
levels of other contaminants. At a minimum, soil will be treated to lppm of
total volatile organic compounds.
KEYWORDS : Alternative Technology; Excavation; Flood Plain; Ground Water;
Ground Water Monitoring; Ground Water Treatment; Metals; O&M; Onsite
Disposal; Organics; PCBs; POTW; Sediments; Sludge; Soils; Surface Water;
TCE; VOCs; Wetlands; Wood.
—7—
-------
WINTHROP LANDFILL, 4E (EDD)
First Rernethal Action — Final
November 22, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Winthrop Landfill consists of two contiguous parcels totalling
approxImately 13 acres, located along the western shore of Annabessacook
Lake in the Town of Winthrop, Maine. The site was initially used in the
l920s as a sand and gravel pit. In the 1930s, parts of the site became the
Winthrop Town Dump, accepting mixed municipal, commercial, and industrial
wastes. The site received hazardous substances between the early 1950s and
mid—1970s. It is estimated that more than 3 million gallons of chemical
wastes, mostly complex organic compounds including resins, plasticizers,
solvents, and other process chemicals, were disposed at the site. Wastes
were openly burned until 1972, and landfilling occurred from 1972 until 1982.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: the extension of
an alternate water supply to residences in close proximity to the landfill;
construction of a chain link fence around the landfill, and imposition of
deed restrictions prohibiting use of the landfill for activities other than
the remedial action; prohibition of ground water withdrawals for purposes
other than remedial action; prohibition of excavation in the area of the
landfill, except for residential construction or remedial action; guarterly
sampling of monitoring points in sensitive areas; grading and placement of a
RCRA cap over the entire landfill; completion of engineering design work
(geologic, hydrogeologic, and treatability pilot studies); and establishment
of an Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL) for each contaminant in the ground
water based on RCRA Section 264.94(b) criteria. If the ACL is exceeded,
installation and operation of an interceptor system and construction and
operation of a water treatment facility northeast of the landfill will be
implemented. Total capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is
estimated to be $6,000,000. Operation and maintenance for the recommended
alternative is estimated at $42,000 per year if the ACL is not exceeded.
Should the ACL be exceeded, O&M of the ground water extraction and treatment
system, along with monitoring and cap maintenance, will cost between
$360,000 and $1,480,000 per year, depending upon the method used to treat
the contaminants. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, Inmont Corporation
and the Town of Winthrop will provide funding for design, construction, and
O&M at the site.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Establish an Alternate Concentration Limit
(ACL) for each contaminant in the ground water based on RCRA Section
264.94(b) criteria. If an ACL is not established, then the ground water
protection standard will be the background level of each contaminant in the
ground water.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS : Imposition of deed restrictions prohibiting use of
the landfill for activities other than the remedial action. Prohibition of
ground water withdrawals for purposes other than remedial action.
Prohibition of excavation, except for residential construction or remedial
action.
—p—
-------
WINT} OP LANDFILL, ME (EDD)
First Remedial Action — Final
(Continued)
KEYWORDS : ACL; Alternate Water Supply; Capping; Consent Decree; Deed
Restriction; Direct Contact; Discharge Standards; Ground Water; Ground Water
Monitoring; Ground Water Treatment; Institutional Controls; Municipally
O med Site; O&M; Organics; RCRA Closure Requirements; RCRA Part 264;
Solvents; Toluene; Treatability Studies.
_q_
-------
BREWSTER WELL FIELD, NY
First Remedial Action
September 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Brewster Well Field, located on the northern bank of the East Branch
Croton River, is three—quarters of a mile east of the Village of Brewster,
Town of Southeast, Putnam County, NY. The land to the north and west,
containing the community of Brewster Hill and the Village of Brewster
respectively, is largely residential, while most of the land south of the
site area is occupied by commercial or light industrial facilities. Since
1954 when Well Field No. 1 was developed, the Village of Brewster has used
the aquifers beneath the Village—owned land as a water supply source. In
1967 Well Field No. 2 was brought on line. The two well fields consist of a
total of 18 shallow wells. In 1978 evidence of volatile halogenated organic
compound contamination from an unidentified source first appeared. Five
alternative water sources were subsequently added to the water supply
system. Prior to drought conditions arising in 1981, East Branch Croton
River surface water was also used at times to supplement the water supply
system. Since 1979, the Village of Brewster has conducted studies to
identify potential alternative ground water sources and to test spray
aeration as a potential treatment method for VHO removal. In 1984 under a
Cooperative Agreement with the EPA Office of Research and Development, the
Village installed a fullscale packed column for treatment of the entire
Village supply. It has been concluded that treatment of existing sources
is the most promising of the alternatives for solving existing contamination
problems, and based on trends, it is believed that the Well Field has
reached a steady state condition, whereby contaminant levels are not
expected to increase at the Well Field in the future. VHOs have been the
primary contaminants detected in the ground water. The principle
contaminants were found to be tetrachioroethylene, trichloroethylene, and
1, 2—dichioroethylene.
The selected remedial action includes: continued operation of the
existing air stripper to treat the water supply; and design and construction
of a ground water management system which will include ground water
extraction wells, air stripper treatment of extracted ground water and
reinjection of treated water. Details of the ground water management system
will be determined during design. The estimated capital cost for this
remedial action is $163,912 with annual O&M of $27,468.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDSOR GOALS : Remedy will exceed both ARAR’s MCL
standards for TCE (5 ugf 1.) and State ground water standards (10 ugh.)
KEYWORDS : Air Stripping; Drinking Water Contaminants; Ground Water; Ground
Water Management System; Ground Water Treatment; O&M; PCE; Soil; State
Criteria; Surface Water; TCE; VOCs.
—10—
-------
CALDWELL TRUCKING, NJ
First Remedial Action
September 25, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Caldwell Trucking Company site is a 12.2—acre property in Fairfield
Township, Essex County, NJ which is bordered by light industry to the north.
west, and southwest and is directly across from the Essex County Airport
property. Approximately 45 small businesses are situated within one mile of
the site. The nearest major residential area is about 1,000 feet northeast
of the site. The Passaic River is located about 4.000 feet northeast and is
used as a public water supply. Numerous residential wells north of the site
are no longer in use and most of the residents now use municipal water. The
Caidwell Trucking Company was incorporated by the State of NJ in 1946 for
the purpose of cleaning residential septic tanks. For a number of years.
Caidwell emptied septic systems and transported the waste to an old
slaughter house property (now part of the Caldwell site) for disposal in one
of the open, unlined lagoons present on site. Based on information supplied
by Caldwell in 1973, wastes would be treated with a disinfectant such as
sodium hypochiorite and allowed to settle. Later, the “clarified’ liquid
layer would be pumped out and transported by tank truck to a large seepage
lagoon where the liquid would percolate quickly through the sandy soil. In
the mid—1950s light industry, developing in the area, may have discharged
hazardøus substances into their septic systems to be subsequently pumped out
and deposited on the Caldwell property. There were also other trucking
companies who brought septic substances to the site, which may have been
mixed with hazardous wastes. There are also indications that spent solvents
and other industrial liquid wastes were disposed of in onsite lagoons. In
1972 seepage and odors from the site revealed that Caidwell was disposing of
septic waste in this manner without the necessary permits. They were
licensed to transport waste but were not an approved disposal facility. A
1973 application to operate as a sanitary landfill was denied by the NJDEP.
Subsequently, Caldwell backfilled all lagoons except one, which was covered
with plywood. At the start of the RI in 1984, the Caidwell property showed
almost no visible signs of a septic waste disposal facility. The source of
contamination, which had been deposited in unlined lagoons, had been
backfilled 12 years earlier. The primary contaminants of concern include:
VOCs, TCE, PCBs, PANs, inorganics, and lead.
The selected remedial action includes: excavation and treatment, via
heat addition, of approximately 28,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils and
waste materials; disposal of treated soils in a secure landfill to be
constructed at the site in accordance with RCRA requirements; restoration of
a last potable water resource by providing treatment, via air stripping, of
municipal public water supply well number 7; provision of an alternate water
supply for residents potentially affected by ground water contamination from
the site; and preparation of a supplemental RI/FS to identify the extent and
other sources of ground water contamination, and to develop and evaluate
appropriate remedial alternatives. The estimated capital cost for this
remedial action is $5,490,000 with annual O&M costs of $48,000.
—11—
-------
CALDWELL TRUCKING, NJ
First Remedial Action
(Continued)
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Specific performance standards not outlined
in the ROD.
KEYWORDS : Air Stripping; Alternate Water Supply; Alternative Technology;
Drinking Water Contaminants; Excavation; Ground Water; Ground Water
Monitoring; Inorganics; Lead; O&M; Onsite Disposal; PANs; PCBs; PCE; RCRA
Landfill Requirements; Sediments; Soil; Surface Water; TCE; VOCs.
—12—
-------
COMBE FILL NORTH LANDFILL, NJ
First Remedial Action — Final
September 29, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Cornbe Fill North site is located in Mount Olive Township, NJ, near
the intersection of U.S. Highway 206 and Interstate 80. The former landfill
comprises 65 acres of the 103—acre property. The area surrounding the site
is primarily wooded, with small residential areas, farms and light industry
nearby. Approximately 10,000 people rely on ground water supplied from
wells downgrathent of the site. Between 1966 and 1978, the site operated as
a sanitary municipal landfill, accepting municipal, vegetative, and
non—chemical industrial wastes, along with small amounts of dry sewage
sludge. From September 1978 until January 1981, the landfill was owned and
operated by the Cornbe Fill Corporation (CFC). During this time, CFC was
repeatedly cited for violations of New Jersey solid waste administration
codes. In 1979, public outrage at the disposal practices of CFC led to
formation of SMOT} R (Save Mount Olive Township—Halt Environmental Rape), a
public action group which conducted ground water sampling and initiated
procedures to include the Combe Fill North site on the NPL. During the RI,
ground water, soils, leachate, sediments and surface water were sampled.
Low levels of volatile organics were found in soils and leachate, and
hexachlorobenzene, phenol and bis (2—ethylhexyl) phthalate were detected in
low concentrations in ground water samples.
The selected remedial action for the Combe Fill North site includes:
grading and compacting the 65—acre waste disposal area; capping the landfill
in accordance with appropriate solid waste management criteria; installation
of a drainage system, including perimeter ditches and corrugated metal
pipes; installation of a methane ventilation system; fencing the entire
site; and implementation of an appropriate monitoring program to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedial action. Estimated capital cost for the remedy
is $10,500,000 with annual O&M costs of $168,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Specific performance standards/goals not
outlined in the ROD.
KEYWORDS : Capping; Ground Water; O&M; RCRA Closure Requirements; Soils,
VOCs.
-------
CO E FILL SOUTH LANDFILL. NJ
First Remedial Action — Final
September 29, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Combe Fill South Landfill site is located in Morris County, New
Jersey, 20 miles west of Morristown. The site consists of a 115—acre parcel
of land owned by the Combe Fill Corporation which contains three separate
fill areas comprising 65 acres. Illegal waste disposal is suspected in two
fields northwest and southeast of the site. The site is situated on a hill,
causing runoff to drain almost radially from the site. Leachate, ground
water and surface runoff constitute the headwaters of Trout Brook, which
flows through Hacklebarney State Park. The brook is stocked with trout and
is used for recreational purposes by park visitors. A large portion of
nearby wetlands area was cleared to construct the landfill. The Cornbe Fill
South Landfill was operated for 40 years as a municipal landfill, permitted
to accept municipal and non—hazardous industrial wastes, sewage sludge,
septic tank wastes, chemicals and waste oils. Testing indicated that the
fill material consists mainly of highly decomposed rubbish, and that no “hot
spots” or localized sources of hazardous substances exist. Cover at the
site is extremely poor, leading to infiltration of leachate into underlying
aquifers. The primary contaminants of concern are VOCs, including TCE, PCE,
toluene, benzene and methylene chloride, which have contaminated the shallow
and deep aquifers that are the primary source of potable water for local
residents.
The selected remedial action for the Cornbe Fill South site includes: an
alternate water supply for affected residences; capping of the 65—acre
landfill in accordance with RCRA requirements; active gas collection and
treatment system; pumping and onsite treatment of shallow ground water and
leachate with discharge to Trout Brook; surface water controls to
accommodate seasonal precipitation and storm runoff; site fencing;
monitoring to ensure remedial action effectiveness; and a supplemental FS to
evaluate the need for deep aquifer remediation. The estimated capital cost
of the remedial action is $46,060,700 with annual O&M costs approximately
$673,000 for the first 5 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Specific performance standards/goals not
outlined in the ROD.
KEYWORDS : Air; Alternate Water Supply; Capping; Drinking Water
Contaminants; Ground Water; Ground Water Treatment; Leachate
Collection/Treatment; O&M; Organics; PCE; Sediments; Soil; Surface Water;
TCE; Toluerie; VOCs; Wetlands.
—14—
-------
FLOR 4CE LANDFILL, NJ
First Remedial Action — Final
June 27, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Florence Land Recontouring (FLR) Landfill is a 60—acre site located
on Cedar Lane Extension in the Townships of Florence, Mansfield, and
Springfield in Burlington County, New Jersey. The site consists of a
29—acre landfill, two lagoons, a pond and two tanks, and is located in a
combined residential—agricultural area. The site is bounded by land
purchased by Burlington County for a new 600—acre solid waste management
facility and by Assiscunk Creek, a tributary to the Delaware River which is
used for recreation and irrigation. The FLR landfill was operated as a
solid waste disposal facility from late 1973 to late 1981 and was permitted
to accept sanitary and non—chemical industrial wastes. In 1975, the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection investigated chemical waste
disposal at the site and disclosed that 95 tons of hazardous waste
consisting of phthalates, heavy metals and vinyl chloride monomers had been
illegally disposed at the site. Elevated levels of hazardous substances
have been discovered in soils and ground water within the landfill.
The selected remedial alternative includes: construction of a synthetic
membrane and clay composite cap, a circumferential soil/bentonite slurry
containment wall, an upgradient ground water interceptor system and a new
stormwater management system; leachate treatment and disposal at a POTW or
the Burlington County Solid Waste Complex; gas collection and treatment;
removal and disposal of lagoon liquids and sediments, and other surface
debris; construction of a partial fence with warning signs; and supplemental
sampling of ground water, surface water and sediments during design. The
estimated capital cost for the selected remedy is $8,021,000 with annual O&M
costs of $170,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Specific performance goals not outlined in
the ROD.
KEYWORDS : Capping; Ground Water; Heavy Metals; O&M; POTW; Sludge; Soils.
—i c—
-------
HYDE PARK, NY (EDD)
First Remedial Action — Final
November 26, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Hyde Park landfill, approximately 15 acres in area, is located in
the northwest corner of the Town of Niagara, New York. It is immediately
surrounded by several industrial facilities and property owned by the
Power Authority for the State of New York (PASNY). Th Niagara River, an
international waterbody, is located 2000 feet to the northwest. Between
1954 and 1975, Occidental Chemical Corporation (0CC) disposed of
approximately 80,000 tons of chemical wastes at the landfill and 0.6 to
1.6 tons of 2 .. 3 . 7 8—tetrachlorodibenzo—p—dioxin (TCDD) contaminated
.material. Between 1975 and 1979, 0CC, pursuant to directives from the
State, implemented a number of remedial actions. These actions included
capping the site, and installing a shallow tile drain and a ground water
monitoring program. Soil and ground water are contaminated with VOCs,
organics, toluene, phenol, PCBs and dioxin.
The selected remedy for this site includes: installation of a
prototype purge well system to extract non—aqueous phase liquids (NAPL)
for destruction by incineration; installation of an overburden tile drain
system; implementation of engineering controls for an industrial
protection program designed to eliminate exposure to nearby workers;
installation of ground water wells as part of a residential community
monitoring program; installation of the first stage of a bedrock NAPL
Plume Containment System; installation of two to three purge wells as an
aqueous phase liquid (APL) Plume Containment System; irnplemenation of a
lower formation and deep formation study; implementation of a Niagara
Gorge Seep program; treatment of ground water with activated carbon; and
implementation of a monitoring program. The estimated present worth cost
for this remedial alternative is $17,000,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR COALS : Specific performance standards/goals not
outlined in the ROD.
KEY WORDS : Consent Decree Dioxin; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring;
Ground Water Treatment; Incineration; O&M; Organics; PCBs; Phenols; Plume
Management; Soil; Toluene; VOCs.
—16—
-------
KENTUCKY AVENUE WELL FIELD, NY
First Remedial Action
September 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Kentucky Avenue Well Field, part of the Elmira Water Board (EWB)
public water supply system, covers approximately 12 square miles in the
south central part of Chemung County, New York. The site is at the
confluence of two major valleys within the Chemung River Basin and is
bordered by Newton Creek on the eastern perimeter. The major part of the
valley is primarily residential and commercial, with little or no
agricultural usage. The Kentucky Avenue Well Field, part of the EWB network
of wells and reservoirs serving area residents, was closed in September 1980
following the discovery of elevated levels of TCE. The Chemung River and
the Newton Creek aquifer are the primary sources of drinking water. Results
of continued ground water sampling conducted by the Chemung County Health
Department, New York State Department of Health, New York Department of
Environmental Conservation, and EPA, showed that the TCE was found
throughout the Newton Creek aquifer. EPA initiated a removal action in
March 1985 to provide alternate water supplies to impacted residences not
connected with the public water distribution system. Between March 1985 and
March 1986 a two-phase hookup connected 43 homes to the public water
distribution system. Studies to identify current private well residences
requiring public water distribution system hookup and plume migration
investigations are continuing. The primary contaminants of concern
include: TCE, VOCs, and chlorinated solvents.
The selected remedial action includes: investigation of all residences
in the study area to identify private well use. Upon completion, all
private well users will be connected to public water supplies; installation
of monitoring wells upgradierit of the Sullivan Street wells, with sampling
at and upgradient of the wells to be performed on a quarterly basis; and
preparation of a supplemental source control RI/FS to identify the source of
contamination and to determine appropriate source control measures. The
source control RI/FS will be a composite of both ongoing and proposed
studies at various potential source sites within the study area. The
estimated capital cost is $303,800 with annual O&M of $19,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Appropriate standards include EPAs Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCL) proposed pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The applicable proposed MCL for TCE is 5ppb.
KEYWORDS : Alternate Water Supply; Drinking Water Contaminants; Ground
Water; Ground Water Monitoring; O&M; Solvents; TCE; VOCs.
.1 7—
-------
LANG PROPERTY, NJ
First Remedial Action — Final
September 29, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Lang Property site is a 40—acre parcel of land in a sparsely
populated rural area of Pemberton Township, Burlington County, New Jersey.
The site is flat and consists of an unpaved access road leading to a 4—acre
clearing. Unauthorized disposal of hazardous wastes appears to have
occurred over a 2—acre area within the clearing. Abandoned vehicles, tires
and other debris are scattered throughout the site. The site is located
within New Jerseys Pinelands National Reserve, a forest expanse nationally
recognized as a valuable environmental resource, and is within the 100—year
flood plain. In June 1975, 1200—1500 drums of unidentified chemical waste
were discovered in a clearing at the end of the unpaved road. In 1976.
Edward and Florence Lang, owners of the property, were ordered by the State
to remove all drums and contaminated soil. Prior to removal, the contents
of the drums were apparently spilled onto the ground or disposed of in what
has been described as “onsite lagoons’. The contents of the drums appear to
be the source of contamination occurring at the site. The main contaminants
of concern at the Lang Property are VOCs and metals, which have contaminated
soils, sediments, ground water, and surface water on site.
The selected remedial action at the Lang site includes: excavation of
approximately 6500 cubic yards of contaminated soils and waste material with
offsite disposal at an approved landfill; extraction and onsite treatment of
contaminated ground water with reinjection of treated water into the
aquifer; restoration of the excavated area by filling and grading, including
removal of surface debris as necessary; installation of a security fence;
and monitoring to ensure remedy effectiveness. Estimated capital costs for
the remedy are $2,322,000 with annual O&M costs of $612,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Effluent from the onsite ground water
treatment system will attain Safe Drinking Water Act criteria.
KEYWORDS : Air Stripping; Chromium; Excavation; Ground Water; Ground Water
Treatment; Heavy Metals; O&M; Offsite Disposal; RCRA Landfill
Specifications; Soil; TCE; Toluene; VOCs.
, ,
-------
MARATHON BATTERY, NY
First Remedial Action
September 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Marathon Battery Company (MEC) site, located in the Village of Cold
Spring, Putnam County, NY, has two components: the East Foundry Cove Marsh
(EFCN), and Constitution Marsh. The site began as a battery manufacturing
plant in 1952, producing military and commercial batteries for a period of
27 years. During this time the site property changed ownership and its name
several times. It operated as the MBC from 1969 to 1979. Approximately
50,000 kg of cadmium were discharged into the EFCM as a result of MBCs
wastewater treatment system. A bypass valve, used during system overloads
and shutdowns, diverted flow to EFcM. This occurred at least twice weekly
for periods of time ranging from a few hours to a full operating shift. In
1965 the New York State Department of Health ordered the plant to disconnect
its industrial discharge from the Village’s sanitary sewer upon concluding
that the battery plant’s process effluent could not be managed by a new
proposed sewage treatment system. Accommodating the directive, the plant
shut down the diversion pumps and bypassed the entire wastewater flow into
the storm sewer to EFcM. Between September 1972 and July 1973 hydraulic
dredging of the channel, which connects EFCM to Constitution Marsh, removed
approximately 90,000 square meters of sediment. Approximately 4,000 cubic
meters of dredged material were then retained in a dike enclosure
constructed over a parking lot on the battery facility property. During the
dewatering process, the sethrnents were allowed to settle and the supernatant
was passed through a storm drain and back into Foundry Cove. The primary
contaminants of concern include: cadmium, cobalt, and nickel.
The selected remedial action for the EFCM component of the site
includes: hydraulic dredging of approximately 23,000m 3 of sediments;
sediment chemical fixation; offsite disposal of approximately 47,000m 3 of
processed sediments; dredging, water treatment and disposal; marsh
restoration; and long—term monitoring. The selected remedial action for
Constitution Marsh includes: a no—action alternative with long term
sediment and water monitoring; a public awareness program; and site access
restrictions. The estimated capital cost for both remedial components is
516,640,000 with O&M costs of $3,530,000 for the first year; $180,000 for
years 2—5; and $127,000 for years 6—30.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Sediments will be treated to a 100mg/kg
established background concentration. Standards for total cadmium water
concentrations are 6.6 x i0 — 2.0 x iü mg/i for water hardness
levels of 50 and 200 mg/i respectively.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS : Site access restrictions will include limitations
on fishing and water sports, and the installation of fencing.
KEYWORDS : Alternative Technology; Dredging; Heavy Metals; Institutional
Controls; O&M; Offsite Disposal; Stabilization; Surface Water.
_, a_
-------
b TALTEC/AEROSYST I4S, NJ
First Remedial Action
June 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Metaltec/Aerosysterns site is located at the intersection of Maple,
Gibson, and Wildcat Roads in Franklin Borough, Sussex County, New Jersey.
The property consists of an abandoned manufacturing facility that once
produced metal ballpoint pen casings, paint spray guns, lipstick cases and
other assorted metal parts. The site is presently used to assemble ice
machines and the manufacture of glassware for research purposes. In its
current state, the site contains several sources of hazardous substances
that pose a threat to public health and the environment. These sources
include a back filled lagoon area, two open areas which adjoin the Metaltec
building, and an open parcel of land located near the swamp at the northeast
corner of the site. These parcels of property exhibit high levels of
pollutants and contaminants in the soil and the underlying ground water.
Hazardous substances detected include trichioroethylene,
trans—l,2—dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, and copper.
The cost—effective remedial action selected for this site includes:
excavation and treatment via heat addition (rotary dryer) of approximately
10,000 cubic yards of organic contaminated soils within Parcel 1 and offsite
disposal at an approved landfill; excavation and offsite disposal of
approximately 4,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils within Parcels 2, 3,
and 4; preparation of a supplemental RI and FS to identify the extent of
ground water contamination and develop and evaluate appropriate remedial
alternatives; and provision of an alternate water supply for affected
Borough of Franklin residents by constructing a pipeline connection to the
Borough of Hamburg public water supply system. The estimated capital cost
for the selected alternative is $7,005,000 with disposal in a sanitary
landfill, and $11,735,000 with disposal in a RCRA landfill. The annual O&M
cost is $179,000.
PERFQRl’ ANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : The soil remediation criteria are based
on: 1) EPA maximum contaminant levels for VOCs in drinking water and 2) New
Jersey Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act guidelines for inorganic
chemicals. The action levels set for the site are: TCE 5 ugh; PCE 5 ugh;
chromium (total) and lead 100 mg/kg; zinc 350 mg/kg; and copper 170 mg/kg.
KEYWORDS : Alternate Water Supply; Alternative Technology; Carcinogenic
Compounds; Drinking Water Contaminants; Excavation; Ground Water; Ground
Water Monitoring; Heavy Metals; O&M; Offsite Disposal; PCE; Risk Assessment;
Soil; State Criteria; TCE; VOCs.
—20—
-------
PRICE LANDFILL, NJ
Second Remedial Action — Final
September 29, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
Price Landfill (also known as “Price’s Landfill Number One” and ‘Price’s
Pit”) is a 26—acre site located in Egg Harbor Township and Pleasantville
City, Atlantic County, NJ approximately six miles northwest of Atlantic
City, NJ. The relatively flat site is located within the 11,600—acre
watershed of Absecon Creek. Land use in the immediate area consists of
residential properties, small business properties, sand and gravel
excavations, and undeveloped rural lots. Price landfill was originally a
sand and gravel excavation operation owned by Mr. Charles Price, which
ceased operating in 1968 when the pit was excavated to within approximately
two feet of the water table. In 1969, the facility became a commercial
solid waste landfill and in May 1971, began accepting a combination of both
drummed and bulk liquid waste. Some liquid wastes were poured directly into
the landfill from open tank truck spigots. Other waste was buried in
55—gallon drums, some of which were punctured or opened prior to disposal.
An estimated 9.1 million gallons of chemical wastes were disposed of at the
site. In 1980, residential wells in the area were found to be contaminated
with volatile organic compounds, and the Atlantic County Health Department
recommended that their use as a potable water supply be discontinued. As an
interim measure, potable water was provided from tank trucks and, in
December 1981, 37 affected residents were connected to the New Jersey Water
Company (NJWC) System. During the summer of 1982, EPA and the State of NJ
implemented Initial Remedial Measures to assure against the contaminant
plume reaching the Atlantic County Municipal Utilities Authority (ACZ’IUA)
public water supply weilfield. These measures included the construction of
an interconnection with the NJWC system, redevelopment of three ACMUA
production wells, installation of granular activated carbon filtration
units, and implementation of a water conservation program. In September
1983 EPA issued a Record of Decision based on the results of a 1982 RI/PS.
The selected option included: abandonment of the ACMIJA existing upper and
lower Cohansey aquifer water supply wellfield; relocation and replacement of
the ACMUA weilfield and transmission facilities to provide a 13.5 million
gallon per day capacity; and consideration, in addition to the weilfield
relocation, of plume management, source control, and ground water treatment
alternatives. EPA began negotiations in 1984 with identified potentially
responsible parties. Meetings and court appearances were held with EPA, New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and the potentially
responsible parties, resulting in a tentative $17.15 million cash settlement
for past and future costs. The primary contaminants of concern include:
VOCs, organics, inorganics, and TOE.
The selected remedial action includes: installatioriof a security fence
around the landfill site; installation of ground water extraction wells
ad)acent to the landfill to control the contaminant source; installation of
ground water extraction wells hydraulically downgradient from the landfill
to abate the contaminant plume; construction of a ground water/leachate
—21—
-------
PRICE LANDFILL, NJ
Second Remedial Action - Final
(Continued)
pretreatment facility at or near the site; construction of a force main to
the ACMUA interceptor system; extraction of contaminated ground water,
followed by pretreatment, and ultimate disposal and treatment at the ACMUA
waste water treatment plant; quarterly monitoring of ground water quality
for approximately 25 years; and construction of a landfill cap at the
conclusion of the ground water extraction process. The estimated capital
cost is $9,050,000 with annual O&I for years 1—5 of $1,010,000 and $255,000
for years 6—25.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : A series of shallow wells, serving as
source control wells, will be pumped at a combined rate of ap roximately
200,000 gallons per day for 25 years. The wells would extract ground water
having a TVO concentration fluctuating to as high as 50ppm. A series of
deeper wells, serving as plume abatement wells, would pump at a combined
rate of approximately 1.1 mgd and extract ground water having an average TVO
concentration of lppm until TVO concentration reaches l0ppb or less.
KEYWORDS : Air nissions; Air Stripping; Ground Water; Ground Water
Monitoring; Ground Water Treatment; Inorganics; O&M; Offsite Disposal;
Organics; PRP; Sludge; Surface Water; TCE; VOCs.
—22—
-------
ROCKAWAY BOROUGH WELL FIELD, NJ
First Remedial Action
September 29, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Rockaway Borough Well Field site is located in Rockaway Borough,
Morris County, New Jersey, and consists of three municipal supply wells
which are in a glacial aquifer designated by EPA as the sole source aquifer
for Rockaway Borough and the surrounding communities. High concentrations
of TCE and PCE have been detected in the aquifer since 1980, but no sources
of contamination have been identified. In 1981. the Borough of Rockaway
constructed a three—bed granular activated carbon adsorption system to treat
contaminated well water. Treatment has effectively reduced volatile organic
contaminant concentrations in finished water to less than 1 part per billion
(ppb). Although thirteen VOCs have been detected in the well water, TCE and
PCE are the primary contaminants of concern. The site was listed on the NPL
in December of 1982, and the RI/FS was initiated in 1985.
The selected remedial action for the Rockaway Borough site includes:
Rockaway Borough maintaining the existing filtration system and modifying
operations to ensure compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act standards; and
EPA continuing the RIIFS in an attempt to identify the source and extent of
contamination and evaluate additional remedial action alternatives to
address source control. Estimated capital cost of this remedial action is
zero with annual O&M costs of $74,800.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : The treatment system was designed to remove
TCE and PCE to 5ppb.
KEYWORDS : Drinking Water Contaminants; Drinking Water Standards; Granular
Activated Carbon; Ground Water; Ground Water Treatment; Municipally—Owned
Site; O&M; PCE; Sole Source Aquifer; TCE.
-------
SHARKEY LANDFILL, NJ
First Remedial Action — Final
September 29, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Sharkey Landfill site comprises approximately 90 acres in the
Parsippany — Troy Hills and East Hanover Townships, Morris County. NJ. The
site consists of 4 disconnected areas: North Fill, South Fill, Northwest
Fill, Southwest Fill. Two aquifers are found at this site. The upper
aquifer, which comes into contact with fill material in portions of the
landfill, primarily drains into the bordering Rockaway and Whippany Rivers.
These rivers are used for recreational activities, and the Rockaway serves
as a potable water source further downstream. The Passaic Valley Water
Commission utilizes this aquifer for public supply. The lower aquifer
completes a public supply well in East Hanover Township. In 1945 the site
began accepting municipal solid waste from NJ counties. Between 1962 and
1969, Ciba—Geigy Co. allegedly disposed of 753,000 lbs. of hazardous and/or
toxic materials. From April 1972 to May 1972, 25,700 tons of non—chemical
wastes and 1,160 tons of “liquid and/or chemical wastes” described as
cesspool—type, and sludge from the adjacent Parsippany—Troy Hills Sewage
Treatment Plant (PTHSTP) were also deposited at the site. Between 1979 and
1981 refuse was removed from the South Fill portion of the site and
re—disposed in the North Fill area for a PTHSTP expansion. Currently,
landfill contaminants have migrated and continue to migrate into the shallow
aquifer beneath the site and the adjacent surface water bodies. Although
available data do no suggest that significant quantities of hazardous
substances are being released at the present time, there exists the
potential for future releases of contaminants at levels which could pose a
serious threat to public health and the environment. The primary
contaminants of concern include: VOCs, TCE, organics, inorganics, and heavy
metals.
The selected remedial action includes: capping of the landfill in
accordance with relevant RCRA Act requirements, including the appropriate
grading of fill areas; a venting system for landfill gases; extraction and
treatment of shallow ground water and leachate; surface water controls to
accommodate seasonal precipitation and storm runoff as well as erosion
control for river banks; security fencing to restrict site access; and
environmental monitoring program to ensure the effectiveness of the remedial
action. The estimated capital cost is $23,173,000 with annual O&M of
$330,000.
PERF0R .NCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Specific performance standards or goals not
outlined in the ROD.
KEYWORDS : Capping; Flood Plain; Ground Water; Ground Water Treatment; Heavy
Metals; Inorganics; O&M; Organics; RCRA Landfill Specifications; RCRA
Part 264; Soil; State Requirements; Surface Water; TCE; VOCs.
-------
SYNCON RESINS, NJ
First Remedial Action
September 29, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Syncon Resins site encompasses approximately 15 acres and is
located in a heavily industrialized area of northern New Jersey. The
Syncon Resin facility produced alkyd resin carriers for pigments, paints,
and varnish products. In the production process excess xylene or toluene
was separated from the wastewater and reused in subsequent reactions. The
remaining wastewater was subsequently pumped to an unlined leaching pond
(lagoon) to evaporate or percolate into the soil. The sampling performed
during the remedial investigation indicated extensive onsite contamination
in the soil, groi.md water, building dirt/dust, and stainless vessels and
tanks. Four general classes of chemical contaminants were found onsite:
organic compounds, pesticides, PCBs and metals.
The cost—effective remedial action selected for this site includes:
removal of storage tank and vessel contents for offsite disposal;
decontamination of buildings and tank structures as necessary; excavation
of 2,700 cubic yards of lagoon liquids, sediments and grossly contaminated
surface soils with offsite disposal; installation of a site cover that
would allow natural flushing; pump and treatment of ground water; and
conduction of supplemental studies to evaluate methods which enhance the
effectiveness of flushing and/or treatment and destruction of contaminated
soils. The estimated capital cost for the selected remedial action is
$5,600,000 with annual O&Z costs of approximately $209,000.
PERFORNANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Soil removal to achieve: PBCs 5ppm; base
neutrals 100 ppm; TVOs 1 ppm; chromium 15 ppm; lead 317 ppm; mercury 1 ppm;
nickel 18 ppm; zinc 196 ppm; arsenic 20 ppm; cadmium 3 ppm. No standards
have been set for ground water treatment.
KEYWORDS : Alternative Technology; Arsenic; Chromium; Excavation; Ground
Water; Ground Water Treatment; Heavy Metals; Q&M; Offsi.te Disposal;
Organics; •PCBs; Pesticides; Soil; VOCs.
—25—
-------
VESTAL WATER SUPPLY WELL 1—1, NY
First Remedial Action
June 27, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Vestal Water Supply Well 1—1 is located in the Town of Vestal, Broom
County, NY on the south bank of the Susguehanna River with an industrial
park irmtiethately to the southeast of the well, and several marsh areas and
drainage ditches encompassing and interlacing the industrial park. Well 1—1
is one of three production wells in Water District 1 intended to provide
drinking water to several water districts in the Vestal area. In 1978 a
chemical spill at the IBM plant in Endicott, a town across the Susguehanna
River, led to a testing program for all drinking wells in the vicinity for
synthetic compounds. As a result of this testing, significant
concentrations of chlorinated solvents were discovered in well 1—]., and the
well pumpage was diverted to the Susquehanna River where it presently
continues to discharge under an NPDES permit. Subsequent investigation has
since indicated that the presence of chlorinated solvents in the well is not
related to the spill at the IBM plant. In late 1982 an investigation.
contracted by the Town of Vestal, implicated, in part, the area around the
southeast corner of Stage Road as a suspected source. This is an area which
borders with the industrial park along Stage Road. In July 1985 the EPA
rejected an FS recommendation to construct a large capacity water main
between Water Districts 1 and 5 in order to improve the reliability of the
District 1 supply. This recommendation was rejected because the agency
believed that a sufficient capacity of good quality water still existed for
the service area, and that no short—term threat of losing this capacity was
present. The primary contaminants of concern include: VOCs, and TCE.
The selected remedial action includes: restoration of District 1 water
supply capacity to the level that existed prior to loss of well 1—1;
provision of a water supply to the district that exceeds applicable or
relevant and appropriate standards, thereby providing a very high level of
public health protection; hydraulic containment of the plume of contaminants
via pumping well 1—1, thereby protecting other District 1 water supply
wells; and cessation of untreated discharge from well 1—1 to the Susquehanna
River. The estimated capital cost is $389,400 with annual O&M costs of
$119,750.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Specific performance standards not outlined
in the ROD.
KEYWORDS : Air Stripping; Alternate Water Supply; Drinking Water
Contaminants; Ground Water; Ground Water Treatment; O&M; Solvents; TCE; VOCs.
—26—
-------
ARMY CPE ( LANDFILL, DE
First Remedial Action
September 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Army Creek Landfill (ACL), formerly known as the Llangollen Landfill,
is located approximately two miles southwest of New Castle, Delaware, and is
adjacent to the Delaware Sand and Gravel Landfill Superfund site. AOL, a
former sand and gravel quarry, is owned by New Castle County. The County
operated this 44—acre landfill, which accepted municipal wastes, from 1960
until its closure in 1968 when it was filled to capacity. An estimated 1.9
million cubic yards of refuse were landfjlled at the site, 30 percent of
which (or approximately 600,000 cubic yards) now lies below the seasonal high
water table. In late 1971, water in a residential well downgradient of the
site developed quality problems. Results from a subsequent investigation
showed that leachate, most likely originating from the Army Creek and
Delaware Sand and Gravel Landfills, was contaminating local aquifers. This
lead to the installation of a ground water recovery system designed to
maintain a ground water divide between the landfills and the Artesian Water
Company Welifield located downgradient of the landfills. The primary
contaminants of concern include: VOCs, inorganics, heavy metals, benzene,
and chromiuzr .
The selected remedial action for this site will be implemented in a
two—phased approach. Phase 1: Install a RORA—type cap to minimize
infiltration of rainwater. Capping of the landfill will include site
clearing, regrading of the existing cover surface, adding soil backfill to
achieve grades, installing the cap with gas vents, and construction of
drainage ditches to direct run—off away from the landfill; continue operation
of the downgradient recovery well network; and evaluate the capping system
and the downgradient pumping network for five years after the cap is
installed. This evaluation will include, but not be limited to, monitoring
water levels, pumping rates and water quality. Phase 2: After the five year
evaluation period, a determination will be made on whether to install
upgradient controls to intercept lateral ground water inflow on the
northwestern boundary of the landfill; and continue monitoring the water
levels, pumping rates and water quality as in Phase 1. O&M will include as a
minimum, regular inspections and, as necessary, repairs to the RCRA cap. The
ground water recovery system will be monitored to assure that it is capturing
the contaminated plume. The estimated capital cost for this two—phased
remedial action is $12,030,000, or $12,340,000 with upgradient controls. O&M
costs are estimated at $306,000, or $388,000 with upgradient controls.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR COALS : Specific performance standards not outlined
in the ROD.
KEYWORDS : Capping; Chromium; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; Heavy
Metals; Inorganics; Municipally—Owned Site; O&M; Sediments; Soil; State
Permit; Surface Water; RCRA Closure Requirements; VOCs; Water Quality
Criteria.
, •7_
-------
BLOSENSKI LANDFILL, PA
First Remedial Action
September 29. 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Blosenski Landfill site is located on 13.6 acres in West Cain
Township. Chester County, PA. The site is bordered by heavily wooded and
agricultural areas. Approximately 467 residents live within one mile of
the site. Beginning in the 1950s the site operated as a landfill accepting
municipal and industrial wastes. In 1971 the site was purchased by Mr.
Joseph Blosenski, who operated the landfill until the early 1980s. Wastes
were randomly dumped on the surface during the operating period, and
included solvents, waste water treatment sludges, demolition and
construction wastes, undercoating materials and open and leaking drums.
Numerous citizen complaints of odors, smoke and airborne debris led to
petition and regulatory actions against Mr. Biosenski. In 1982, EPA
conducted a Site Inspection and found serious ground water contamination.
The primary contaminants of concern are VOCs including benzene, toluene and
TCE, and inorganics including lead, cadmium, chromium and mercury.
The selected remedial action for the site will be conducted in four
phases. Phase I: install a public water supply to 12 residences;
Phase 2: excavate and remove buried drums and other material, with offsite
disposal in a RCRA landfill; Phase 3: perform a pre—design study to
further sample ground and surface waters to delineate extent and magnitude
of contamination. Based on the results of the study, ground water will be
pumped and treated for a maximum of two years to ACLs established by EPA;
Phase 4: install a low permeability RCRA cover on the landfill, divert
surface water and construct a gas venting system. Phases 1—3 will be
implemented concurrently. Estimated capital cost of the remedy ranges
between $11,000,000 and $15,000,000, with a baseline cost of $13,000,000.
O&M costs are estimated to be $534,300 for the first two years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Ground water will initially be treated to
ACLs, then to levels established by NPDES.
KEYWORDS : AOL; Alternate Water Supply; Capping; Drinking Water
Contaminants; Excavation; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; Ground
Water Treatment; Heavy Metals; O& ; Offsite Disposal; Organics; RCPA
Closure Requirements; Soil; Surface Water Diversion/Collection; Toluene;
VOCs.
-------
BRUIN LAGOON, PA
Second Remedial Action — Final
September 29, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
Bruin Lagoon is located about 45 miles north of Pittsburgh in Bruin
Borough, Butler County, PA. The site occupies over four acres and is
located along the western bank of the South Branch of Bear Creek,
approximately seven miles upstream of the creeks confluence with the
Allegheny River. The site is also partially situated in the 100—year flood
plain of the creek. The commercial and main residential areas of Bruin
Borough are located less than five blocks from the site and over 30
residences lie within 500 feet of Bruin Lagoon. Beginning in the 1930s,
Bruin Oil Compari , located on property adjacent to the site, used the lagoon
for disposal of wastes resulting from the production of white oil (mineral
oil). Disposal operations continued for more than 40 years. In 1968 a
breach in the lagoon dike caused an acidic sludge spill into the South
Branch of Bear Creek which killed 4 million fish in the Allegheny River.
An RI/FS report. begun in July 1981, resulted in a remedial action between
August 1983 and May 1984. The first remedial action included: removal of
liquid floating on top of the open lagoon and offsite disposal; lagoon and
dike stabilization; removal of scrap tanks and equipment; installation of a
multi—layer impermeable cap; and construction of a channel to prevent ground
water from entering the site. In May 1984 a previously unidentified sludge
layer, releasing toxic gases, was penetrated during remedial construction.
EPA declared an emergency situation, stopped all remedial activities, and
initiated an immediate emergency action. These actions were terminated in
September 1984 after the site was stabilized and secured. EPA, upon
completion of the emergency work, determined the need for a reevaluation of
the site. Approximately 17,500 cubic yards of soils and bedrock are
contaminated with toxic gases, heavy metals, oils, inorganics, and acidic
sludge.
The selected remedial action includes: onsite stabilization!—
neutralization of sludge and perched liquid zone; in—situ treatment of
bedrock underneath the former lagoon area; completion of dike reinforcement;
capping the former lagoon area with a multi-layer cap; and monitoring and
maintenance of the site, cap and ground water. The estimated capital cost
is $2,695,000 with annual O&M of $16,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Specific performance standards not outlined
in the ROD.
KEYWORDS : Acids; Alternative Technology; Capping; Dike Reinforcement; Flood
Plain; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; Heavy Metals; Inorganics; O&M;
Oils; Organics; Sediments; Sludge; Stabilization; Surface Water.
—29--
-------
CHISMAN CREEK, VA
First Remedial Action
September 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Chisman Creek site, located in Southeastern York County, VA, is in a
520—acre sub—watershed of the Chisman Creek coastal Basin on the Virginia
Peninsula. As a tidal estuary, Chisman Creek flows easterly into Chesapeake
Bay. Approximately 500 to 1,000 people live within one mile of the site in
this primarily residential area. Chisman Creek supports private and
commercial marinas and numerous private docks, and is also a popular fishing
area. In 1957 and 1958, two units of the Virginia Power Yorktown Power
Generating Station began burning coal mixed with coke from a nearby
petroleum refinery. Fly ash was produced by these units until 1974. A
private contractor, employed between 1957 and 1974 to haul the fly ash from
the generating station, disposed of large quantities of this incinerated
coal by—product in four abandoned sand and gravel pits in the Chisman Creek
watershed, approximately two miles south of the generating station. No dust
control measures were employed during the hauling, and uncontrolled erosion
caused fly ash to wash from the pits into Chisman Creek and its tributaries
during heavy rains. The remedial investigation conducted at the site found
484,600 cubic yards of contaminants in the fly ash, the sediments of Chisman
Creek and its tributaries, the ground water within and adjacent to the pits,
and in surface water. The primary contaminants of concern include: trace
metals (nickel and vanadium), and inorganics.
The selected remedial action includes: capping Areas A and B with a
soil layer overlaid with topsoil and vegetative growth; capping Area C with
a low-permeability compacted soil layer overlaid with topsoil and vegetative
growth; installation of a subsurface drain on the west, south, and east
sides of Area C to lower the water table below the bottom of the fly ash;
transportation of ground water drainage from Area C to an onsite treatment
plant; extension of the Newport News and the Allen Mill Road waterlines to
affected homes; and implementation of deed restrictions or other controls to
prohibit excavation of soil and restrict onsite building and ground water
use. EPA is deferring any remedial action decisions on the streams and
adjacent ponds until a study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
complete. The estimated capital cost for this remedy is $14,119,000 with
O&M costs for year one of $506,000 and $64,000 for years 2—30.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : The recommended action for nickel complies
with the Ambient Water Qualty Criteria (AWQC) for the protection of fresh
water aquatic life (88ug11 to 280ug11) and the AWQC for the protection of
salt water aquatic life (l7ug/l). Once ground water being collected through
the drain is shown to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems
Limits, the treatment will cease.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS : Deed restrictions will be implemented to prohibit
excavation of soil, and restrict onsite building and ground water use.
KEYWORDS : Alternate Water Supply; Arsenic; Capping; Deed Restrictions;
Drinking Water Contaminants; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; Heavy
Metals; Inorganics; Institutional Controls; O&M; Onsite Treatment;
Sediments; Surface Water; Wetlands.
—30—
-------
DELAWARE CITY PVC, DE
First Remedial Action
September 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Delaware City PVC site is located two miles northwest of Delaware
City, New Castle County, Delaware. In 1966 Stauffer Chemical Company (SCC)
of Westport, Connecticut, founded the Delaware City PVC Plant, which is used
for the manufacturing of polyvinylchloride resin (PVC), polyvinyl acetate
and other polymers. From 1971 to 1974 off—grade PVC resin, sludge from the
wastewater treatment system and residue from the stripping process were
disposed of in two orisite pits. These “buried sludge pits” were closed and
covered in 1979. Off—grade PVC resin was disposed of in a third pit. This
material was removed and the pits backfilled in 1974. In May 1981 Formosa
acquired the PVC manufacturing and processing facility and has continued
operations to present. The two buried sludge pits and the third disposal
pit were retained by SCC as part of its Carbon Disulfide Plant, located
adjacent to the PVC Plant property. An EPA conducted inspection in May 1982
indicated serious contamination of the shallow ground water. Currently
25,000 cubic yards of ground water, surface water, and soils are
contaminated with PVC, benzyl chloride monomer (VCM), TCE, and
l,2—dichloroethane (EDC).
The description of the selected remedial action for each area of this
site is provided below. Off—Grade Batch Pits: excavate and remove existing
PVC sludge and contaminated soils; install a double synthetic liner; and
install monitoring wells, and perform quarterly sample analysis for TCE.
EDC, VCM. The excavated material will be processed and recovered
(estimated at 80—85 ) as a saleable finished product to the maxirnun-t extent
possible. Non—recoverable material will be disposed of offsite at an
approved RCRA facility. Stormwater Reservoir: The same remedy as described
for the above off—grade batch pits. Unlined Ditches: excavate and remove
PVC sludge and dispose of at an approved RCRA facility; and install a single
synthetic liner. Aerated Lagoons: excavate and remove PVC sludge; clean
and repair lagoons as necessary; install a double synthetic liner; and
install monitoring wells, and perform quarterly sampling analysis for TCE,
EDC and VCM. The excavated material will be recovered to the maximum extent
possible (estimated to be 80—85° ) and non—recoverable material will be
disposed of offsite at an approved RCRA facility. Closed Buried Sludge
Pits: place a drainage layer on top of the existing synthetic cap; and
cover with a second synthetic cap and topsoil, and revegetate. Former PVC
Storage rea: cover and cap the entire area with a double synthetic cap.
Ground Water: install a line of six ground water recovery wells at the
northern edge of the contaminant plume, and another six wells at the
southern edge. Reuse the collected ground water in Formosa’s plant
operations. During periods of low water demand in the plant, treat the
ground water in the existing waste water treatment plant. Install two
monitoring wells at the southern edge of the plume. Provide an alternate
water supply for existing contaminated wells. Operation and Maintenance:
as a minimum, regi lar inspections and, as necessary, repairs to the liners
and caps. The ground water recovery system will be routinely monitored to
assure that it is capturing the contaminated plume. The estimated capital
cost for the remedy is $1,904,000 with annual O&M costs of $43,000.
_,1 —
-------
DELAWARE CITY PVC, DE
First Remedial Action
(Continued)
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Recovery wells will operate until
concentration of V Z’i, EDC, and TCE reach 1 ppb, 0.94 ppb, and 2.7 ppb
respectively for two consecutive sample analyses.
KEYWORDS Alternate Water Supply; Capping; Drinking Water Contaminants;
Excavation; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; O&M; Offsite Disposal;
Organics; Soil; Surface Water; TCE; VOCs.
—32—
-------
DRAKE CF ICAL, PA
Second Remedial Action
May 13, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Drake Chemical site is located in Lock Haven, Clinton County, PA.
Between 1962 and 1982 Drake Chemical, Inc. (DCI) manufactured batches of
specialty, intermediate chemicals for producers of dyes, pharmaceuticals,
cosmetics, herbicides, and pesticides. The herbicide Fenac, manufactured at
the plant, is a major site contaminant. The eight—acre inactive site
contains six major buildings. Inside and surrounding the process buildings
are approximately sixty process tanks and reactors. Approximately ten large
tanks used for bulk storage of acids, bases, and fuel oils are outside.
Also located onsite are two lined and three unlined wastewater treatment
lagoons. Chemical sludge and 3,900 cubic yards of contaminated soil cover
underlie much of the open area while construction debris is strewn about.
Drwns and bulk waste may be buried at the site. The primary contaminants of
concern include: inorganics and organics including toluerie, benzene, TCE,
and xylene.
The selected remedy is the second phase of a three phase cleanup
action. It includes: drainage and removal of 192,000 gallons of liquid and
sediments from the two lined lagoons and treatment in an offsite
RCRA—perinitted facility; removal of all tanks, buildings, and debris;
decontamination of all metal structures that can be salvagable as scrap:
disposal in a RCRA facility any material not decontaminated and treatment of
any liquids removed to a RCRA—permitted treatment facility; incineration of
warehouse—stored chemicals at an offsite RCRA—permitted incinerator; and
analysis and disposal (if needed) of the decontamination fluid in a
RCRA—permitted facility. The estimated baseline capital cost for this
remedy is $3,143,000 with no anticipated O&M costs.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Not Applicable.
KEYWORDS : Alternative Technology; Carcinogenic Compounds; Direct Contact;
Flood Plain; Ground Water; Incineration; Inorganics; Offsite Disposal;
Organics; RCRA Part 264; Sludges; Soils.
—. —
-------
INDUSTRIAL LANE, PA
First Remedial Action
September 29, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Industrial Lane site encompasses approximately two square miles in
Wiliains Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. A portion of the Chrin
Landfill, a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources permitted
landfill, is on the site as are several active and abandoned industrial
properties, corrut ercial establishments, railroads and farming/residential
areas. As a result of the detection of low level ground water contamination.
the Chrin Landfill was placed on the NPL in February 1983. In addition to
the preparation of a Remedial Investigation, two Feasibility Studies for the
Industrial Lane site were also prepared. The first, known as Operable Unit
I, focuses on the remedial alternatives for private well users. The second,
Operable Unit II, will focus on remedial actions addressing ground water
remediation. No consistent contaminant plume has been detected to date due
to the complex geology of the area. Possible industrial activities
contributing to the contamination include, but may not be limited to, iron
ore extraction and iron works operations. The possibility also exists that
refuse and/or other unknown substances were more recently disposed of into
one or more of the iron ore extraction pits on the Chrin Landfill and
industrial complex facility. While residential wells located upgradient of
the Chrin Landfill have historically contained only background levels of
VOCs, the chemicals detected in wells within the Glendon Boro residential
community represent the primary contaminants of concern. These include
tetrachloroethene, trichloroethane, and chloroform.
The selected remedial action for this site involves the provision of an
alternate water supply to approximately 15 households. Since existing curb
service is available this action only involves installation of several lines
to the designated households. The estimated capital cost for this action is
$30,800 with no annual OSM.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Not Applicable.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS : Possible restrictions of ground water use by future
developments and of future well construction at existing residences.
KEYWORDS : Alternate Water Supply; Background Levels; Drinking Water
Contaminants; Ground Water; Institutional Controls; TCEs; VOCs.
-------
L NSDOWNE RADIATION, PA
Second Remedial Action
September 22, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Lansdowne Radiation site consists of two attached residences located
at 105/107 East Stratford Avenue, Larisdowne, PA. The building is located in
a residential area, approximately two miles from Philadelphia. The
dwellings were contaminated with radium and other radionuclides between 1924
and 1944 as a result of work done in one of the houses. In 1924 Dr. Dicran
Kabakjian, a professor of physics at the University of PA, opened up what
was essentially a family—run business to refine radium and produce medical
devices in his home at 105 E. Stratford Avenue. After Dr. Kabakjian’s death
in 1945, from conditions not linked directly to radium exposure, the house
twice changed ownership; first to the Tallant family, then to the Kirzirian
family. In 1963, based on information gathered from private individuals,
the State Department of Health inspected the house and found extremely high
levels of radiation. A decontamination effort in 1964 consisted of removing
as much radium as practical by sanding, scraping, vacuuming, and washing the
house walls, floors and ceilings. Some concrete floor and wooden floor
boards were also removed. After cleanup, the house received epoxy—based
paint coatings to limit the outward migration of the radium that remained
deeply embedded in the actual structure. In December 1964, four months
after the completion of the decontamination, the U.S. Public Health Service
(USPHS), basing its report on a 16 hour—per—day—exposure, concluded the
radiation dose rate received by the occupants, the Kizirian family, was just
above the then existing guidelines of 0.5 rem/yr. and that further
decontamination of the house would be impractical. Contamination at the
Bashore family home at 107 E. Stratford Avenue was not addressed. The first
remedial action at this site, initiated in August 1985, provided temporary
housing for one of the residents. The other resident had previously moved
out. No further decontamination can currently be performed without removing
the structural members, walls, and floors. Furniture and appliances that
can not be decontaminated are pending remedial actions. The primary
contaminant of concern is radium with actinium, thorium, and protactinium as
secondary contaminants.
The selected remedial action for this second operable unit includes:
dismantling of the twin house. All radioactive materials above established
permissible levels will be packed and sealed in approved containers, and
disposed of at an approved offsite disposal facility; contaminated soil
located in and around the house will be excavated and removed to established
permissible levels. Some soil in surrounding lots along the property lines
may be removed if sampling or monitoring during excavation shows migration
of the radium beyond the original property; the sewer lateral leading from
the contaminated house to Stratford Avenue will be removed; approximately
—
-------
LANSDOWNE RADIATION, PA
Second Remedial Action
(Continued)
two hundred feet of sewer line from in front of the house to Union Avenue
will be replaced; and O&M will include maintenance of the vacant property
lot. The capital cost has been estimated at $4,000,000—$4,500,000 with O&M
costs reported to be “minimal”.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Soil will be excavated and removed to a
5—15 pCi/g level; radon contaminated materials will be removed to a 0.03 WL;
gamma contaminated materials will be removed to the 0.17 rem/yr permissible
level.
KEYWORDS : Air; Excavation; O&M; Offsite Disposal; Radioactive Materials;
Relocation; Soil.
—36—
-------
LEETOWN PESTICIDE, WV
First Remedial Action — Final
March 31, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Leetowri Pesticide site is located in northeast West Virginia,
approximately 8 miles south of Martinsburg, West Virginia. The “site” is
actually composed of a number of areas affected by surface disposal of
pesticides, agricultural use of pesticides, and landfilling. A total of
eight specific areas of waste disposal or accumulation were identified
during the initial RI study. Of these eight areas, two were the result of
alleged disposal of pesticide—contaminated debris from a fire that occurred
in 1975 at the Miller Chemical Company. These two areas include the former
pesticide pile and the suspected pesticide landfarm areas. Four of the
contaminated areas are associated with former use of the land for orchard
production. The two remaining sites are active landfills.
The results of the contaminant release and exposure study indicate that
the suspected landfarm and apple orchards do not appear to comprise
significant sources of environmental contamination. The only three areas
out of the eight investigated that present concentrations of pesticides
above ambient soil background (non—pesticide use areas) and orchard
background levels (pesticide application areas) are the following:
Former Pesticide Pile Area (presently: Robinson Property)
Former Jefferson Orchard Mixing Area (presently: Robinson Property)
Former Crirnm Orchard Packing Shed (presently: Tabb Barn).
The selected remedial action for this site includes: excavation and
consolidation of approximately 3600 cubic yards of contaminated soil from
the three areas mentioned above; placement of these soils in an onsite
‘treatment bed” to enhance anaerobic biodegradation of the pesticide
contamination; removal and offsite disposal of the contaminated flooring, a
wooden spray wagon, and drums of pesticide product in a permitted hazardous
waste facility; construction of a monitoring well network; and construction
of surface water diversion systems, sedimentation channels, and diversion
dikes. Total capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is
estimated to be $1,014,000 with O&M costs approximately $10,000 for the
first year and $7,500 for the second.
PERFOR1 L1JCESTANDARDS OR GOALS : The average target soil concentration for
DDT and its metabolites for all soils placed in the treatment bed is 300
ppb. This concentration is required to reach a l0 carcinogenic risk for
inhalation, which is equivalent to the 10—6 carcinogenic risk for dermal
contact.
KEYWORDS : Alternative Technology; Excavation; Ground Water Monitoring;
Inorganics; Offsite Disposal; Organics; Pesticides; Sediments; Soil; Surface
Water Diversion/Collection; Treatability Studies.
—37—
-------
LI STONE ROAD, ? D
First Remedial Action
September 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Limestone Road site is located 2.5 miles east southeast of
Curnberland, Allegheny County, on the western flank of Irons Mountain.
The 210—acre site consists of two parcels of land, the former Diggs
Sanitation Company (DSC—20 acres) and the Cuxnberland Cement and Supply
Company (CC & SC — 191 acres). The site is bordered on the southwest by
several residences, and irwriediately to the northwest lie the Currtberland City
Dump and undeveloped land. The site includes large areas of landfilled and
dumped commercial, residential and demolition refuse on both properties.
About 110 tons of a chromium containing sludge were also disposed of on the
properties. Currently, lB residences are within a half—mile downhill of the
site, 5 within 100 yards, and one on the Diggs property. The water supply
for these residences is ground water from private wells. Ground water in
the area of the site has the potential to be contaminated with inorganic and
organic constituents. In the mid l970s, Mr: Charles Steiner, President of
CC & SC, began allowing various contractors to dump clean fill (housing
demolition material) on the property to provide a larger and more level
working surface. However, a variety of waste has reportedly been dumped
into a ravine on the property. In April 1981, Mr. Joseph Diggs, a licensed
hazardous waste hauler and owner of DSC, was allegedly involved in the
dumping of 99 tons of hazardous waste containing chromium, lead, and cadmium
into a ravine on CC & SC property. In addition, an alleged 11 tons of
hazardous waste have been reportedly disposed of on the Diggs property as an
extension of previous filling and grading operations. The nearby Cuxnberland
City Dump functioned as a municipal landfill from 1932 to 1968. Fly ash.
miscellaneous solid metal wastes, and numerous tires are currently exposed
on the northern and southern faces of the dump. Several crushed and rusted
drums were noted along the banks of the inactive landfill. The primary
contaminants of concern include: VOCs, base—neutral compounds, TCE, PCE,
heavy metals.
The selected interim remedial action includes: site grading; capping of
contaminated soil on all properties; fencing of both properties; continued
monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and sediment; complete historical
review of pertinent geological information; collection of regional offsite
and onsite geological information; chemical analysis of the shale to
determine its composition; reevaluation and establishment of background data
control points; frequent sampling to increase the data base; increase in the
number of stream and residential sampling; and evaluation of the effects of
natural and/or domestic (plumbing) conditions on the overall water quality
of the area. The estimated capital cost is $1,192,580. O&M cost will be
determined after completion of ground water studies.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Specific performance standards not outlined
in the ROD.
—38—
-------
LIMESTONE ROAD, MD
First Remedial Action
(Continued)
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS : Deed restrictions for soil and fencing of the CC &
SC and DSC properties.
KEYWORDS : Capping; Chromium; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitor rig;
Inorganics; Interim Remedy; Organics; Sediments; Surface Water; TCE; VOCs.
—39—
-------
MIDDLETOWN ROAD,
First Remedial Action — Final
March 17, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Middletowrt Road Site is a privately owned waste dump, consisting of
approximately 2.3 acres, located off Maryland Route 50 near Annapolis, Anne
Arundel County, Maryland. The site operated as a dump, primarily for rubble
and construction debris, for several decades without proper State permits.
In 1981, it was discovered that approximately 40 drums and four dumpster
loads of suspected hazardous substances were on the site. On June 24, 1983,
$384,000 in CERCLA money was allocated for immediate removal measures to
excavate and remove hazardous substances and contaminated soil. The removal
activities conducted at the site consisted of: the removal of contaminated
soil and 5—gallon pails of marine paint; additional soil sampling to confirm
adequate contaminant removal; installation of six ground water monitoring
wells around the perimeter of the site; drum sampling, testing and the
relocation of one million tires on the site in order to conduct a more
comprehensive subsurface investigation. Material removed during the
Immediate Removal Action included 68 drums, 70 contaminated tires, and 610
tons of contaminated soil.
A. remedial investigation was conducted to determine whether any remedial
action would be needed before deleting the site from EPA ’s National
Priorities List. Based on the findings of the RI, no risk to receptors via
direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion was found. Therefore, a No Action
Alternative has been recommended, since there are no releases from the
Middletown Road Site which may threaten public health. The State of
Maryland will monitor onsite wells as a part of its existing closed waste
site inspection schedule.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Not Applicable.
KEYWORDS : Ground Water Monitoring; No Action Alternative.
—40—
-------
MILLCRE (, PA
First Remedial Action — Final
May 7, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Milicreek site is a 84.5 acre tract of land located in Millcreek
Township, Erie County, Pennsylvania. The site was once a 75—acre freshwater
wetland. During the past 40 years, all but 4 acres have been filled with
foundry sand and industrial and municipal waste. The site operated as an
unpermitted active landfill during this time. For the past 15 years,
unknown parties bulk disposed halogenated volatile solvents in soils in the
eastern portion of the site. This disposal has resulted in significant
ground water contamination both on— and offsite. Unit cancer risk
calculations reveal that offsite ground water contamination exceeds 10—2
cancer risk levels adjacent to the eastern portion of the site. In
addition, Region III ’s Remedial Investigation discovered extensive soil,
sediment, and surface water contamination. The major clases of compounds
detected included: polychiorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAl-Is), phthalates, volatile organics, phenols and metals such
as lead and copper.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: excavation and
consolidation of contaminated soii. and sediments under a RCRA cap to meet
proposed criteria; site grading; placement of a soil cover over the
remaining soils not exceeding the proposed criteria; construction of surface
water management basins and ditches; revegetation of soil cover and cap;
installation of additional monitoring wells; construction of a flood
retention basin on property owned by Milicreek Township; pumping and
treatment of contaminated ground water; additional sampling and well
installation; and ground water monitoring. Total capital cost estimates for
the selected remedial alternative vary from $12,000,000 to $18,000,000 with
an estimated baseline cost of $15,000,000. For these estimates, capital
costs included all costs associated with excavation, regrading,
revegetating, capping and ground water pumping and treating for two years.
Additional sampling and monitoring wells will be considered as part of the
design. Design is estimated to cost approximately $1,000,000 and will, be
funded entirely by trust fund monies. Total present worth cost for O&M is
estimated to be $1,763,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : The tentative soil and sediment criteria
and the ground water protection goals were based on a site—specific risk
analyses presented in the EPA Region III technical support documents. The
exception is the soil criteria for PCBs (10.000 ug/kg dry weight), which was
based on a consensus policy for residential areas proposed to EPA by a
committee of environmental organizations and industry groups. Soil cleanup
goals for other compounds are: PAl-Is 2940 ug/kg (l0 Unit Cancer Risk);
phenols 9,000 ug/kg; toluene 1783 ug/kg; and trichioroethylene 10 ug/kg
(Detection Limit).
—41—
-------
MILLCREEK, PA
First Remedial Action — Final
(Continued)
KEYWORDS : Capping; Excavation; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring;
Ground Water Treatment; Heavy Metals; O&M; Onsite Containment; PAH; PCBs;
Phenols; Risk Assessment; Sediments; Soil; Solvents; Surface Water; TCE;
VOCs; Wetlands.
—42—
-------
TAYLOR BOROUGH, PA
Second Remedial Action - Final
March 17, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Taylor Borough site is located in the Borough of Taylor in
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. The site is an abandoned landfill located
in a strip mine. Underlying the site is a series of underground mines. As
a result of the landfill operation, which ceased in 1968, the topography of
the site consists of relatively rolling terrain between steep slopes of mine
spoil piles and unreclaimed strip mines. In June 1985, a Record of Decision
(ROD) was approved for the site. The ROD deferred a decision on ground
water action because analytical results for ground water samples collected
in April 1985 were not available. Additional consideration of site ground
water conditions was also needed because of unusual hydrogeologic conditions.
In the June 1985 ROD, reference is made to a release of contaminants
into a coal seam based on the analysis of samples collected from Well 3C in
September 1984. As noted in the RI, the data validation review found that
the reported results are of questionable accuracy. Additionally, the two
subsequent sampling efforts that were attempted did not identify any
contamination. Since no release of site contaminants to the ground water
has been documented, there is no need for ground water remedial action at
this time; however, a monitoring program is warranted to verify that no
release is occurring. To meet this objective, existing monitoring wells in
the coal seams underlying the site (wells lB. 2C, 3C, 4C, 5B, 6A, 7C, 7D,
8B) should be monitored on a semiannual basis for all priority pollutant
volatile organics and Hazardous Substance List metals for, at a minimum,
five years after the surface remedial action is completed. It is estimated
that the current cost to conduct one round of sampling and analysis for
metals and volatiles at the monitoring wells identified is $8,000, or
$16,000 for semiannual monitoring.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Not Applicable.
KEYWORDS : Ground Water Monitoring; No Action Alternative.
-------
TYBOUTS CORNER LANDFILL, DE
First Remedial Action — Final
March 6, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Tybouts Corner Landfill site is located in northern Delaware.
approximately ten miles south of Wilmington, in New Castle County. The
landfill consists of two fill areas. The main fill is about 47 acres in
size and is located near the confluence of Pigeon Run and Red Lion Creek. A
smaller fill area, estimated to be about four acres, is located just west of
Pigeon Run. The site was originally a sand and gravel pit. When the
landfill began to operate. plans indicate that no clay liner or other
impervious material was placed below the fill and no impervious cap was
placed on top of the fill following abandonment. Tybouts Corner Landfill was
used by the New Castle County Department of Public Works as a municipal
sanitary landfill for the disposal of municipal and domestic refuse from
December 1968 until July 1971. In addition, industrial wastes were disposed
there during the active life of the landfill. These industrial wastes
included: trichioroethylene, vinyl chloride, 1,2—dichioroethane, benzene
and various other organic and inorganic chemicals.
The main threat posed by Tybouts Corner Landfill is that the hazardous
substances disposed of in the landfill are contaminating the local and
regional aquifers which are a main source of water for the region. The
selected remedial action for this site includes: excavation of all
municipal and industrial wastes, as well as contaminated subsoils in the
west fill and consolidation with the main fill; capping of the consolidated
main fill area with a multi—layered RCRA cap; installation of a subsurface
drain or trench system; implementation of a health and safety plan; and
establishing a monitoring program. In addition, the offsite plume of
contaminated ground water in the Upper Hydrologic Zone (UHZ) of the Potomac
will be pumped and treated or otherwise disposed of, either onsite or
offsite at a local sewage treatment plant. The goal of the offsite ground
water treatment will be to reduce the level of contaminants to 100 ppb of
total volatile organics, and 1O 4 cancer risk level for cancer—causing
contaminants. During the pumping, institutional controls will be utilized
to prevent use of contaminated ground water. The ROD does not provide
estimated capital cost and annual O&M for the selected remedial action.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : The goal of the offsite ground water
pumping will be to reduce the level of contaminants to 100 ppb of total
volatile organics. Separate standards will be used for the following
cancer—causing contaminants: vinyl chloride 1.0 ppb; benzene 5.0 ppb;
1,2—dichloroetharie 5.0 ppb. These standards are anticipated to meet the
goals of a i0 cancer risk at the boundary of the landfill property.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS : During pumping, institutional controls will be
utilized to restrict the use of ground water.
AA
-------
TYBOUTS CORNER LANDFILL, DE
First Remedial Action — Final
(Continued)
KEYWORDS : Capping; Excavation; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring;
Ground Water Treatnient; Institutional Controls; O&M; Organics; Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW); Soil; Toluene.
_A _
-------
WESTLINE SITE, PA
First Remedial Action — Final
July 3, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Westline Site is located in Westline, Lafayette Township, McKean
County, PA. The site, encompassing approximately 40 acres, is bordered by
Kinzua Creek to the South, Turnip Run to the east, and a wetland area to the
west. For the purpose of this investigation, the northern border extends
250 feet north of the former chemical plant foundation. Located at the
center of the site is a popular landmark, the Westline Inn. Beginning in
1901, the Day Chemical Company, converted lumber into charcoal, methanol and
acetic acid. The plant changed owners three times before equipment
deterioration and declining profits forced its closure in 1952. Several
tar—like deposits from the wood chemical processing operations remain
onsite. The largest deposit was excavated in September of 1983 by the
removal action implemented by the EPA. Another tar deposit, approximately 6
inches deep and 1,500 square feet in total area, still exists. Several
smaller tar deposits are located intermittently in the low—lying areas of
the ground surface. Tar is also seen along the banks of an unnamed
tributary. The FS has estimated a total of 710 cubic yards of tar and tar
soils onsite. During the initial EPA site inspection in July of 1982, a
sample of waste material was collected from tar seepage and analyzed for
ptiority pollutants. Eighteen tentatively identified compounds were
detected. In March 1986, a second wood tar sample was collected to verify
the presence or absence of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAN). The
primary contaminants of concern include phenol, 2 4-dimethylphenol, PAN
compounds.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: excavation of all
wood tar deposits and subsequent hauling of these wastes to a permitted
offsite facility; backfilling of the excavated areas with clean soil and
vegetation; incineration of excavated deposits with a high heating value and
low ash content technique; ground water verification study; and air
monitoring. The baseline capital costs for this remedial action is
$744,000. O&M will not be required for the areas where tar will be
excavated, but periodic inspection of the areas to assure the remedy is
effective will be necessary.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : The tar deposits will be excavated to the
soil level. Sampling and analysis will be conducted during excavation to be
sure contaminated soils are removed to a level equivalent to a l0 cancer
risk for direct contact with soils over a 20 year period. This level is
chosen because it is similar to some of the background levels found in the
community. The removal of the tar deposits will also insure that the
remaining PANs in soils will not leach from the soils to the ground water in
concentrations that will exceed levels equivalent to a 10—6 cancer risk
for ingestion of ground water.
—46—
-------
WESTLINE SITE, PA
First Remedial Action — Final
(Continued)
KEYWORDS : Excavation; Ground Water; Incineration; Offsite Disposal;
Phenols; PAN; Sediments; Soils; Surface Water; Wetlands.
—47—
-------
A. L. TAYLOR, KY
First Remedial Action — Final
June 18, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The A. L. Taylor site, also known as ‘Valley of the Drums”, is located
in a small valley in northern Bullitt County outside of Brooks, Kentucky.
This site was first identified as a waste disposal site by the Kentucky
Department of National Resources and Environmental Protection (KDNREP) in
1967. The owner, Mr. Taylor, excavated pits on site and emptied the
contents of the drums into them and recycled the drums. Soil from nearby
hillsides was eventually used to cover the pits. Thousands of drums were
also stored on the surface. Mr. Taylor never applied for the required State
permits throughout the history of site operations from 1967 to 1977. The
KDNREP first documented releases of hazardous substances in 1975, and in
January 1979, the EPA responded to releases of oil and hazardous substances
at the site. In 1980 the I NREP contacted six responsible parties who
identified and removed approximately 30% of the waste remaining on the
surface of the site. In 1981 the EPA, upon inspection, discovered
deteriorating and leaking drums and discharges of pollutants into the nearby
creek. EPA conducted a removal action to upgrade the existing treatment
system and remove the remaining 4,200 drums of surface waste offsite for
recycling or disposal. There remains an unknown amount of waste buried
onsite. The hazardous substances detected at this site include
approximately 140 compounds of the following classes: heavy metals,
ketones, phthalates, PCBs, chlorinated alkanes and alkenes, aromatics,
chlorinated aromatics, and polynuclear aromatics (PAHs).
The selected remedial action for this site includes: removal of pond
water; securing pond sediments, sludge and materials from low—lying areas
beneath the cap; installing a final cap cover for containment of the waste
materials; constructing a surface water drainage diversion to re—route
surface water; and implementing a performance monitoring program to evaluate
the effectiveness of the clay cap to mitigate surface chemical migration.
The capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is estimated to be
$795,349. O&M costs for this selected remedy were not specified.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Specific performance goals not outlined in
the ROD.
KEYWORDS : Ground Water; Heavy Metals; Inorganics; O&M; Organics; PAN; PCBs;
PCEs; Sediments; Surface Water; Toluene; VOCs.
—48—
-------
COLEMAN EVANS, FL
First Remedial Action — Final
September 25, 1986
The Coleman Evans Wood Preserving Company site is an active 11—acre wood
preserving facility located in the town of Whitehouse, Duval County,
Florida. The site consists of two distinct areas: the western portion,
which comprises the wood treating facility; and the eastern portion, which
consists of a landfill area which has been used for the disposal of wood
chip and other wastes. Land use around the site is primarily residential
and light commercial/industrial. Since 1954, Coleman Evans has produced
wood products impregnated with PC?. Wastes from the process were discharged
into an onsite drainage ditch, and two unlined sludge disposal pits. In
1980, ground water underneath the site was found to be contaminated. As a
result, Coleman Evans constructed a closed—loop treatment system. In 1985,
an Immediate Removal Action was taken to remove the contents of the two
unlined pits. Subsequent site investigations confirm soil and ground water
contamination, with PC? the primary contaminant of concern.
The selected remedial action for th s site includes: all soils and
sediments with PC? concentrations greater than 10 mg/kg will be excavated,
approximately 9,000 cubic yards; excavated soils will be incinerated in a
temporary onsite incineration unit. Decontaminated soils will be backfilled
onsite; ground water recovery will be conducted for dewatering to facilitate
excavation and to treat ground water with PC? concentrations greater than
1.01 mg/i. Recovered ground water will be stored and analyzed. If the
level of PCP exceeds 1 ugh, the ground water will be treated by an onsite
carbon adsorption unit to a level below 1 ug/l PCP in accordance with
Chapter 1 7 —3.06l.3(m) of the Florida Administrative Code before discharge to
the surface water environment via the onsite drainage ditch. Other
incidental Hazardous Substance List compounds identified in ground water
during the implementation of this remedy will be cleaned up to levels which
comply with Drinking Water Standards. Clean up compounds for which no
standards exist will be to non—detection levels. The estimated capital cost
for the remedy is $3,000,000 — $3,800,000 with no O&M costs.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Excavation of all soils containing PCP >10
ppm. GW will be treated to levels which comply with Drinking Water
Standards or Water Quality Criteria.
Y WORDS : Alternative Technology; Drinking Water Standards; Excavation;
Filling; Ground Water; Ground Water Treatment; Incineration; Oils; Organics;
Phenols; Sediments; Soils; State Criteria; Water Quality Criteria.
—49—
-------
DISTLER BRICKYARD, KY
First Remedial Action — Final
August 19, 1986
ROD ? BSTRACT :
The Distler Brickyard site is located near the Ohio River, approximately
one—half mile south of West Point, Kentucky and about 17 miles southwest of
Louisville. The 3—acre site is located on a 70—acre abandoned brick
manufacturing plant property, and portions of the site lie within the
50—year and 100—year flood plains of the Ohio River. The site consists of
the brick complex and associated buildings, and an open field covered with
grasses and shrubs. In 1976, Mr. Donald Distler leased the brickyard
property from Mr. Thomas Hoeppner, the owner, and began disposing wastes
from Distler’s Kentucky Liquid Recycling, Inc. firm. In December of 1976,
I REPC learned of the disposal and conducted investigations at the site.
These investigations led to Franklin County serving a restraining order to
Mr. Distler to discontinue disposal of wastes at the site. Despite the
order, disposal continued until January 1979, when KNREPC issued an order to
abate operations. A partial removal of drums occurred, leading to later
removal of 2,310 drums and visibly contaminated soil. Contents of the drums
included liquids, sludges and solids found to be corrosive, volatile and
flammable. The RI/FS, begun in April 1984, indicated 8,000 cubic yards of
soil and ground water contamination in the site area. Primary contaminants
of concern are VOCs including TCE, XE, benzene and toluene; naphthalene;
bis (2—ethylhexyl) phthalate; and heavy metals.
The selected remedial action for the site includes: excavation and
offsite disposal of soils contaminated above background levels in areas A
and B; backfill with “clean” natural granular soils; grade surface to
existing grade and revegetate; and extraction and offsite treatment of
contaminated ground water to background levels and reinjectiori into the
aquifer. Estimated present worth cost of the remedy is $7,500,000 with 06CM
costs of $1,568,000 for years 1 and 2, and $44,000 for years 3—30.
PERFORNANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Excavation of all soils to background,
treatment of ground water to background.
KEYWORDS : Background Levels; Excavation; Flood Plain; Ground Water; Ground
Water Treatment; Heavy Metals; Inorganics; 06CM; Offsite Disposal; Organics;
Soil; TCE; Toluene; VOCs.
—50—
-------
DISTLER FARM, KY
First Remedial Action — Final
August 19, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
Distler Farm is located in the southwest corner of Jefferson County, KY,
approximately one mile northwest of West Point, KY. The property is
bordered by U.S. Highway 60/31 W (Dixie Highway) on the northwest; Stump Gap
Creek on the southeast; and by cultivated farmland on the northeast and
southwest. The site is a three—acre area approximately 1,000 feet from the
Ohio River. The site was discovered in early 1977 during the development of
an enforcement case against Mr. Donald F. Distler, owner of Kentucky Liquid
Recycling, Inc. In an effort to locate sites that Mr. Distler may have used
for chemical waste storage or disposal, EPA personnel inspected the site in
April 1977. They reported approximately 600 drums of industrial waste
stored on the ground surface. In December 1978 the Ohio River and its
tributaries flooded, causing drums of industrial wastes from the site to be
scattered along the flood plain of the creek. The Governor of Kentucky
declared an environmental emergency and Region IV of the EPA supervised
recovery and onsite storage of 832 drums containing chemicals characteristic
of paint and varnish industry. The drums were later removed by the Kentucky
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (KNREPC). During the
cleanup effort U.S. Army personnel located four drum burial sites. Between
January 1979 and pril 1984, the EPA conducted various surface water, ground
water, soil, sediment, and well studies. These studies confirmed the
evidence of soil contamination and ground water contamination at the site.
No significant site—related contamination appeared in surface waters,
sediments or residential wells outside the property boundaries. Prior to
the completion of the RI, contaminated soils were removed from the site and
transported to permitted hazardous waste disposal facilities; airborne
contaminants also are not a problem. Following the removal operations, the
pits were backfilled, and the entire affected area was graded, cultivated,
and sown with grass seed to control erosion. Surface storage and burial
areas have been confirmed as being contaminated. These areas were
considered to be the likely sources of potential future releases of
contamination. The primary contaminants of concern include: VOCs, PCE,
TCE, ketones, toluene, i.norganics, radioactive material, and metals.
The selected remedial action includes: excavation and removal of all
contaminated soils above background and offsite disposal in a hazardous
waste landfill; backfilling with ‘clean’ natural granular soils, extraction
of contaminated groundwater and temporary accumulation and onsite storage;
transportation of contaminated groundwater to offsite commercial facility
and treatment to background levels; reinjection of uncontaminated water into
the aquifer; and maintenance of vegetation, erosion repair, and ground water
monitoring for a one year period. The capital cost is $11,138,400 with O&M
in years 1—10 of $113,600 and $20,000 for years 11—30.
—51—
-------
DISTLER FARM, KY
First Remethal Action — Final
(Continued)
PERFOR1 NCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : During excavation, periodic sampling will
assume that when background levels are reached, excavation will cease.
KEYWORDS : Background Levels; Excavation; Flood Plain; Ground Water; Ground
Water Monitoring; Inorganics; Metals; Offsite Disposal; O&M; Orgarucs; PCE;
Soils; TCE; Toluene; VOCs.
—52—
-------
GALLA WAY PONDS, TN
First Remedial Action — Final
September 26, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Gallaway Ponds site is located 2.3 miles northeast of Gallaway,
Fayette County, TN. The site lies near the top of a low ridge composed
mainly of gravel, sand, and clay terrace deposits. The ridge has been
extensively mined for sand and gravel, producing a landscape dotted with
water—filled pits up to 50 feet deep. The site encompasses the land area
adjacent to and including nine ponds located within a currently inactive
(5—acre) portion of a larger (50—acre) active sand and gravel operation.
One pond, designated Pond 1, was used for the disposal of liquid and solid
waste, including pesticides, glass jars containing solid waste, and drums.
Some pits have been used for the disposal of residential trash, demolition
debris, and appliances. Disposal of hazardous materials at the site
occurred for an undetermined period of time, probably in the l970s or early
1980s. Drums containing liquid waste were disposed of by emptying the drums
into a small pond or by placing the entire drum into the pond. Small glass
bottles containing “quality control” samples from pesticide blending
operations were disposed of directly to the small pond. Mo disposal
activities at this site have ever been permitted by State or local
authorities. In October 1983, the EPA conducted an emergency cleanup of
Pond 1, consisting of the excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated
sludges and the onsite treatment of the water in the pond. The treated
water was subsequently discharged to Ponds 2 and 3, located east of Pond 1.
The primary contaminants of concern include: pesticides, inorganics,
chlordane, and toxaphene.
The selected remedial action includes: excavation of 1,600 cubic yards
of contaminated sediments from Ponds 2 and 5 with consolidation into Pond 1;
proper site closure under Subtitle C of RCRA; dilution of water from Ponds
1,2, and 5 with city water to meet Ambient Water Quality Criteria and
subsequent discharge to unnamed tributary; institutional controls which will
be fully identified during remedial design; ground water monitoring; and
inspection and maintenance of the cap. The estimated capital cost is
$344,735 with 30—year O&M present worth costs of $163,265.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Specific performance goals not outlined in
the ROD.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS : Those implemented will be fully identified during
remedial design. They may include, but will not be limited to: fencing the
remediated Pond 1 area; instituting a mining restriction on the remediated
Pond 1 area; ensuring future land uses compatible with the remedy.
I YWORDS : Excavation; Ground Water Monitoring; Inorganics; Institutional
Controls; O&M; Onsite Disposal; Organics; Pesticides; RCRA Closure
Requirements; Sediments; Soils; Surface Water.
— . —
-------
HIPPS ROAD LANDFILL, FL
First Remedial Action — Final
September 3, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
Hipps Road Landfill is located at the intersection of Hipps Road and
Exline Road in Jacksonville Heights, Duval County, Florida. The area is a
semi—rural residential neighborhood. Two homes are physically on the
landfill and three other residences are immediately adjacent to it. The
landfill is situated above the 500—year flood plain and there are no
ecologically sensitive areas nearby. Surface water is not used to supply
drinking water in the area, and recreational purposes consist of swimming,
boating, fishing, and similar activities. Present lateral distance of
ground water contamination extends approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the
site. In 1968, the property owner, Mr. G. 0. Williams (now deceased)
contracted with Waste Control of Florida, Inc., a local disposal company, to
fill in the site. No record of the fill material exists. Operations ceased
in 1970 when a permit request to extend the landfill eastward was denied.
Problems were first reported in the early 1970s when a pond adjacent to the
landfill developed a thick, smelly film, and fish and nearby vegetation
died. No record of action was noted. In February 1983 area residents began
to complain of a foul odor and taste in the drinking water. Well sampling
identified the presence of VOCs in the drinking water. During re-sampling
studies in March, April and August 1983, larger suites of VOCs and metals
were discovered. Between June and October 1983, the city installed
waterlines supplying the site residents with city water. By January 1985
ground water was rio longer a source for drinking water in the area. The
primary contaminants of concern include: VOCs, TCE, metals, xylene,
toluene, benzene.
The selected remedial action includes: ground water recovery and
treatment at the POTW; landfill closure complying with Florida closure
regulations; and institutional controls. The estimated cost for this remedy
is $3.9—4.4 million. Capital and O&M costs were not specified separately,
however, EPA will fund O&M activities for one year after completion of the
remedial action. O&M will continue for 20 years using funds provided 5 y the
State of Florida.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Contaminants will be recovered until the
ground water quality is in compliance with the standards set forth under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Contaminants not addressed under SDWA will
be removed until compliance with the 1980 Water Quality Criteria Human
Health Standards is reached. Where no standards exist, a cancer risk of
10 will be used as the clean—up target, however this will be redefined
in the design phase.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS : Controls will be fully identified during remedial
design and may include, but will not be limited to: fencing the site;
grouting existing private wells; instituting a well drilling ban which can
be lifted at the conclusion of the 20—year monitoring period; acquiring
affected properties under the policies and practices established by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
-------
HIPPS ROAD LANDFILL, FL
First Remedial Action — Final
(Continued)
KEYWORDS : Drinking Water Contaminants; Flood Plain; Ground Water; Ground
Water Monitoring; Iriorganics; Institutional Controls; Metals; O&M; Organics;
State Criteria; Surface Water; Toluene; VOCs.
—55—
-------
HOLLINGSWORTH, FL
First Remedial Action — Final
April 10, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Hollingsworth Solderiess Terminal Company (HSTC) site is located in
Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. The 3.5—acre site was in
operation from 1968 until the company closed the facility on October 1,
1982. HSTC manufactured solderless electrical terminals. The manufacturing
process included heat treatment in molten salt baths, degreasing, and
electroplating. For approximately eight years, HSTC disposed of wash water
and process wastewater contaminated with trichloroethyiene (TCE), and/or
heavy metals into drainfields adjacent to the manufacturing plant. Disposal
practices at the site have been clearly documented; however, the amounts of
TCE disposed of and the exact locations and duration of disposal remain
undocumented. The waste TCE was used both as a degreasing solvent and for
cleaning floors, equipment, etc. Primary contaminants at the site include
TCE, vinyl chloride, trans—1,2—dichloroethene, and to a lesser extent,
nickel, tin, and copper.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: excavation,
aeration and onsite replacement of volatile organic contaminated soils; and
recovery of contaminated ground water from the sand zones of the aquifer,
with treatment and reinjection into the aquifer. The capital cost for the
selected remedial action is estimated to be $653,730 with O&M costs
.approximately $364,215 per year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : The cleanup goals for ground water
remediation at the site were based on both the 10—6 cancer risk factor and
the State of Florida primary drinking water standards. Ground water cleanup
goals are: vinyl chloride 1.0 ugh; trichloroethylene 3.2 ugh; and
trans—1,2--djchloroethene 70.0 ug/1. Soils remediation is expected to
achieve: copper 10.0 mg/i; nickel 1.0 mg/i; lead 0.5 mg/i; and total VOCs
1.0 mg/kg.
KEYWORDS : Aeration; Air Stripping; Carcinogenic Compounds; Excavation;
Ground Water; Ground Water Treatment; Heavy Metals; Soil; TCE; VOCs.
—56—
-------
LEES LANE LANDFILL, KY (EDD)
Second Remedial Action — Final
September 25, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Lees Lane Landfill (LLL) site is located adjacent to the Ohio River
in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Land use at the site has included a sand and
gravel quarry, a junkyard, and a landfill. The landfilling operations were
reported to have begun in the late 1940s. The site received domestic,
commercial, solid municipal, and at least 212,400 tons of mixed industrial
waste (some drummed) prior to its closure in April 1975. In March 1975.
homeowners in an adjacent community, reported flash fires around their water
heaters. A subsequent investigation detected explosive levels of methane
gas and seven families were evacuated from homes near the site. A venting
system was installed in October 1980. In February 1980, the Kentucky
Department of Hazardous Materials and Waste Management (F WM) discovered
approximately 400 drums about one hundred feet from the Ohio River bank.
The drums were moved to an approved hazardous waste disposal facility by the
LLL owners under court order in September and October 1981. The remaining
nonhazardous drummed materials and empty drums were buried onsite. Surface
water, soil, and ground water are contaminated with benzene, heavy metals
including lead, arsenic, and chromium, and inorganics.
The selected remedy for this site includes: provision for a properly
operating gas collection system; consideration of a possible future
alternate water supply; cleanup of surface waste area which will involve
removal of exposed drums, capping of “hot spot” soils and an area containing
exposed trash, and disposal at an approved landfill; bank protection
controls which will include the installation of riprap to minimize erosion
potential and failure of the Ohio River emban)anent; establishment of an ACL
for the ground water at the site; institutional controls, which will be
fully identified during remedial design; and ground water, gas, and air
monitoring. The estimated capital cost for this remedy is $2,343,000 with
annual O&M costs of $127,440.
PERPORA CE STANDARDS OR GOALS : The proposed monitoring systems will enable
the establishment of an ACL for the site.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS : Controls to be fully identified during remedial
design may include, but will not be limited to, cautionary signs and the
installation of a gate at the Putnam Street access point.
KEYWORDS : Alternate Concentration Level; Arsenic; Air Monitoring; Capping;
Chromium; Excavation; Flood Plain; Ground Water Monitoring; Heavy Metals;
Inorganics; Institutional Controls; O&M; PRPs; RCRA Part 264; Soil; Surface
Water; VOCs.
—57—
-------
MOWBRAY JGINEERING, AL
First Remedial Action — Final
September 25, 1956
ROD ABSTRACT
The Mowbray Engineering Company ( C) site consists of a 3—acre swamp
located in Greenville, Butler County, Alabama. The study area evaluated in
the RI/FS also included the Z C plant property located across the Street
from the swamp. The MEC site lies in the 100—year flood plain of the
Tanyard Branch, and is saturated most of the year. An aquifer underlying
the site supplies 11,400 residents with potable water. Since the early
1940s, MEC has been in the business of repairing electrical transformers.
Waste oils generated from this process were dumped onto the ground behind
the plant. Oil was also allowed to flow into a city storm sewer drain and
ultimately into the swamp. Dumping and other discharges continued until the
mid 1970g. A fish kill occurred in 1975 in Tanyard Branch. As a result,
MEC installed two underground storage tanks to collect oil for resale and
prevent future spills. In 1980 another fish kill occurred, and the State
sampled soils to determine the exact source of contamination. PCBs were
detected in swamp soils at 500ppm, leading to EPA removing the top six
inches of swamp soil and disposing of the wastes in an approved offsite
hazardous waste facility. The MEC site was listed on the NPL in 1982, and
RI/FS activities were initiated in January. 1985, following discovery of
PCBs in concentrations of l,737ppm in 4,800 cubic yards of soils contained
in the storm water drainage pathway. The primary contaminants of concern
are PCBs.
The selected remedial action includes: excavation, removal and disposal
of the underground storage tanks located on the MEC property; treatment or
disposal of waste oils encountered in the swamp area and in the underground
storage tanks by a TSCA-approved method; drainage diversion of surface runon
around the swamp area; excavation of soils contaminated above 25ppm PCBs and
either offsite or onsite incineration, or onsite stabilization/solidifi-
cation of these soils. Infrared incineration is preferred, but if operating
parameters deem this technology impractical, solidification/stabilization
will be performed. The remedy also includes grading and revegetating the
swamp; proper closure of the abandoned onsite city supply well in accordance
with Alabama Department of Environmental Management well closure
regulations; and O&M involving maintenance of the drainage diversion ditch,
the revegetated area and possibly the solidified matrix. Estimated capital
cost of the remedy is $l.2—2.0 million for offsite incineration, $1.1—l.8
million for onsite incineration, and $750,000 for
solidification/stabilization. O&M costs are included in the capital cost
estimates.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : All soils contaminated with PCBs above
25ppm will be excavated and treated.
KEYWORDS : Alternative Technology; Excavation; O&M; Oils; PCBs; Soil; TSCA
Requirements.
_c c —
-------
PEPPERS STEEL, FL (EDD)
First Remedial Action — Final
March 12, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Pepper’s Steel and Alloys site occupies 30 acres known as Tracts 44,
45, and 46 in the Town of Medley, Florida. Medley is located in northern
Dade County, approximately 10 miles northwest of Miami and 13 miles inland
from the Atlantic Ocean. Additionally, the Pepper’s Steel site is located
in the “unsewered industrial area” and near three other Superfund sites
referenced in the Biscayne Aquifer ROD. Since the mid—1960s the Pepper’s
Steel site has been the location of several businesses, many of which are
still operating onsite. Operations have included the manufacture of
batteries, pre—cast concrete products and fiberglass boats, as well as the
repair and service of trucks and heavy equipment. Also, sandblasting and
painting services, a concrete batching plant and an automobile scrap
operation have been or are located on the site. Various trash and waste
products from these activities, including parts of rusted machinery,
vehicles, aircraft, oil tanks, transformers, underground storage tanks and
batteries have been deposited at the site. The contaminants that have been
identified within the soil, sediments, and ground water in and around the
site include PCBs, organic compounds and heavy metals such as: lead,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, manganese, mercury, zinc, and antimony.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: collection and
offsite disposal of all free oil according to TSCA regulations; excavation
of approximately 48,000 cubic yards of soils exceeding 1 ppm PCB, 21,500
cubic yards exceeding 1,000 ppm lead, and 9,000 cubic yards exceeding 5 ppm
arsenic; solidification/stabilization of these soils with a cement—type
mixture and placement onsite; institutional controls to ensure future land
uses compatible with the remedy; and ground water monitoring to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy. Total capital cost for the selected remedial
alternative is estimated to be $5,212,000 with O&M costs approximately
$42,500 per year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Excavation of soils exceeding 1 ppm PCB,
1,000 ppm lead and 5 ppm arsenic.
INSTITUTIONAL. CONTROLS : Institutional controls will be implemented to
ensure future land uses compatible with the remedy.
KEYWORDS : Alternative Technology; Arsenic; Chromium; Ground Water; Ground
Water Monitoring; Heavy Metals; Institutional Controls; Offsite Disposal;
Organics; PCBs; Sediments; Soil; Solidification; Stabilization.
—59—
-------
PIONEER SAND, FL
First Remedial Action — Final
September 26, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Pioneer Sand site, owned by the Pioneer Sand Company (PSC), is an
inactive 11—acre quarry located near Belleview, FL. A disposal permit was
granted to PSC in 1974 which allowed the disp®sal of inert materials
including construction debris and shredded automobile strippings. Between
1974 and 1978, phenols and resin compounds were deposited from Newport
Industries (currently Reichhold Chemical Company). Domestic and industrial
wastes including metal plating sludges were also received from the
Pensacola Naval Air Station. Approximately 75 percent of the site is an
excavation pit, while the remaining 25 percent is a fill area consisting of
the above—mentioned materials. In 1981 the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation did not renew the disposal permit and ordered the
waste dumping practices to cease. Based on the RI results for PCB analysis
of soils at the site, the EPA conducted an Immediate Removal Action in
August 1986. All known areas of PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm
were removed. The primary contaminants of concern include: VOCs,
organics, heavy metals, phenols, phthalates, and toluene.
The selected remedial action for the site includes: RCRA Subtitle D
landfill closure; leachate collection, treatment, and onsite disposal;
surface water treatment and onsite discharge; and cover system for sludge
pond waste. The estimated capital cost is $462,025 with O&M costs of
$45,000 for the first year, and $34,900 for years 2—30.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Not Applicable.
KEY WORDS : Ground Water Monitoring; Heavy Metals; Inorganics; Leachate
Collection/Treatment; O&M; RCRA Landfill Specifications; RCRA Part 264;
Sludge; Soil; Sole—Source Aquifer; Surface Water; VOCS.
—60—
-------
SCRDI DIXIANA, Sc
First Remedial Action — Final
September 26, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The SCRDI Dixiana site consists of a 2—acre lot and a warehouse in
southeastern Lexington County, South Carolina. The warehouse, located near
the center of the property is an abandoned one—story, metal structure. The
predominant land use in the areas adjacent to the site are woodlands and
light residential development. Approximately 1,193 people use water supply
wells within three miles of the site. South Carolina Recycling and
Disposal, Inc. (SCRDI) leased the site from G.M.T. in 1978 for drum storage
of industrial wastes. Instances of poor handling practices, leaky drums,
and exposure to the weather allowed numerous discharges to the environment
prior to drum removal. In August 1978 a waste management permit was denied
to SCRDI by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SCDE C) because of poor waste management practices. A suit was
filed by SCDHEC against SCRDI during the same month. Removal of all
surficial drui ned waste and visibly contaminated soils was performed by
SCRDI. The Ground Water Protection Division of SCDHEC completed a detailed
ground water monitoring program in Autumn 1982 and confirmed ground water
contamination underlying the site. No significant site—related surface
water, sediment, air, or surface and subsurface soil contamination have
appeared. Potential sources of future contamination at the site are former
drum storage areas and suspected spill areas. Contamination is presently
moving offsite primarily via shallow ground water in response to the
hydraulic gradients in various interconnected aquifers. The primary
contaminants of concern include: VOCs, PAl-Is, PCBs, PCE, organics,
pesticides, inorganics.
The selected remedial action includes: extraction of contaminated
ground water; treatment of contaminated ground water to alternate
concentration levels (targeted at a 10—6 clean—up level); discharge of
treated ground water to surface water (regulated by South Carolina’s NPDES
Discharge Permit); and no action on soils. The estimated capital cost for
this remedial action is $751,250 with O&M estimated at $2,128,100 for a
30—year period. O&M may require anywhere from 3 years to 30 years to
accomplish.
PERFOR NCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Will conduct extraction and treatment of
ground water contamination to attain a health—based alternate concentration
level (ACL) for the combination of all effluent compounds from the treatment
system for a cumulative cancer risk of 1.0 x 10—6.
KEYWORDS : Alternate Concentration Level; Ground Water; Ground Water
Treatment; Inorganics; Onsite Disposal; O&1 ; Organics; PAl-Is; PCBs; PCE;
Pesticides; State Regulations; VOCs.
-------
SAP? BATTERY, FL
First Remedial Action — Final
September 26, 1986
The Sapp Battery site occupies an area of approximately 45 acres in a
rural part of Jackson County, Florida. Located on the site are two ponds,
connected by a small channel. In 1970, Sapp Battery Service, Inc. began an
operation to recover lead from used batteries. The process consisted of
breaking open used batteries, dumping the acid outside the plant, recovering
the lead, and disposing of the broken battery casings in an onsite man—made
fishing pond. In 1977 the acid discharge began killing nearby cypress
trees. Sapp Battery subsequently undertook several steps to alleviate the
problem, all of which failed. In 1980, Mr. Jerry Sapp, owner of Sapp
Battery, closed operations and, in effect, walked away from the site. The
RI/FS conducted at the site revealed surface water, ground water, 94,000
cubic yards of soil, and 20,000 cubic yards of sediments contaminated with
lead, cadmium, arsenic, antimony and other heavy metals.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: excavation of
soils and sediments containing contaminant levels above those set in the
Risk Assessment; fixation of the excavated soils/sediments and onsite
disposal of the solidified matrix into a cell built to Florida Class I
Sanitary Landfill Standards; groundwater removal and treatment of the
underlying aquifers; treatment and discharge of contaminated surface water
from the onsite swamp and the offsite Steele City Bay area; and monitoring
program for potab’e water wells located within a one—mile radius of the
site. Needed institutional controls will be assessed and implemented during
the Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) phase of the project. Estimated
capital cost of the selected remedy is $14,318,544 with annual O&M costs of
$25,631.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Cleanup criteria for indicator chemicals
were set based on Federal and State Standards and risk—based levels.
INSTITUTIONAL COST : Needed institutional controls will be assessed and
implemented during the RDfRA phase of the project.
KEY WORDS : Alternative Technology; Arsenic; Excavation; Ground Water;
Ground Water Monitoring; Ground Water Treatment; Heavy Metals; Institutional
Controls; O&M; Onsite Disposal; Sediments; Soil; Solidification; Surface
Water.
-------
A&F MATERIALS, IL
Second Remedial Action — Final
August 14. 1986
ROD A3STRACT :
The A&F Materials s te is located on three and three—quarter acres n
Greenu , IL. The site, orzg:naliy an undeveloped backwater flood zone for
the arras River, was first develoQed for a sa ill o eration. Mr. :<
Ault urchased the size for the &F Mater:als recycling ?lanz, which began
o era: ons n March 1977 and continued until it snut down in 1980. The
plant processed waste materials (including, ut not limited to, cii, sludge,
caustic and sulfuric acid) into fuel oil and fire retardant cnemicals.
Dur ng the course of ooerations, there were nwnerous violations of the
operating pe nit issued to the plant by the ZEPA. 3y March 1978, four
storage lagoons became filled and began to overflow, contaminating the SOL
and drainage pathway. In addic on, thirteen steel storage tanks containing
a mixture of waste oils (contaminated with CBs and organics), sl. dges,
spent caustics and acids, contaminated water and other waste products, were
located onsita. The tanks had failed on several occasions, releasing their
contents. In March 1980, May 1982, and December 1982. actions were taken at
the s :e to lower the i ediate otential of releases. These acz ons
included lowering the level of wastes in the lagoons. dixing. trenching,
cleanup and removal of on— and offsite wastes, In addic on, a temporary cap
was placed on the consolidated sludge in March 1983. In September 1984, the
luminum Company of America, northern Petrochemical, C?24-CR Inc. and
?et:olite Corporat on entered into a Partial Consent Decree (PC ) whereby
tne Companies agreed to undertake surface cleanun at the site as an
addi:icn l removal and remedial action. Pursuant to this PCD, an RI/FS was
preQared by the Consenting Defendants which dete ined the amount of
so l/s1udge to be removed and the extent and flow direction of ground water
contamination. Follow ng the soil removal Lfl 1985, only chenols and benzoi;
acid were detected acove the non—detectable l .m zs. The cost s gn f cant
contaminants of concern found dur:ng the RI/FS include: sulfates,
norgan cs. PC s, TCE, and metals.
The selected remedial action for the site includes: ground water
monicor ng of the natural purging and dilution of contaminants;
inst tut onal controls; and establishment of procedures for regular review
of monitoring data. There is rio estimated capital cost associated • th this
remedy, however, the ?RPs have agreed to pay the estimated annual O&M costs
of 324,000.
? ERFCR ANCE STANDARDS OR OGALS : Mori Appi canle.
INSTIr . IONAL CC ROL3 : nst tutional restrictions on the installation of
wells n the contaminated ground water region will be required until ground
water qual :y returns to background levels or below State and Federal
cr:teria.
Z ORDS : Flood Plain; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; inorgar.ics;
Inst :ut orial Controls; Metals; C&M; Organ cs; PCBs, PRP; State Standards;
TCE; VOCs.
—63—
-------
ARC? NU IRO ’I ND .‘ TAL OH
First Remedial Action - Final
September 26, 1986
SOD ABSTSACT
The Arcanum Iron and > etal (Afll) site s a .5 acre site located in Twin
Tc shio, Darke County, OH just southeast of the city of Arcanun and 25
miles northwest of Dayton. The AIM s :e operated as a lead battery
reprocessing facility from the early 1960s until 1982. During this
oDeration, battery casings were split to extract lead cores for smelting.
3atzery acids generated from :nis operatior. were dum ed n a Large steel
trougn and allowed to drain to a low area. Reprocessing of the plastic and
black r’ ber battery casings generated lead oxide sludge and lead
particulaces which collected on the ground surface and surface ponds
onsite. Past ractices at the facility included bur al cf some nater als in
onsite pits. Results of the surface soil and soil boring samples taken
during the RI indicate that lead is the r mary cor.tam r.ant of concern with
antimony and arsenic leading the contaminants of secondary concern. Lead
was detected in on— and offsite monitoring wells but not n the s:x offsite
residential wells sampled. Lead contaminataon was also found n c ii— and
offsite surface water and sediments and three onsi:e buildings. In
add t on, an estimated 3,800 c ic yards of shredded battery cas:ngs exist
onsite.
The cost effective remedy selected includes: removal of 20,000 c ic
yards of onsite contaminated soils to 00ppm lead and disposal in offsite
SCRA S tit1e C landfill; removal of offsite soils to background lead
concentrations and disposal of soils above 500 pm in offsite SCRA Subtitle C
landf li arid soils between background and SOOppm onsite; cont r.ued ground
water monitoring semiannually; :mprovement of site drainage; removal of
3,300 cubic yards of battery casings, conduction cf treazab li:y studies,
and iacement :n RCRA Sunt tle C Landfill; :lean ng or demol sh ng
contaminated ons t Eacil c es; and deed reszr ct or.s on site land use and
aquifer use n the affected areas. Total capital cost of the selected
alternative is estimated to be 89,929,000 with annual O&M costs
approximately 837,000.
? ESF0RMA ICE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Excavate and daspose n offsite SCRA
landfill all on— and offsice soils with lead concentrations above SQOopm.
Offsite soils with lead concentrations between background and SOOppm
disposed ons te. These levels were cased on CDC Acceptable Daily :ntake
Levels ( iS).
: NSTITjrIQ IAL CONTROLS : Deed rest: ct ons on site land use and acuifer use
in the affected areas.
ZWORDs : Ant monv; Aquifer Use Restr c:ions; Arsenic; Deed Sestr ctions;
Excavation; Ground Water; Ground Water ‘!ona:oring; ea’r; ecals;
Enstitut onal Controls; O&M; Offs te Disposal; Ons :e Dis osal; Sediments;
Soil; Surface Water; T:eataoility Studies.
—64—
-------
ARRO AD REFINERY, ‘2I
First Remedial Action — Final
September 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Arrowhead efinerj site is located in Hernantown, St. Louis County,
innesota. The site consists of 10 acres of relat ’;ely flat land with peaty
wetlands scattered across the area, and it is zoned for cort ercia1 use.
Land use in the vic .n. .ty is a comoination of residential., commercial and
pu.blic. Between 1945 and 1977, the site was used as a waste oil reclaiming
facility. The operation generated waste by—products which were disc rged
into an uncontained 2—acre lagoon and a waste water ditch in a wetland
area. Arrcwriead Refiner! Company, incorporated in 1961, continued ref ning
and recycling operations until 1977, when the 1innesota Pollution Control
Agency ordered work to be stopped. Investigat or.s cor.ducted by EPA n 1979
revealed that onsite surface water was transporting contaminants to nearby
wetlands areas and navigable waters. In response, a surface water diversion
ditch was constructed to prevent further contaminant migration. The primary
contaminants of concern are VCCs. PAHs and lead, and they are found in
oris te soils, sediments, surface waters and ground water.
The selected remedial action for the Arrowhead Refiner-j site includes:
excavation and onsi.te incineration of 4,600 cy of sludge and 20,500 cy of
contaminated soils and sedi.ments; ground water pumping and treating designed
to restore the aquifer and control contaminant migration over a 25—50 year
period; ex:ens on of a nearby municipal water supply system to replace t. ose
or vate water suptl es most likely to be affected by ground water
contamination; and proper abandonment of indiv:dual wells formerly used as
drinking water su p1 es n accordance with State well codes. Estimated
capital cost of the remedy is $22,000,000 with annual O& costs ranging
between $130,000 and $180,000.
PERFORMANCE ST DAR S ORCCALS : Soils and sethments will be excavated and
created to achieve a l0 excess cancer risk level; GWwill be treated cc
remove ‘JOCs, ?AHs and lead until aquifer attains a 10 excess cancer risk
level.
INSTITUTICNAL CONTROLS : Potant ally affected wells will be abandoned i.-i
accordance with State well codes.
! 4ORDS : Alternate Water Supoly; Alternative Technology; Dr nking Water
Contaminants; Excavation; Ground Water; Ground Water Treatment:
Incineration; Inst cut crial Controls; O&&M; Organics; PAHs; Sediments;
Sludge; Soil; Surface Water; Wetlands; VCCs.
—65—
-------
BURLINGTON NORT RN, (EDD)
First Remedial Action — Final
June , 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Burlington Northern (EN) site is located in both the City of Baxter
and the City of 3rainerd, I. The iSSiSS1?Pi River flows about 3,000 feet
east of the Dlanz and res dentiaI areas are located to the northeast and
southeast, less than 1,000 feet from the site. Since 1907, EN has owned and
operated the railroad tie ::eaz:nent plant on this site. During the 1950s EN
began mixing creosote, a preser;er. witn Nuincer B fuel oU in a 1:1 rac o. At
some undeternined time, the rn xture was changed to creosote and coal tar.
This mixture is presently being used in a 70:30 ratio. 4astewater generated
from the wood treating process was sent to two shallow, unlined surface
n ooundments for d s osal. The discharge of wastewater to the disDosal onds
generated a sludge that contaminated 9 500 cubic yards of both the underlying
soils and ground water. Ground water contam nation is restricted to a
relatively small area downgrathant from the site. The primary contaminants of
concern include: PAHs, heterocycles, and phenols.
The selected alternative for this site cons sts of onsita treatment ar.d
capping. The major components of the alternat ve include: preparation of a
lined staging area for temporary storage of the sludge and contaminated soil;
removal of all standing water in the impoundment; excavation and segregation
of the sludges for subsequent free o l recovery; excavation of visibly
contaminated soil from both impoundments and subsequent storage n the staging
area; backfilling of the excavated areas; preparation of a base for the
treatment area; installac on of a sumu for collection of the sto n water and
leachate; installation of an ir: gacion system; land treatment of creosote
focusing on the breakdown and transfornation of organic constituents by
aerobic microorganisms in the top layer of soil, and the mmobil zat on of
organic and norgan c conszi uenzs or. the soil. The final goal of this
treatment s not the com lece degrada: on of all waste const tuen:s, but s
rather the transfcrmat on and mmob lizat on of tnese const tuten:s to render
soil that is no longer toxic and does not leach harmful constituents. A final
R PA approved cover will be installed following the treatment process. The
estimated capital cost for this remedy is S532,000 with annual C&14 costs of
$36,000.
P FOPMANC! STA ARDS OR COALS : ct.on levels for ground water are consistent
with monitoring limits: 2Sng/l for the sum oi carc nogen c PAHs and
heterocycles; and 300r.g/l for tne sum of non-carcinogenic ?A s and
heterocvcles. Action levels for :iodecrat on were not discussed n the RCD.
orever, tne goal of treatment :s to transform and immob l ze conzam nants to
render soil that is no longer toxic and does not leach r.azardous
constituents. This involves achieving detox f cation of soils as defined by
the microtox test; and achieve total P and benzene extractable
concentrations n tne treatment zone equal to or less than concentrations
present n soils left n place.
—66—
-------
BURLINGTON ORT -iRN, J (EDD)
FLrst Rernethal Action — Final
(continued)
: ywoRDs : Alternati’ie Technology; Capping; Creosote; Excavation; Ground
Water; Ground Water Treatment; Leachate Collection System; C& ; Ons te
Treatment; Or;anics; ? s; RCR.A Part 264; RCRA Closure Reqi.uremenzs; Sludge;
So i 1.
—67—
-------
BURROWS SAMITATION SITE. I
First Remedial Action — Final
September 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The 3urrows Sanitation site is a ten—acre site located on 54th Avenue n
Hartford Townsh , Van Buren County, Michigan. This site was used for
dewatering arid dispos ng of metal hydroxide sludges, waste coolants, and
soluble oils. Located within a three—quarter mile radius of the site are
approximately L50 people liv ng in thirteen pe anent residences and a
trailer park. These homes obtain water from private wells. Access to the
site is restricted by a snow fence, but some sections of the fence are in
poor condition. allowing sportsmen and skiers easy access. Two weti nd
areas. the East Wetland and the Iorthwesz Wetland, are located on the
eastern and northwestern edges of the site. The Northwestern Wetland was
created artific aily by the construction of an earthen darn. In July 1984,
under a C CZ. \ Administrative Order by Consent, responsible parties
excavated and removed sludges and contaminated soils from four orisite waste
dis osal areas. Sampling of these areas indicates that the fo er source
materials were removed so they no longer present a potential health threat
via direct contact or ngest on. Wastes similar to the excavated wastes
remain in the newly identified Spill Area No. 2. Principal contaminants
include chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and cyanide. Test results
also indicate that the surface water and sediments in the Northwest Wetland
and drainage canal have been impacted by the site. In addition, onsita
monitoring wells ndicace a limited chemical plume or plumes related to site
activities. Residential wells in the site vicinity have not been irntactad
by site contaminants.
The cost—effective remedial action selected for this site includes:
purge and zraac the contaminated ground water for approximately yea:s,
drain the ar:ific ai Norcnwesz Wetland; remove and treat apprcx rnacelv 250
cubic yards of metal hydroxide sludge from Spill Area No. 2 and the
Northwest Wetland; and dispose the treated waste at an offsite RCRA
facility. Total est maced capital cost for the selected remedial action
ranges from 51,256,700 to 31,335,400 depending on the distance to the
offsite CRA facility with O& costs of 3115.000.
P FORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS ; Ground water cleanup will be based on the
current lowest regulated concentration for each indicator chemical.
Criteria will be taken from the Safe Drink ng Water ct Standards or
Cr teria, Acceptable Chronic nzake Levels, and ealth Advisor:es. The
cleanup cricer a for residual soil contamination are based on the
s te—specific Tridangerment Assessment.
. ORDS : Alternative Technology; Chromium; Drinking Water Standards;
Excavation; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; Hea r! Metals; Ir.or;anics;
Offsite Disposal; O& 1 M; Plume Management; RCRA; Sediment; Sludge; Soil;
Solidification; Surface F.4ater. Wetlands.
—68—
-------
BYRON JO} ISCN SAL..VAGE YARD, I L 4
Second Remedial Action
September 23, 1986
SOD ABSTRACT :
The Byron Johnson Salvage Yard is an approximately 20—acre wooded parcel
located in Ogle County, Illinois. General rubble and domestic refuse, along
with industrial wastes including drums and plating materials, are scattered
about this presently inactive site. During the 1960s and early 1970s, the
yard operated as a salvage yard and unpe it:ed landfill. A .‘ arch 1985
Record of Decision (ROD) implemented a remedial action consisting of
excavation and removal of container zed waste and contaminated soil, and
onsite treatment of soil conta n.ing excessive levels of cyanide. Ground
water under and downgrad ent from the site is contaminated with heavy
metals, cyanide and V Cs, including TCE and PCE. Because the material
within the Salvage Yard has not yet been removed, wastes still present both
on the surface and buried, act as an ongoing source for ground water
contamination.
The selected remedy for this second operable unit includes:
installation of whole house carbon filtration systems in affected year—round
residences to provide an interim alternate water supply; provision of an
interim alternate water supply to residents Qccupyirlg seasonal (suit ner—use)
homes through distribution of bottled water; ongoing sampling and monitor ng
program to evaluate the effectiveness and lifetime of the carbon filters;
installation of replacement filters after breakthrough occurrence; and
disposal of spent filters in accordance with provisions of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. The IEPA has advocated
the selection of the water line alternative and not the selected remedy even
though the U.S. EPA considered the water line remedy to be potant ally
ncons stent with the final ground water remediation program. Because of
the States cormnitrnenz to prov de a pe nent water supply, implemencat on
of the SOD recorm ended alte t ve is not required to alleviate the current
health threat and will not be funded unless the State of Illinois agrees to
assume O& costs and the 10 percent funds match. The estimated capital cost
for this remedy is $115,500 with annual O&M estimated to be $163,350.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Quantitat ve performance standards were not
outlined in the SOD. However, remedy will comply with the 100 cancer
risk levels for the suspected carcinogens.
i YWORDS : Alternate Water Sunpiy; Drinking Water Contaminants; Ground
Water; Ground Water Monitor:ng; :- eavy Metals; C&M; PCE; ICE; Temporary
Semed al Measure; V Cs.
—69—
-------
FIELDS BRCCK, OH
First Remedial Action
September 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
Fields Brook is located in the City of Ashtabula, Ohio and drains a
5.6—square mile watershed (defined as the “site”). The 3.5 mile main
channel of Fields Brook flows through an industrial area that is one of the
largest arid most diversified concentrations of chemical plants n Ohio. The
brook empties into the Ashtabula River wruch subsequently flows into Lake
Erie 8,000 feet downstream of its confluence with Fields Brook. Industrial
sources have contaminated the sediment in Fields Brook with a variety of
organic and heavy metal pollutants, including ‘CE, PcE, chioroberizene, vinyl
chloride, arsenic, zinc, mercury and chromium. Base—neutral compounds
including hexachJ.oroethane, toluecediaxtiine and toluene diisocyariate also
have been detected in Fields Brook sediments. Sediments taken from the
Ashtabula River in the vicinity of Fields Brook are contaminated with PCBs.
The U.S. EPA believes that the amount of contamination entering the brook at
this time has been substantially reduced due to the recent development of
pollution control laws and discharge permitting requirements.
The selected remedial action for the Fields Brook site includes;
excavat ori of contaminated sediment from Fields Brook, temporary storage and
dewatering, thermal treatment of a portion of the wastes, and solidification
and-orisite landfilling of the remainder. Based on criteria presented n the
ROD, amproximately 35,000 cy of contaminated sediments will be sol dif ed,
and 16,000 cy will be thermally treated. The remedy also includes treatment
of waste water from the dewater ng process. and provision of O&M costs for
one year. The estimated capital cost of the remedy i.s 535,100,000 with
annual O&Z costs of 572,000.
? !RFCR .ANCE STANDARDS CR COALS : Sediments will be excavated to a 100
excess lifetime cancer rate or background. whichever is greater.
Y ORDS : Alterriat ve Technology; Arsenic; Excavation; Heavy fetals;
Incineration; O&’f; Onsite Disposal; Organics; PCBs; PCE; RC A Landfill
Specifications; Sediments; Solidification; TCE; TSCA Onsite Disposal
Requirements; ‘ICCs.
—70—
-------
FOREST WASTE, I
Second Remedial Action
June 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Forest Waste Di.s osa1 Site is located at 3359 East Farrar.d Road,
Otisville, Siichigan, approxi.mately 12 miles northeast of F1 nt, and
approximately 2 miles northwest of the City of Otisville. The total site
area is approximately 112 acres. The site has a landfill with a surface
area of approximately 13 acres, and rwie surface mpoundrnents with a
collective surface area of ap rcximately one acre. From 1973 to 1973, the
site received general refuse, industrial and liquid waste, PBBs, and PCBs.
Drunmied wastes from various sources were disposed of in the landfill area,
and waste oils, metallic sludges, paint and resin wastes, and spent sulfuric
acid were disposed in the onsite lagoons. Currently, onsite soils and
sediments are contaminated with priority pollutant compou.nds and various
organic and hea metal compounds.
The selected source control remedial alternative includes excavation.
t:eat.ment and disposal of 000 yd 3 of coritam nated sludges, sediments and
soils in an offsite RCRA— errtuc:ed landfill; arid removal, treatment and
dis osal of 110,000 gallons of aqueous lagoon wastes at a RCRA treatment
fac l ty. The estimated cap:ta! cost for this remedy is $1,295,000 with no
ar ual O costs.
RFORM ICE ST.kMDA RDS OR GOALS : Cleanup w 1l be conducted to levels which
will obtain an appropriate ingestion rate of 0.1 gram/day of soil for a 70
kg adult.
: ywcRDs : Acids: Alternative Technology; Excavation: Ground Water: eavy
!etals; tnorgari cs; Offs te Dis osa1; Oils; PC s; Sediments; Sludge; So 1;
Solidification.
—71—
-------
LAKE SANDY JO, IN
First Remedial Action — Final
September 26, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The t. ake Sandy Jo site is located on the southeast side of the City of
Gary in Lake County, Indiana. The site was a fon er 40—acre water—filled
borrow pit that was used as a landfill between 1971 and 1980. Various
wastes including coristruct on and demolition debris, garage and ndusrria1
wastes, and drums are believed to be m the site. The area surround.rig the
site is primarily low density residential property. The borrow pit on the
site was originally dug to support construction of 1—90/84, which is
adjacent to the site. In L971 the pit was filled with ground water and was
used for a short time as a recreational lake. Between 1971 and 1975 the
pit was filled with various debris. Complaints were filed by local
residents about odors emanating from the site, and in 1976 the owners were
ordered to drain the lake and restrict fill to demolition debris only.
Later in 1976 the site was sold to Glen and Gordon Martin, who continued
filling operations without a permit until the site was closed in 1980.
A proximately 2,500 cubic yards of surface soils, surface water and offsite
sediments are contaminated by surface water runoff with RAMs, ththalaces
and heavy metals.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: installation of a
soil cover over the landfill with a drainage blanket to control surface
seeps; extension of water mains to affected residents in Gary: onsite
consolidation of contaminated sediments; ground water and surface
water/sediment monitoring; deed restrictions on landfill property; and
institutional controls on aquifer use. The estimated capital cost of the
remedy is 54,747,000 with annual O&M costs of 563,000.
P!R!’ORMANCE STA DAR S OR GOALS : Sediments with contaminants acove a 10°
excess cancer risk level will be excavated.
INSTIT ICNAL CONTROLS : Institutional controls will pr h bit use of ground
water and installation of wells in the affected area , and deed restrictions
will attempt to prevent future development of the site and prevent direct
contact.
KEYWORDS : Alternate Water Supply; Deed Restrictions; Drinking Water
Contaminants; !xcavation; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; Heavy
Metals; inorganics; tnstitut onal Controls; O& ; Oris te Containment; ?AMs;
RC2A Closure Requirements; Sediments; Soil.
—72—
-------
[ ..ASALLE ELECTRICAL, LL
First Remedial Action
September 29. 1986
ROD kBSTRACT :
The ..aSa1le Electrical Utilities (LEU) site is located n west—central
LaSalle County in the city of aSal1e n north—central Illinois. There are
a orox mate1y 190 people and 70 residences located within 1/8 mile of the
LEU property. LEU, a fo ner manufacturer of electrical ecu cmer.t, began
operating prior to Jorld Jar II. 3ecweeri the late l94Os and 1978, ?C3s were
utilized n the production of capacitors. tJndoci.m ented reports allege the
application of ?CB—contarninated waste oils as a dust suppressant both on and
off the property until as late as 1969. Following the regulation of PC s.
manifests document the disposal of ?CBs at all regulated fac lit es.
Seginning in September 1975, numerous government agencies conducted various
inspections arid issued numerous complaints and orders to the £ EU company as
a result of its manufacturing and handling practices. Soil sampling
conducted by the Illinois Environrnental Protection Agency (IEPA) n December
1980 documented onsite PCB contamination. Ccnt nued so J. sampling revealed
offsite contami tion in arch and ay 1981 and the IEP ordered the com anv
to cease operations n ay 1981. The U.S. EPA conducted Immediate Removal
Actions that involved fencing the LEU property and capping a portion of the
heav:ly contami ted onsite prooert-,; caP ing contaminated offsite property
to the south of the site; and staging, sampling and packaging PCB waste
ma:er al for future disposal. Of the total 28,590 cubic yards of soil
contaminated above 5ppm. approximately 22,240 cubic yards are offsi:e on the
commercial property immediately to the south and residential property to the
east of the site with approz rnately 27 affected property owners. The
r marv contaminant of concern is P03.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: excavat ori of
a roximacely 25,530 cubic yards of contaminated residential offs te soil
arid reolacement with clean fill; incineration of contaminated soils with a
:rans ortable, onsite, the al destruction unit; and conventional ndustria1
cleaning, which would include vacuuming, hand washing, steam jet cleaning,
and adsor tion of all structures where soil removal activities have taken
place. The estimated present worth cost s $26,400,000 with no annual C&M
costs.
P FORMANCE STAZ’ ARDS OR GCALS Excavation and incineration of soils with
greater than 5 ppm PC3s n the f rsz 12 inches of soil, and greater than 10
porn n soils at depths below 12 ncnes.
KEYWORDS : Alternative Tec ology; xcavation; Incirierat on; Ons te
Dis osal; P0Bs; Soil.
—73—
-------
T ORA LANDFILL, MI
First Remedial Action
September 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Metarnora Landfill site is located in Metamora TownshiD, Laceer
County, MI. The 80—acre landfill was previously used for gravel mining and
in 1966 as a privately owned, unregulated dump. In 1969 t was upgraded to
meet existing standards, and licensed to rece ve general refuse. The site
accepted both mun cioal and industrial waste until its closure in 1980.
c hile undocumented, it is likely that the previous owner disposed of waste
and drums in unlined excavations (former mining pits or borrow areas). In
1981 approximately eight drums were discovered during borrow excavations for
a nearby solid waste transfer station. The Michigan Department of Natural
Resources ( NR) sampled seven of these drums and identified the presence of
VcCs, and other orgariics. A 1982 MC ’IR study concluded that as many as
35,000 drums, some containing 1 cuid waste, might be present in five
disposal areas around the site. The survey concluded that area one (16,000
drums) and area four (10,000 drums) contained about 74% of the total
estimated number of burial drums. hi1e each of the five disposal areas was
initially considered. areas two. three, and five were eliminated due to the
inability to confirm drum presence at inaccessible deDths. Remedial actions
for ground water, which poses a pu.blic health threat, and soil have riot been
addressed due to insufficient data detailing, the extent of contamination.
Based on an estimated 26,000 drums and associated waste material between
drums in areas one and four, the total estimated waste volume r ’aqu.ir t’ g
disposal is 18.150 cubic yards. The primary contaminants of concern
include: VOCs, PCE, TCE, and hea i metals.
The recommended alternative for this operable unit s the excavation of
areas one and four, and thermal destruction of all waste at a comtliant RCR?
offsice incinerator. The estimated 30—year present wort . cost s
341.500,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR COALS : The RI/FS to be completed in FY’88 will
establish cleanup targets for the soil and ground water. The recommended
alternative fully complies with ‘all applicable State and Federal statutes.
YWORDS : Excavation; Ground t’ ater; Heavy Metals; Incineration; Cffsite
Disposal; RCRA; PCZ; Soil; TOE; VOCs.
—74—
-------
NEW B IGH’tON/ RD I HILLS/ST. AN’rP.CNY, J
Fourth Remedial Action
June 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The New Brighton/Arden Hills/St. Anthony site is located approx:mately
two miles north of the Twin Cit es of Miuieapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, and
s one of several co im ties in the area wh ch obtains its munic ?al water
supplies entirely from ground water resources. In June 1981, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MP ) and the Minnesota Department of Health ( H)
detected organic solvent contamination in the ground water used for
munici al drinking water in New Br ghtcn. Prior to these findings, the City
of New Brighton had constructed arid operated a total of nine municipal
wells. From 1982 to 1984 the City shut down six wells (1 to 6). dee ened
two municipal wells (8 and 9) to the Mt. Simon—H nck1ey aquifer and
constructed three new wells (10, 11 and 12). These new wells were also
finished in the Mt. Sirnon—Hinckley acuifer. Of the original municipal wells
completed in the Prairie du Chien— Jordan acuifer, only well 7 presently
shows minimal contamination. During this same period, several In t al
Remedial Measures (I?Ms) were m 1emented at the site. In 1983, granular
activated carbon filters were installed on two of New 3r ghton’s wells (5
and 6) to meet peak sui nertime demands. In addition, pipe! ne connections
to New Brighton’s and Arden Hills’ water mains were made for several pr:vate
well users whose wells had excessive levels of contamination. Finally n
1984, the C ty of St. Anthony, which is immethataly south of New Brign:on,
received a ternoorary water connection to tne City of Rosev lle. This
State—lead IRM was necessary because the City of St. Anthony was
ecperiencing water shortages due to the contamination and su.bseguent closure
of one of their three ?rair e du Chien—Jordan acuifer rnunicimal wells.
Contamination is now being detected in the remaining two munic al wells and
a Phased Feas bi1it7 Study (?FS) is currently being conducted for the City’s
water supply.
The selected remedial action for this site includes the construction of
a new well into the Mt. Simon—Hir.ck ley aquifer system to replace New
Brigriton well 7. Total capital cost for the selected remedial alternative
is estimated to be 5600,500 with Q&2 costs a roximatelv 522,820 per year.
is continuing its comprehensive remedial
study (RI/FS) for the s ta. A preliminary RI characterizing the site, major
migration pathways, and preliminary dentif cation of s ificant aources
has already been completed. .MPC? is planning to complete the remairung
tasks of the comorehensive RI/FS in 1988 n order to evaluate ootent al
E nal remed al action(s).
P CRMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Not Applicable.
: ?woRDs : Alternate Water Su oly; Deferred Dec s on; Ground Water;
Solvents; POE; ICE; VOCs.
—75—
-------
NOVACO tNDUSTRIES, MI
First Remethal Act .on
June 27, 3.986
ROD \BSTRACT
Novaco Industries is a one—building fac 1ity that occupies a 2.5—acre
rectangular parcel of Land, located at 9411 Suznmerfield Road, at the
intersection of Summerfield and Piehl, TemDerance, Michigan. The site lies
SQ miles south of Detroit and 5 aules north of Toledo, Ohio. The Novaco
Industries study area consists of Novaco Industr es, Veterans of Foreign
Wars ( ) Post 9656 and the Moyer residential- property. below—ground
plating tank located within the Novaco Industries building leaked an unkr.o
quantity of chroriuc acid into the ground water on or before June 13, 197g.
Within 24 days following Novaco Industries detec: on of the leak, chromium
was discovered in Novacos 20—foot well, as well as the ‘IFW Posts well
which was screened in both the shallow and deep aquifer. year later,
chromium was detected n a residential well west of the VTW Post.
The selected remedial alternative will include : ccnstruct on of an
ex:ract on wellfield, a treatment plant consisting of electrocheriucal
reduction, precipitation, filtration, and ion exchange polishing units; and
a pipeline to convey treated ground water to Indian Creek; and ext:act on of
acorox mately 36 million gallons of contaminated ground water over a 4—year
period from the sand/gravel aquifer. The extracted ground water will be
treated onsite to remove trivalent and hexavalent chromium and w ll then be
discharged into Indian Creek, applying the milestone approach. Total
caDital cost for the selected remedial action is estimated to be S560 00G
with total C&M costs approximately 419,000 for a 5—year period.
PZRFORY.ANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : The selected remedial alternative does not
cuantify a soec f c cleanut level for total chromium, but t is designed o
achieve levels that are below dr:nk ng qatar standards. The State of
Michigan standards for ground water are more rest:ict ve than the Federal
RCRA standard. Michigan sets forth a water quality standard of 30 ug/l
(which is the same as the Federal Standard), but in addition the Stare s
authorized to require cleanup to background (less than 0.5 ugh for :otal
dissolved thronuuztt at i’Iovaco Industr es).
X YWORDS : Chromium; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; Ground Water
Treatment.
—76—
-------
REILLY TAR AND C} MICAL, MN (EDD)
Second Remedial Action
May 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation (RTCC) site occupies 80 acres in
St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The Republic Creosote Works, which operated the
site between 1917 and 1972, fractionalized coal tar into various oils and
produced creosote. Between 800,000 — 1,000,000 cubic yards of the wastes
resulting from this process polluted the land surface of the site and the
underlying aquifers. The primary contaminants of concern include: PAHs and
phenols.
The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) attached to the Consent Decree prescribes
the following remedial actions, remedial investigations and feasibility
studies to be completed over the next five years: Restoration of drinking
water supply and water quality by construction of a Granular Activated
Carbon (GAC) system at St. Louis Park Wells (SLP 15/10). This task has been
completed by the RTCC and is in the start—up process; monitoring and
contingency treatment of the Mt. Simon/Hirickley aquifer; monitoring, pumping
and treatment of the IrontonfGalesville aquifer; monitoring, pumping and
treatment of the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer until drinking water
quality is uniformly established within the area of gradient control;
monitoring and contingent action for the maintenance of drinking water
quality in the St. Peter aquifer; monitoring, pumping and treatment of the
Drift and Platteville aquifers; monitoring, pumping and treatment of the
source material in the Glacial Drift aquifer and in well WZ3 in the Praire
du Chien/Jordan aquifer; capping and tilling of exposed hazardous wastes in
the vicinity of the bog, south of the site; discharge of hazardous wastes to
a sanitary sewer for any contaminated material excavated and dewatered;
further subsequent investigation in the vicinity of the site to implement
deed restrictions for current and future land use in the areas of
contamination; further RI/FSs to determine the areal extent of, and remedy
for the contamination in the Northern area of the Glacial Drift aquifer
adjacent to the site; and further RI/FS’s in the St. Peter aquifer as
necessary to implement the remedial action presented to protect drinking
water quality. Cost estimates for these actions have not yet been fully
developed.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Drinking water criteria for PANs were
developed through State and EPA consultations.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS : Deed restrictions will be implemented for current
and future land use.
KEYWORDS : Consent Decree; Deed Restrictions; Drinking Water Contaminants;
Granular Activated Carbon; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring;
Institutional Controls; O&M; Organics; PANs; PR?; Phenols; Soils; State
Criteria; Surface Water; Wetlands; VOCs.
—77—
-------
SEYMOUR , IN
First Remedial Action
Se tember 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Se our Recycling Corporation (SRC) site. encompassing a
fourteen—acre area, is approximately two miles southwest of Se nour, IN.
Approximately one hundred homes are located within a one—mile radius of the
site in a predominately agricultural area. From acout 1970 until earl:, 1980
SRC operated a processing center for waste chemicals. Over the years :ox c
and hazardous wastes, including solvents, metal finishing wastes and other
materials, accumulated on the site in 55—gallon drums, bulk tanks and other
containers. 4 astes leaked and spilled from the drums creating fire and odor
problems. A Consent Decree, reached in the fall of 1982 after a May 1980
suit filed by the United States against the owners and site operators,
resulted in the removal of approximately the upper one foot of contaminated
soil from about 75 Dercent of the site’s surface. Contaminated soil
remains, however, and extends throughout the shallow and deep aqu .fer. The
site is fenced and partially covered with a temporary soil cap. Homes
surrounding the site have recently been connected to the city water
distribution system due to the threat of ground water contamination. The
primary contaminants of concern include: ‘/CCs, organics, TCE, DC, benzerie,
toluene, and heavy metals.
The selected remedial alternati1e for the site is the implementation of
a Dlume stabilizat oñ system which will extract, treat, and discharge
a roximately 101,690,000 gallons of contaminated ground water to he
Seymour astewater treatment Plant. The estimated capital cost for this
remedy is 3300,000. O&M costs are estimated to be either $100,000 er :;ear
or 3250,000 total costs for the 2.5 year period reçuired to implement a
final remedial action.
PERFORZ ANCE STANDARDS OR COALS : Pretreatment requirement3 for discharge to
the POT’4.
i
-------
SPt GELBE G r_ \1DFI I
Firs: emedia1 c: or.
Seotember 30, 1986
ROD XBSTRACT :
The Spiegelber; s:te is a waste d sposal pit located n Green Oak
To ship , Livingston County, .I. Currently, the Spiegelberg prooerty -s
being mined for sand, gravel, and peat de osi:s. From 1966 to 1977 tne site
was used for the disDosal of domestic waste, with the iriain d s osal area
located in an abandoned sand and gravel pit in the northern third of the
site. From 1967 to 1978 aint sludge was dumped near the surface water
portion of the gravel pit. The pain: sludge area is aporoximatelv one—half
acre in size and is reportedly tn r:y feet deep n several places. There
are two layers of hardened paint sludge: at a depth of three to six feet;
and at a depth of thirteen feet. Five—gallon paint buckets were also buried
at a depth of approximately .teri feet and paint mixed with sand is present a:
various depths. Only private, domestic wastes have been disposed of at the
site since the end of 1978. Organic contaminants have been detected in
onsite and downgradient monitoring wells ind cating the migration of these
contaminants from the site into the ground water. The primary contaminants
of concern include: V CS, orgazucs, inorganics, base—neutral compounds.
TCZ. toluene, xylene, netals.
The selected remed a! action for the site ncludes: excavation of
15,000 c ic yards of waste na :er al which will be separated into liçu d and
solid sludges and paint residue with garbage inte ixed; offsit
.inc nerat on of acprox macely 5,000 c ic yards of the excavated waste
material: and discosal of the rema n ng 10,000 cubic yards of waste into a
RC A landfill. The capital cost of tnis alterr.at ’;e s estimated a:
815,771,000 to 8l8,395, 0Q de end ng on the offs te disposal location. Io
O&2 will be regu red.
PER1CR.M ICE ST TDA2DS CR GCALS . c:ion levels for soil contamir.ar.:s
nc1ude: benzene 12.9 ug/kg; cn1orcfo 2.34 ‘ g/kg; e :ny ene :nor:de
uglkg; L ,l , 2 , 2 —tetrachloroethar.e 2.9 ug/
-------
CECIL LINDSEY, AR
First Remed:al Action — Final
April 23, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Cecil Lindsey site consists of 5.2 acres, located in rural
northeastern Arkansas, approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the ci.ty of
Mewport. Cecil Lindsey accepted waste for salvage and/or disposal from the
early 1970s until 1980. The site was first used as a salvage operation ,
where machinery, automobiles, culvert pipe, and other scrap metal were
collected. The southern portion of the site was fo erly used to raise jigs
arid cozitains a fenced area, an open shed, and a sandpoint well. Later, the
northern part of the site was used as a municipal dump by the community of
Diaz, located approximately 2 miles to the west. The Cecil Lindsey site was
also reportedly used for the disposal of industrial waste. Several local
companies may have used the site, but the type and extent of industrial
waste disposal is not well documented. The results of the field
investigation indicate the presence of very limited onsite soil and ground
water contamination and offsite surface water and sediment contamination.
Onsite soil samples showed low norgan c concentrations which exceeded
background levels scattered chrougnout the site and also isolated volac le
organic contamination. In addition, onsite ground water samples
consistently exceeded background concentrations for norganics, but the
orisite volatile organic contamination is limited.
The results of the field investigations have indicated that the low
levels of contamination at the Cecil Lindsey site do not create a
significant danger to pre exit or future public health or the er.virorunenz.
The selected remedial action for this site consists of a rio acc on
alcerr..acive with: imposition of site access restrict cns; inszallat cri of 2
monitoring wells; and one year of ground water monitoring, ar.d removal and
disposal of s:te drums that contain hazardous substances. ocal cap :ai
cost for these actions is estimated to be 561,000 with C& 1 ’1 costs
approximately 510,000 for one year of ground water monitoring.
P PORY ICE STANDARDS CR GCALS : ot Applicable.
YWCPDS : Ground Water; Ground Water • !cr.itoring; tnorganics; Io Action
Alternative; Offsite Disposal; Sediments; Soil; Surface Water; V Cs.
—80—
-------
G IEVA t TDUSTRIES,. TX
First Remedial Action — Final
September 18, 1986
ROD kBSTRACT
The Geneva Industries site is a 13.5 acre tract located in Houston, TX.
immediately adjacent to the corporate limits of tne City of Soutn Houston.
Approximately 35,000 pecole live within one mile of Geneva. The closest
residences are located less than 50 feet from the east and southwest site
boundar es, and two businesses are iocated 300 feet west of the site. The
site is currently located in the 100—year flood plain and is drained by the
adjacent flood control channel. Geneva Industries is an anandoned refinery
which manufactured a variety of organic compounds and fuel oils from 1967
through 1978. Approximately 22,500 cubic yards of surface and subsurface
onsite soils have been contaminated as a result of operational souls,
leaking drums, tanks, and lagoons. and landfill/land farming operations.
Shallow ground water us contaminated onsute and some offsite migration has
occurred east of the site. A planned removal was performed by EPA between
October 1983 and February 1984 to close out three orisite lagoons, remove all
druxiutied waste on the surface, remove all offsute soils containung greater
than 50 ppm P 3s, install a cap over or.site soils containing greater tnan 50
ppm PCBs, and uxt orove site drainage. Other removal actions to olug
abandoned wells or ite and remove storage tank materials were performed. in
ay and September 1984 respectively. Further studies were conducted to
determine an appropriate permanent site remedy. The primary ontamur.ants of
concern include: VCCs, PAMs, TC . PC3s, phenols and fuel oils.
The selected remedial action includes: removal and disDosal of surface
structures in an offsuta hazardous waste landfill, excavatuon of
contaminated soils with greater than 130 ppm of PCBs and all buried drums
onsite; disoosal of excavated soils and drums at an EPA—approved offsite
d.sposal faculity; construct cn of a multi—layer surface ca over the size
and a slurry wall tied into the clay below the 30—foot sand around the
perumeter of the site; and recovery of TCE contaminated ground water from
the 30— and 100—foot sand, treatment onsite by carbon adsormtuon. and
discharge into the adjacent flood control channel. The estimated capital
cost for this remedy us 514,990,000 with C&Z for years one and two of
S532.000/yea and 5483,000 for years three through thirty.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : xcavat on of 22.500 cubic yards of soils
contaminated with greater than 100 ppm PCBs.
: zywcRDs : Aromatucs; Caocing; Extavatuon; Flood Plain; Ground Water, Ground
Water onutor ng; Ground Water Treatment; C&M; Offs te Dusposal. Oils; ? Es..
PC3s; Phenols; Sediments; Slurry Wall; Soils; Surface Water; TCE; VOCS.
—81—
-------
ODESSA O OMIUM I , TX
First Remedial Action
September 8, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Odessa Chromium I site consists of a series of chromium cor.tam nated
wells within 300 acres of residential, commercial and industrial procer: es
and facilities just outside the northwestern city limits of Odessa, Ector
County. TX. Nearly every res:dence or ccmmerc al facility is served by one
or more water wells ccm leted n the Tr n cy aquifer which offers the only
source of potable ground water. Two potent Ial sources of ground water
contamination at the site have beer . identified: the 4318 Brazos property.
and Ni co at 2104 West 42and Street. Between 1972 and 1977 several chrome
plating operations functioned at the 318 Erazos property. Waste water from
the plating operac ons and heavy metal contaminants are bel eved to have
been dumped directly onto the ground on the northern side of the building
and/or piped into storage tanks/dr ums which frequently were allowed to
overflow. An abandoned well on the site is suspected of providing a direct
pathway to the aquifer during per cds of substantial disposal or heavy
rain. Ni co, also on the Odessa Chromium I site, is presenti? operating a
metal plating facility. In Nove er 1983, the Texas Department of water
Resources (TDWR) requested the EPA conduct a planned removal action to
extend the city water lines to the affected area. However, in June 1984,
the TD R notified EPA that the plan was not feasible due to an Odessa city
ordinance prohibicing the supply of water to customers outside the city
limits. The pr Imary contaminants of concern include chromium and ocher
heavy metals.
The selected remedial action includes: negotiating agreements with the
city and consumers to extend the city water system; and construction of a
water distr ut on system. The estimated capital cost for this action s
5247,920 wit.-, annual C& costs of S4 ,350.
ERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Not Applicable.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS : The extension of the city’s water lines will
require an exception to the rules governing water supply across c ty limits.
YWORDS : Alternate Water Su Dlv; Chromium; Drinking Water Contaminants:
Ground Water; Heavy etals; Inst tut onal Controls; C&2L
—82—
-------
ODESSA C-LRCMIUM II, TX
First Rerned al Actiori
September 8, 1986
ROD kBSTRACT
The Odessa Chromiuin II site consists of a series of chromium
contaminated wells within 200 acres of uroan area located just outside the
northwestern city limits of Odessa, ctor County, TX. The site area s
comoosed of a mixture of res dencial. commercial and Lndustrlal fac 1it es.
Iear1v every res dence or commercial facility is served by one or nore water
wells comoleted n the Trinity aqu fer which offers tne only source of
potable ground water. Two potential sources of ground water contamination
at the site have been Ldentlfied; 5329 Andrews Highway, arid Wooley Tool and
anufacturing at 57th Street and ndrews Highway. Between 1950 and 1965,
the 5329 Andrews Higriway site was occup ed by Cont nencal Products of TX, a
producer of a chromium containing cooling water additive. Basin Radiator
arid Supply, corrmiencing operations at this site sometime between 1965 and
1969, was investigated by the local Health Department in 1970 in response to
a complaint of contaminated (5.5 ng/l chromium) well water on the procert’,
to the south of the company. Waste water anal zsis, at that time. d d riot
rid cate the presence of chromium, but in 1978, a part allv buried steel
tank leaked a cleaning vat solution containing 2.3 mg/l chromium. Wooley
Tool and !anufacturing, operating since about 1950 util :ed chromaces n
their cooling water system until anout 1976. This sv tem, tied into one of
the plants water wells, could have inadvertently back flushed into tr.e well
dur ng occasional slowdowns due to the absence of a check valve. Unz i
about 1970, the plant also disposed of chromate contaminated asze water in
an unlined pit. The pr mary contaminant of concern is chromium.
The selected remedial action includes extending the municirial water
serv:ce to the affected area of the site. This involves negociac ons ‘ith
tne city and local res den:s. The cap cal cost for cnis ac: cn is 5476,570
with atmual O&1 costs of $51,575 to be spent over a 15—year period.
PERrOR.M. ICE STA TDARDS OR GOALS : ) ot Applicable.
INSTIT IQNAL CONTROLS : The extension of the c ty’s water lines will
require an excepe on to the les governing water supply across city l mi:s.
YWORDS : Alternate Water Supply; Chromium; Drinking Water Contaminants,
Ground r4ater; nst tutional Controls. O& .
—83—
-------
SIKES DISPOSAL PITS, TX
First Remedial Action — Final
Se tember 18, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Sikes Discosal Pits site is located on a 185—acre site,
approximately 2 miles southwest of Crosby, TX. It is bordered y the San
Jacinto River on the west, Jackson Bayou on the north, and U.S. Highway 90
on the south. The site lies n the 100—year flood plain of tne river while
cortiocs 1 e within the 10—year and 50—year flood plain. The site has been
flooded four times since 196g. The area immediately surrounding the site s
largely underdeveloped with numerous active and abandoned saridpi:s and low
lying swamp areas. The area plays host to sport fishermen as well as water
sport enthusiasts on the nearby river and bayou. One Eam 1y lives or.s te.
The only residential develooment n close proximity s 500 feet southwest.
Between the early 1960s and 1967, Sikes Disposal Pits operated as a waste
depository. Chemical wastes from area petrochemical industries and numerous
drums were deposited onsite in several old sand pits. A preliminary
sampling at the site in 1982 indicated the presence of phenol c compounds
and other organics. In June 1983 a removal action performed at the s:te by
the EPA removed approximately 440 cunic yards of pheno1 c tars from a
partially buried pit. S sequent studies at the site indicated the need for
a total remedial site plan. Or.s te soils and surface water from the sludge
areas as well as Tank Lake were found to be contaminated. Ground water in
the shallow aquifer below the site has been heavily contaminated; no
residential wells are currently affected. Meither surface water nor ground
water contamination has migrated beyond the site boundaries. Surface wat?r,
ground water, and approx:mately 150,000 c ic yards of soils are
contaminated with organ cs, toluene , creosote, benzene, xylene. thenolic
compounds, halides, dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride.
The selected remedial act on includes: onsite inc nerac cn of iudgas
and contaminated soils; ons te disposal of residue ash — use as backfill,
ban use of upper aquifer onsite, wh l naturally attenuating to L0 Human
Health C:iter a (less than 30 years); discharge contaminated surface water
to river, treat as necessary to meet discharge criteria; and monitor lower
aquifer and ban its use onsite if site degradation occurs. The estimated
capital cost for this action s 5102,217,000 with annual O&X of 541,000.
P FORMANCE STAND DS CR GCALS : Sludges and soils will be excavated to the
10 pprn_VOA criteria level. The upper aquifer will be naturally attenuated
to 10 Human Healcn Criterta (Less than 30 years).
INSTITUTIONAL CCNTRCLS : Ban use of upper aquifer onsite.
JORDS : Alternative Tecnnology; Excavation; Flood Plain; Ground 4ater;
Ground 4ater on toring; Icc nerat on; O&M; Onsite Disposal; Crgan cs;
Phenols; Sed ments; Sludges; Soil; Surface ‘ 4ater; Toluene.
—84—
-------
UNITED CREOSOTING SITE, TX
First Remedial Action
Se tember 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The United Creosoting site s a 100—acre tract of land located in the
City of Conroe, Montgomery County, Texas. The site ts an abandoned wood
preserving facility over which two new businesses and a resident a1
su.bdivis on have been built. The site operated from 1946 to 1972, treaticg
wood w th creosote and pentacnlorophenol (PC?). Prior to salvage and
removal oceracions in 1972, the site contained a coal—tar distiila: on
still, a processing bu ld ng, tanks and pressure cylinders, two waste ponds.
and several areas where treated lumber was stored. The only remaining
evidence of the oceration are remnants of the waste ponds. an office
building and a garage structure. During the suzr xner of 1980, Montgomery
County obtained soils from the United Creosoting site to be used in
improving local roads in a nearby subdivision. Soil material consisted of
surface soils and pond backfill from the Clark Distributing Company
property. Citizens l v ng on one of the “improved” streets complained of
headacnes, burns, resciratory proclems and damage to vegetac on. Samples
nd cated that soils were conzam nated with PC? in concentrat ons uc to 20.3
mg/i. Montgomery County officials removed the contaminated soils from the
affected roadways and discosed of them by landfarming. In early December
1983., EPA initiated an Immediate Respor se Action at United Creosoting,
taking over 25 so i sameles. Samples indicated the presence oi PC?,
cnlorinaced dioxins (no etrachlorinated diox:ns). and dibenzofurans. EPA
ordered Clark Distr buting to undertake an Immediate Response Action within
the area of the former waste nonds. c4ork began in Noverr er 1983 and
consisted of regrad ng exposed contaminated soils to divert surface water
drainage away from the subdiv sion, capping contamanated soils with a
s thet c membrane cao and 6 incnes of comtacted clay, fencing the cacced
area, and consc: cz:ng cra:cage ditches to cna el cao area runoff to
south of the Clark property (vacant land). work on this activity was
completed in Acril 1984, and the RI/FS for the whole s ta area was oeg n
December of 1984. pprox mately 94,000 cubic yards of contamination remain
ons its.
The selected remedial action for the site includes: purchase and
demolish six homes located directly above and adjacent to the former :or.d
area; conduct permanent relocations of the persons currently residing in
these homes; consoi date surface soils contaminated with greater :han 100
o m of ool uclear aromatic hydrocarbons (P .Hs) and surface sotls h ch are
vts:blv ccntam nated onto the former waste :or.d area: construct a temporary
can over consolidated soiLs; :er od ca1Lv evaluate tne ava 1ao i::y of
offsita disposal fac lit es and emerging alternate :sc. .oiogies; excavate
and dispose of the soils contaminated w :h greater than 100 ppm of PAHs n
the former ond area and :n the former storage tank area wnen an appropr:ate
facility or innovative tec .ology necomes ava labie; backfill excavated
areas and restore ground surface witn an acoroor ace cover; and allow ground
water attenuation through natural processes of diluz on and adsorption. The
—85—
-------
UNITED CREOSOTING SITE, T
First emed al Act ori
(Cont.Lnued)
estimated capLtal costs of the remedy range from 54.5 million for future
offsita land disoosal to 5140 mL1l on for offsite incineration. Factors
such as site preparation. material and energy requirements. and dj.soosai
reqi.u.rements must be evaluated before a cost estimate can be developed.
.knnual O& costs are exoected to be $43,000 during the interim closure
per i od.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Excavation and disposal of all soils
contaminated above LOOppm ?. H.
INSTITIYrIONAL CONTROLS : Res .dents of six onsite homes will be permanently
relocated.
YWORDS : Capping; Excavation; Ground r ater; Institutional Controls; O&M;
Onsite Containment; PAM; Relocation; Soil.
—86—
-------
DES MOINES TCE, IA
First Remedial Actidn
July 21, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Des Moines TCE site, in the flood olain of the Raccoon River, is
located just southwest of downtown Des Moines. Polk County. Iowa, near where
Fleur Drive crosses the Raccoon River. The area has indust: al/com ercia1
use and recreational parkland use. A major feature of the site is the
underground infiltration gallery used by the Des Moines Water Works (DMWW)
as a source of the public water supply. The site was discovered n 1984
after trichioroethylene (TCE) was detected in the city’s public water
supply. The Dico Company. operating since at least 1961, disposed of an
unknown gi.Lantity of oily waste sludge containing TCE onto their parking lot
for dust control and into a drainage ditch on their property. Two other
businesses that used TCE have operated on the site area n the past, one an
aircraft parts manufacturer and the other a printing company. However, the
major source of ground water coritanunation is the soil at the Dico
Property. Most of the area east of the Raccoon River has been filled to
raise the land above flood level. Contaminants may have been disposed n
those areas along with fill material. Migration has caused cor.tam naced
ground water to flow into the underground infiltration gallery system. The
primarj contaminants of concern include: ICE, PCE, l ,2—dichloroethane,
vinyl chloride.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: extraction 4e11 5
to collect the contaminated ground water; isolation of the northern—most
section of the north gallery: treatment of the ground water through a r
stripping to remove 96 percent of the ICE; discharge of the treated dater to
the Raccoon River; and operation of the west extraction wells until
established effluent levels are achieved for four consecutive months. The
capital cost for the selected renedial alzernat ve s esti acad to ce
$1,196,000. The estimated annual cost of O&M :s S63,000. Since this s an
operable unit, the duration of operation of this response action will ce
dependent on the final respor.se action selected.
P FORNANCE STA TDARDS OR GOALS : The operation of the east and west
collection system ext:act on wells will continua until the maximum ooserved
groundwater T E concentration in the existing monitoring wells on the west
side of the river is 5 ugh or less for four consecutive months.
Z’ZWORDS : Air Stripping; Drinking Water Contam nants; Ground Water; Ground
Water Treatment; O : Sludges; Soil: ICEs; VOCs.
—87—
-------
ELLISVILLE SITE .REA. O
Second Remedial Action
Seotember 29, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
The Ellisvalle Site Area, located in West St. Louis County.
Missouri, is composed of three non—contiguous properties: the Rosalie
property; the Callahan property; and the Bliss property. The RosaLie and
Callahan properties were the focus of the July 1985 E rst remed a1 action.
This second remedial action focuses on the Bliss property and four
contiguous pro ert es: the Dubman and eir.gart property; the ?r mm property;
the wade and Merchantile Trust Commany property; and the Russell, Evelyn and
Jerry Russell Bliss property. Land use in the site vicinity consists of
rural, recreational and rapidly developing resident a1 areas. Approximately
1,000 people currently live within a one—mile radius of the site. Dur ng
the 1960s and 1970s, Russell Bliss owned and operated the Bliss waste Oil
Company, a business engaged n the transportation and distosal of waste oil
products, industrial wastes and chemical wastes. The company’s headquarters
and operating Eac l ties were located at the site. In September 1980 the
Missouri Department of ‘Iatural Resources and the U.S. EPA conducted an
onsite investigation. Concluding reports indicated pits had beer. dug and
used for industrial waste disposal; drums of waste had been buried on s ce;
and liquid wastes had been applied on the ground. The t es of waste were
reported to include solvents, oils, pesticides, and can coating materials.
Dioxin is currentl the only contaminant of threat. Approximately 20,000
cubic yards of soil. and an unkr.own volume of dust are contaminated with
2,3,7 ,8—TCDD (TCDD or dioxin).
The selected remedy for the dioxin contaminated soils and mater:a!s
includes: excavation and containerization in semi—bulk sacks of d ox n
contaminated soils and material exceeding one cart cer billion; nteri i
or.site storage of tne contamner zed asces in a metal bu ld ng er.clos re ,
O&M ‘4111 include maintenance of the security system, maintenance of site
runon/run off controls arid ground water sampling arid analysis. Final
remedial action for dioxin—contaminated soil has not been selected. The
selected remedy for buried drums and non—d ox n hazardous waste mixtures
includes: excavation. sampling, and overpackar.g of buried drums; excavat or.
of unconzainer zed hazardous wastes and contaminated soils and materials;
drums and waste mixtures containing l qu ds or other specified hazardous
wastes sun ect to land dis osal proh bi: ons will be disposed by
incirierat on at an offs ce cor nercial hazardous waste incineration facility
ooerat ng der an aooroo; ace RCR encic or nter m status; d: ums and
waste mi:tures conta n ng nazardous sunstances su caole :or ar.d d sposa_
•4111 be di po ed of at an offs :e co erc al hazardous 4asee land d s osa
facility operating under an appropr ace RC RA pe it or inter m status or, if
cost-effective, at an incineration facility as described above;
non—hazardous material and debris ay be disposed of at a pe tted sanitary
landfill. For both d ox:n and noc—thox r. remedy comoonents, site
restorac on acziv t es will nc1ude backf l1, regrading arid seeding where
ap roDr ata. The estimated present worth cost for botri remedial components
s 520,200,000.
—88—
-------
ELLISVILLE SLTE AREA, MO
(Continued)
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR COALS : Excavation and sampling will continue until
demonstrated, at the 95 percent upper confidence level, that dioxin
concentrations in soil do not exceed one part per billion.
KEYWORDS : Dioxin; Excavation; Ground Water Monitoring; Offsite Disposal;
Onsite Containment; Public Health Risk; RCRA; O& 4; Orgarucs; Soil; State
Criteria.
—89—
-------
DENVER RADIUM/ROECO, CO
Second Remedial Action
September 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Denver Radium/ROBCO site encompasses both the Robinson Brick Company
facility (ROBCO) and-the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad (DRGWR)
right-of-way in Denver, CO. The ROBCO property is located on the site of the
former National Radium Institute (NRI) facility, a private corporation
operating between 1914 and 1920 which produced radium under an agreement with
the U.S. Bureau of Mines. In 1979 the EPA discovered a reference to the NRI
in a 1916 U.S. Bureau of Mines report. Subsequent research revealed the ROBCO
property as one of thirty—one radioactive sites in the Denver metropolitan
area. There are seventeen buildings and sheds on site. Two of the buildings,
the laboratory and office, are original NRI structures. There is rio serious
public health risk at present from the radon gas and its decay products found
onsite. However, since radium has a half—life of 1600 years, there is a
long—term potential for increased public health risk if the
radium—contaminated materials were misused or inadvertantly spread.
The EPA preferred alternative, full removal and permanent offsite
disposal, entails: removal of approximately 6400 cubic yards of
radium—contaminated soil from the ROBCO property and approximately 600 cubic
yards of radium contaminated soil from the DRGWR right of way; removal of
approximately 200 cubic yards of debris from the demolition of the
radioactively contaminated laboratory and office buildings on the ROBCO
property; arid disposal of the contaminated soil and debris at a facility
suitable for the permanent disposal of low—level radioactive waste. Until a
cost—effective site suitable for permanent disposal is selected and. if
necessary, acquired and developed, this remedy cannot be implemented.
Therefore, the EPA is actively pursuing a temporary onsite storage remedy.
The estimated capital costs for the temporary remedies is $1,912,400 for
onsite storage. These costs include future transport costs of the waste
material to a permanent disposal facility. There will be an estimated annual
O&M cost of $6,000 which will be incurred for three to seven years depending
upon the time needed to identify a permanent storage facility.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Remedy meets standards for ‘Remedial Action
at Inactive Uranium Processing Sites.” More specifically, the concentration
of radium—226 in land over any area of 100 square meters shall not exceed the
background level by more than 5pCi/g, averaged over the first 15cm of soil
below the surface, and l5pCi/g, averaged over 15cm thick layers of soil more
than 15cm below the surface.
KEYWORDS : Excavation; Interim Remedy; O&M; Offsite Disposal; Onsite Disposal;
Radioactive Material; Soils; Stabilization.
—90—
-------
DENVER RADIUM SITE STREETS, CO
First Remedial Action
March 24, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
Denver Radium Site Streets is located in Denver, Colorado. This
operable unit is comprised of eight street segments in the Cheesman Park
area and one segment in the upper downtown area. The nine contaminated
street segments are ‘owned by the City and County of Denver and extend
approximately 4.5 miles through largely residential areas. The Denver
Radium Site Streets contain a 4— to 6—inch layer of radium contaminated
asphalt. The contaminated layer is underlain by compacted gravel road base
and is usually overlain by 4 to 12 inches of uncontaminated asphalt
pavement. There is an estimated 38,500 cubic yards of contaminated material
covering approximately 832,000 square feet. Radioactive contamination does
not extend beyond the paved right-of—way of the streets and generally does
not appear to have migrated into the soils below the contaminated asphalt.
Radium concentrations at representative locations on the streets range from
4 to 79 picocuries per gram. Surface gamma radiation readings generally
fall below 20 microroentgens per hour above background.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: leaving the
contaminated material in place; improving institutional controls. Although
not a part of the EPA—funded remedy, the ROD recommends that the City
consider removing any contaminated material excavated during routine
maintenance, repair, or construction activities in the affected streets to a
facility approved for storage or disposal of Contaminated material. The
estimated initial cost of the remedy is $30,000. This includes the cost of
studying and then establishing the institutional controls which would
monitor all construction and utility work for the affected streets. The
annual operation and maintenance cost will vary depending upon the amount of
material excavated during any particular year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDs OR GOALS : The selected remedy meets the supplemental
standards for “Remedial Action at Inactive Uranium Processing Sites” which
states, “remedial action is not necessary when residual radioactive
materials have been placed semi—permanently in a location where
site—specific factors limit their hazard, and from which they are costly or
difficult to remove.”
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS : Improve institutional controls so that all routine
maintenance, repair, or construction activities in the affected streets by
government agencies, utility companies, contracting companies, and private
individuals will be monitored.
KEYWORDS : Excavation; Institutional Controls; Municipally—Owned Site;
Offsite Disposal; Radioactive Materials.
—91—
-------
LIBBY G .CL TD eATER,
F :st Remedial c: cri
September 26, l986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Libby Ground Water Contamination site. in the northwest carrier of
Montana. cor.sists of Chamoion International Cor orat on’s active Lumber ar.d
plywood mill, the City of Libby. ar.d surrounding developed but
unincorporated areas. The Chanciori lumber arid iywood m 11 . as owned arid
operated by the 3’. Nells Lumber Company from 1946-1957, and by St. Regis
Company from 1957-1985. Abandor.ed wood treating operations on the mill
property are the source of ground water contamination. Between 1946 arid
1969, wood treating f1u ds were disposed of arid spilled at several different
mill 1ocat onz; waste water, fo ed as condensate in tr.e retorts, was oiaced
in onsite waste pits; and tank bottom sludges from wood treatir.g E1u d tar.ks
were periodically removed and hauled to the waste pits. In 1979, shortly
after installation of rivate wells, same homeowners detected the preser.ce
of a creosote odor, and EPA monitorLng in 1981 conf ed ground water
contamir.ation. Based on 1984 well sample results, Champion plemented the
Buy Water Plan. under this plan, individuals WLth contaminated ground water
wells agree to cease using their well and use water from the pub1 c water
system operated by the City of Libby. Champion, prcv d r.g monetary
compensation to the wellowners to pay for tnis metered water, also caps arid
locks the previously operating wells. The program. indefinite n
would be te nated uacn the elimination of trie trireat of contaminac on, if
the well owner orov des a wr tzen termination r.ot ce, or if ocher
alternatives become a ai1aole. The pr Imary contaminants of concern
include: ‘/ Cs; PAHs, ?CP and other organi.cs. inorganics, rmeavv metals. ar.c
creosote.
The selected remedial action for th s first oceraale unit ncL das:
continuation and expansion of the uy Water Plan sponsored by Champion. arid
enactment of an ordinance which proniaits nstallat on of new wells for
riwnan consum : on arid i:;igat on. but gould allow we!l la: on for se
in closed systems sucn as heat pumps. The estimated caoi:al cost far :nis
remedy s 5152.000 with annual O&M costs of 564,000, both to be paid y
Chamaion. Federal funds will be reçuired for oversight of Cham ons
act onz at an est rnaced annual cost. of 320,000.
PER.FORMANCE STA TDARDS OP GOALS : !ot Aoplicabla.
iNSTITt IONAL CO POLS : City Ordinance o. 1344 precludes the installation
of new wells for human consumotion and rrigat on while allowing well
nstallat:cn for use n closed systems. kr ual nsgecc on of the 4e1L s a
cond t on of trie well permit.
f CRCS : Alternate Water Sucaly; Dr nk ng Water Contaminants; Ground
Water; ea’ j Metals; Inor;an cs; Institut ona1 Controls; O&M; Organ cs;
PN s; PR?; Soil; Surface Water; VOCs.
—92—
-------
Y k SHALL L .ND LL, CC
Ftrst Remed a1 Action - Final
Se tember 26. 1986
ROD ESTRACT :
The Marshall Landfill, located rae m 1es southeast of Soulder, Soulder
Co t7 CC consists of two carcels: an 30—acre active Cot t-; landfill and
an 30—acre inac: ve 1ar.df ll due north. 3etween 1965 ar.d 1974. the :nac:i .’a
Land’- 11 acceoted stabi1ized sewage sludge and rnany ider .tif ed and
potent al1v nazardous wastes. eptic wastes and pcsscly l qu d ir.dust: a
wastes were also d s?osad offsite in two, now closed. seotic or.ds. S nce
1974, the active landfill tas accepted sewage sludge and m c a1 waste.
(tndustrial waste may ha- ia been accepted during the early years of
oDerat ion. ) Since 1975 the active landfill has been ooe rated by Landf l1
Inc. (U) a wholly—o ed s sid ary of Sro ir.g—Ferr s tndustr es (BFI).
Prior to 1978, County ir.spectors observed lar.dfill leachate see age into
Community Ditch, a conveyor of potaole water from nearby Marshall Lake to
the City of Louisville and irrigat or. water for the Fa ers Reservoir and
trr gation Co. Two remed at on actions have been taken subsaçuant to the
July 1982 EPA prc osal for nclus on on the ‘IPL: a mid—19a3 Cooperative
Agree er t to h ch L agreed to ns:a1l a pipeline to convey water from
Marshall Lake across tne nac: ve 1andf ll and conduct an RI/FS; ar.c an
Cc:ober 1933 order by EPA to Li to install the acove menc oned pipeline, and
to submit to EPA data and reports DreDared pursuant to the CooDerat ve
Agreement. The primary contaminants of concern include: ‘/cCs nclud ng
TCE, ?CE. OCT. and benzer.e, and hea j metals including cadni and lead.
The selected remedial act cn nciudes: r.stallat on of a sunsurfaca
collection system using natural ground water grathents to collect all
contaminated ground water ieav ng the Marshall Landfill site; treatment of
contaminated ground water by sed mentae on, a r s:ripcir.g, and off-gas
carnon adsor t on; landfill inDrovements. :ncl_d ng regrad ng. re .’age:a:on.
er:mecer d :ches, and fences, to inin :a fuz re er. -:iror_men:aj and un::
health moaczs from the site; and ground and surface water nonitorng The
estimated capital cost for thas remedy s 81.319,000 with ar .ual C&’1 costs
of 31,152,000.
9ERFOR2 ICE STAND RDS CR GOALS : Con:am nated water w ll be treated to
achieve removal of benzene 0; tetrachloroethylene 0; trtcnl 6 rcetnviene C;
ca miu 0.6 mg/I; lead 4 mg/1.
ORDS : Air Str:ccing; Ground 4 azer; Ground ater Monitoring; Ground
4acer Treatment; eavy Metas; C ; 3rgar.ics ; PCZ; Surface 4ater, C. ‘/CC
—93—
-------
IcRT:- AXOT? ARS IIC TRCXIDE, ND
First Remethal Action
SeQtamber 26, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The North Dakota en c Triox de site consists of twenty towr .shi s in
the Richlar.d, Ransom, and Sargent counties ir. southeastern Ior:h Dakota.
About 4 , 00 people liie in this soarsely populated Ea 1and area. Ground
water use includes residential cons pcion. irrigation. and l ves:ock
watering. The contamination, l mited to ground water, appears to have two
sources: natu:a11, occurrir.g arsenic contained in shaics native to the
area; ar.d an eszinated J30,000 rounds of arsenic—laced bait used :0 cor.trol
grasshocoer stations in the L 30s and 1940s. Zr. 1979, dur ng cua1 tv
mor. toring of the munic pai water SUD iiCS, the water Sucoly and ?cllut cn
Control div s on of the North Dakota State Department of Health detected
elevated levels of arsenic in the to s of Lidge ood and d ere.
Adthtior.al monitoring found widespread and highly variable occurrences of
arsenic in rural areas. In the late 1970s, aoorox rnately 273 homes n
Lidger- ood. which use private well systems. were considered to be at a
health risk due to arsenic exposure. nergency ResQonse Action,
nsti:uted by the A ar.d ioclemer .:ed in 1986, cor.s st d of LnstallLng
point—of—use treatment un :s for affected households, and :cv ded for
further study of a fo er a:sar. c—bai: mix r.g s:ta at 4 ere. Th pr: a:y
contaminant of concern is arsenic in various Eoc-ms.
The selected remedial action for this s :e Lncludes: excans;or. and
hookuc of homes to the ex sz r.g Richland Rural acer S’;stam; cor.s:ruz: on
and hookuc of homes to a ne rural water treatmer.: ar.d d str but or. s-zs:en.
and evalua: on of ns:itut onal controls. Ground water treatment areaw de
was ruled out as tec cally infeasible. the estimated capital cost for
:h s selected remedy is 32,212,600 w :h ar ual C& of 3 7,40Q
ZRFCR ANCZ SAND _ R.DS ‘R 3C .LS . us: attain arseric ccncen:ra: on off .E
r. the nical water supply.
INSTIT1 IONAL CCNTRCLS : Institutional controls will be further evaluated
during the design phase. This inves: gat on iil include analyses of
restrictions on existing ‘dell use and new well dr ii ng, a well pe t: nc
system, and ecor. ic ncer.: ves for partici;at on n :r.e new d strioutior.
system and non—usa of well water.
:
-------
SMUGGL ER Oui rrAIN, CO (EDD)
First Remedial Action
September 29, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Smuggler 1ountain site is located immethately northeast of the City
of Aspen in Pitkin County, CO. tt comDrises 110 acres of waste rock,
tailings, and slag cor.ta ning high levels of lead and cadmium. The SitC s
in close proximity of Aspen, CO which has a year—round population of
,500. In many cases. development in the Aspen area has taken place
directly over waste piles, or waste piles have been moved to the sides of
develooed areas and remain as bet-ms or mounds of contaminated soil.
Portions of contaminated soil have also been used for fill Lfl some areas.
The City of Aspen obtains drinking water from surface waters in the area.
The Roaring Forke River passes the site approximately 1,000 feet
downgradient to the southwest, and is the nearest surface water. The
mining wastes which charac:er ze the site are the result of years of
extensive mining, milling and smelting operations. As a result,
approximately 410,000 cubic yards of wastes are highly discersed, and
little is kno about their d soosit on. Soil s the r mar- contaminated
medium; however, contamir.ar.ts have been detected in some ground and surface
waters.
The selected remedial action for the site s broken into two distinct
operable units. Opericle Unit 1: excavation and pe anent onsite disposal
of soils with lead above 5,000 ocrn, including a RCRA multi—layer cap; soil
capoing of all areas witn lead between 1,000 and 3,000 pm lead; five—year
ground water monitoring; and provision oi a peranent alternate water
supply for 5—7 residences. erable Unit 2: supplemental RI/ES, with
possible ground water remethat on and mine reclamation activities.
stimated capital cost of :ne remedy is 81,316,550 with annual C& 4 costs of
830,900.
PERFORMANCE STAWDARDS OR GOALS : Soils contam naced with lead above 5.000
ppm will be disposed of n a per nanent orisite storage facility; soils
between 1,000 o m and 5,000 ppm lead will be covered with 6—12 inches of
clean topsoil.
YWORDS : Alternate Water Supply; Ca oir.g; Drinking Water Contaminants;
Excavation; Heavy !etals; Ground Water; Ground Water onitoring; M ning
Wastes; O&M; Onsite Disposal; RCRA Cnsite Disposal Requirements: Soil.
—95—
-------
UNIO ’1 PACIFTC RAIL.ROAD , WY
First Remedial Action
September 26, 1986
ROD .kBST ACT :
The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Tie Treating Plant s located
southwest of Laramie, Wyoming to the west of Lararnie River. UPRR began
ooerations at the site in 1886 and treated railroad ties and other wood
products unt 1 1983. Wood preserving agents used by UPRR or its contractor
(the J.H. Baxter Com any) n the treatment included zinc cnloride
(1886—1931), a creosote oil and asphalt—based petroleum/residuum Oil mixture
(1928—1983), and PC? (1956—1983). During the first 70 years of operation,
process wastes from the plant were disposed of in the Laramie Waste
Collection ponds. Contamination outside of the collection ponds was
nit ally discovered in Octocer 181 as a result of RCRA interim status
ground water monitoring requirements. Currently, approximately 140 acres of
the 700 acre site are contaminated. The contamination ranges from soil
saturated with free oil to ground water containing d ssolved contaminants.
The primary contaminants of concern include: creosote, PC?, and oils.
The selected interim source control remedy s a Contaminant Isolat cn
System which includes: realignment of the Laram e River channel 130 feet
further west from the site; a soil—ber.tonite slurry barrier wall constructed
througn the alluvium and bedrock around the contaminated areas; a
reverse—gradient ground water draining and uznping system; an activated
carbon water treatment olant. The treated water will be discharged to th
Laram e River under the authority of an ‘JPDES permit issued and administered
by the State of Wyoming; and ground water monitoring. The estimated capi a!
costs for this remedy is 57,000,000 with annual O&M costs of 357,000.
? ERFOR M!CE STA ’TDARDS OR G LS : Performance goals not sDec fied :n the ROD.
: Ywos s : Clean Water Act 404 Permit; Ground Water; Ground Water
Mon tor ng; Ground Water Treatment; Metals; O ’1; Oils; Organics; SOil;
Slurry Wall; State Criter a; Temporary Remedial Measure; VXs.
—96—
-------
IROM 1CU? rrAnsI, CA
First Remedial Action
October 3. 1986
ROD ABSTRACT
Iron ountain ine (I ) is located n the southeastern foothills of
the Klan ath !ountains, aDcroximately rune miles northwest of the City of
Redding. California. Between the 1360s and 1962, I was periodically
mined for iron, silver, gold, copper, zinc, and pyrite. The mine area,
believed to be one crebody which has been segmented by faulting, s
located on 4,400 acres of property that includes underground workings, an
open pit mining area, waste rock dumps, and tailings piles. Rainfall,
infiltrating into the underground mine workings. mixes with ground •4ater
and the ore zone to produce sulfuric acid and high concentrations of zinc,
cadmium, and copper. The resulting heavy metal—laden acidic waters,
referred to as acid mine drainage (A ) , eventually discharge through mine
adits or ground water seepage into the Spring Creek watershed streams.
Spring Creek Reservoir, and the Sacramento River. The primary
contaminants of concern include A , copper, cadmium, and zinc.
The desired re.medial action for this site was not selected due to
excessive cost. Instead, a fund balancing waiver to the MCP was invoked.
and an alternative that most closely ap roaches ARARs was selected. The
alternative includes: capping 2.5 acres of selected cracked and caved
ground areas using a soil—cement mixture or other suitable material;
diverting clean surface water n Upper Spring Creek to Flat Creek,
diverting clean surface water in South Fork Spring Creek to Rock Creek,
and diverting clean Up er Sl ckrock Creek water around waste rock and
tailings piles; enlarging Spring Creek Debris Dam from its present
cacacity of 5,800 acre feet to 9,000 acre feet; im 1ement r.g oer meter
control as needed to tun m ze direct contact threat; and :erfoc ung a
hydrogeolog c study and field—scala pilot demonszrat on to better define
the feasibility of utilizing low—density cellular concrete to eliminate or
reduce acid mine drainage fo nation. The estimated capital costs for the
fund—balanced alternative is $68,100,000 with O&M present worth costs of
$4,100,000.
? E .FOR ANC STANDARDS OR GOALS : Below Darn the remed al acz ons
will achieve the Regional Board Basin ?lan objectives: copper 3.6 ugh;
zinc 16.0 ug/l; cadmium 0.22 ugh fcr every year evaluated except the
worst case year (1978) at which :ime SPA Water ality Criter a for
Protection of Aquatic L ife: copper 3.4 ugh; zinc 47.0 ug/l; cadmium 0.53
ugh will be met.
Y WORDS : Alternative Technology; Acids; Cadmium; Capping; Fund
Balancing; Ground Water Diversion; ea r; !etalz; Inorganics; 1in ng
Wastes; O& ; Sediments; State Cr ter:a; Surface Water.
—97—
-------
QUEEN CITY FARMS, WA (IRM/EDD)
First Remedial Action
October 24, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Queen City Farms (QCF) site is a 320—acre parcel of land located
approximately 2.5 miles north of the town of Maple Valley in King County.
Washington. The site includes a wooded area, a lake known as Queen City
Lake, six industrial waste disposal ponds, an airstrip, several residences,
and a gravel pit. The six ponds on the site were used for the disposal of
industrial wastes from approximately 1955 to 1964. Because of the time
period, few records exist regarding the exact types of wastes taken to the
site. However, in 1980 six waste ponds were sampled by EPA contractors.
The analyses of water, sludge, and sediment samples identified the presence
of 22,000 cubic yards of waste containing 44 priority pollutants. Some of
the contaminants found were: chromium, lead, PCBs, acids, volatile
organics. toluene and TCE.
The recommended Initial Remedial Measure is to be carried out in three
phases. Phase 1 will include mobilization onto the site, installation of
the initial upgradient water diversion system, and processing of Pond 1
waste. Phase 2 will involve processing of Pond 2 and 3 materials. Phase 3
will include the installation of the final upgradient water diversion system
and cap, final grading and revegetation, and demobilization from the site.
A truck—mounted phase separator will be located onsite to process the
waste. Pond water will be used to charge the separator. Sludge will be
pumped to the separator using a pond skimmer which will be supplemented with
mechanical excavation of sludge. The phase separator will separate the
sludge into four components: grit, cake, oils, and water. The liquid
portions of the separated phases will be stabilized such that an exothermic
reaction occurs and no free liquid is present. Stabilized material and
other solid products produced during the phase separation will be treated as
hazardous waste and transported to a RCRA-permitted chemical waste
landfill. In addition, contaminated soils which surround the ponds will be
moved into depressions created by removal of the chemical sludge (prior to
capping). Finally, to assess the performance of this source control
remedial action, a monitoring system will be installed. Total capital cost
for all phases of the selected initial remedial measure is estimated to be
$3,439,000. In accordance with the CERCLA Section 106 Consent Order, the
PRPs will establish a perpetual trust to assure the continued funding of
monitoring and maintenance activities in the area of Ponds 1, 2, and 3,
where the Initial Remedial Measures will be conducted.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS : Not specified for processed waste from Pond
1 and excavated contaminated soil.
KEYWORDS : Acids; Capping; Carcinogenic Compounds; Chromium; Excavation;
Ground Water; Ground Water Diversion; Ground Water Monitoring; Heavy Metals;
Offsite Disposal; PCBs; Phenols; PRP; Sediments; Sludge; Solidification;
Stabilization; Surface Water Diversion/Collection; PCE; TCE; Toluerie; VOCs.
—98—
-------
TOFTDAF 1 DRUMS, 7A
First Remedial Action — FLnal
SeDtember 30, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The Toftdahl Drum site, a rox mately 15 acres in area is located four
miles east-southeast of 3actleground, asningeon , and contains three main
areas where hazardous substance hauling activities may have occurred: a drum
cleaning area; an n tial burial trench; and a final drum bur ai area. The
surface of the s :e slopes downward to the northwest to a spring and a small
westerly flowing tributary of Morgan Creek (informally referred to as Toftdanl
Creek), or about 350 feet to the southeast directly to Morgan Creek. The
general land use in the area is rural residential with approximately ]A homes
within an aDproximatelv 90—acre area. In the early 1970s, Mr. Toftdahl
allegedly had 100 to 200 drums conta ning unknown amounts of ndusz: al waste,
possibly from a plT400d manufacturer, delivered to his proDerty. His intent
was to clean and resell the drums. Unable to resell about 50 uncleaned drums,
he constructed a burial trench about 500 feet from the cleaning iocat:on.
placed crushed drums into the trench, and covered the trench with mounded
dirt. The drums were rediscovered n the mid 1970s when the Dav:s Fam lv, new
owners or a portion oz cne Tortcanl Qrooertv, attempted to lave the mound
over the burial trench. In 1978 or 1982, Mr. Tof:dahl removed approx nately
38 drums and thsrosed of them n a local landfill. while aoprox mately 12
drums were reburied in the final burial location. In 1982 the 4ashington
Deoartment of cology , notified of the cossible oresence of our ed drums at
the site, conducted an invesr gation. Aooro: mately s:: crushed and bady
rusted drums were sampled and stored ons te and a fence was placec around the
final drum burial area. In ‘!overnber 1983 the lashington Departmer.: of Social
and Health Serv ces (DSHS) determined, based on tne available sampling data
from nearby res dent al wells, there was no immediate oub1 c health azard .n
the drinking dater. owever, DSHS was concerned about :r.e ootent al for
future con:a.m nat or. from tne hicn levels of - ea’r; metals and svnthe:c
organic compounds detected n the soil and drum samoles. h le several
priority o1lutan:s were detected in tne RI samol ng and analysis program, the
concentration of such contamination 15 very small and could reflect a
source(s) not related to this particular drum c1ean ng and disposal
operation. In most sampling cases, the concentration levels could notbe
reliably differentiated from background values or laooratorv—introduced
variability. Io significant or exzans ve contam naz on of surface sois,
surface water, or ground water is present at the site. Indicator
constituents, defined as hav ng been detected at least one time during
nvestigat onal sampling :nc1ude hea’ ; metals, VOCs, base—neutral organic
compounds, cyan des, end PCBs.
the remedial action selected for this site includes: a no further action
response; and sem —armual ground water monitoring for five years. followed by
ten years of a ual mor.i:oring end ng continued fund ng by cne 4asn r.gzon
State Legislature.
P PFORMANCT SThNDARDS OR GCAL.S . Iot ADoilcacle.
E 4ORDS : Eackground Levels; Ground water Mon tor ng; o Action Alternative;
—99—
-------
UNITED OR
First Remethal Action — FLnal
SeQternber 12, 1986
ROD ABSTRACT :
The United Chrome Products (UCP) site s a former industrial hard chrome
plating facility located in Ccrva11 s, Oregon. UCP began electrop1at ng
operations in 1956. 3etween 1956 and 1975 an or.site dry well was used to
dispose of floor drippings, washings. and product ririsate collected n a
suxw within the building. The liquids were reportedly neucral zed with
sodium hydroxide and/or soda ash prLor to disposal. Use of the dry well was
discontinued in 1975. As a result of the Immediate Removal Action, to
stabi1 ze the site, all hazardous substance source materials have been
removed with the exception of residual sludges in the bottom of the plating
tanks. However, there s considerable chromium contamination in the soil
beneath and around the building and in the upper and lower aquifers as a
result of leaching from the dry well arid plating tanks.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: installation of
approx mataly 15 shallow wells n the upper confined ground dater zone;
installation of 5 deep ‘dells :n the lower confined production aquifer;
limited excavat on of 350 tons of cor.:aminated soil and offs te disposal;
installation of onsite treatment equipment (chemical reduction and
precipitac on) to remove chromium from extracted ground water; construction
of two percolation basins to flush soil; and nstallat oc of culverts.
Sst .máted capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is $l 580,000
and the annual O&M costs are approximately 5261,000.
PERFORMANCE STANOA2DS OR COALS : The cleanup criteria for the confined
aquifer is 0.05 mg/i and for the unconfined zone t s 10 mg/i chromium. A
treated effluent concentration of 0.3 to 0.4 mg/i chromium s ex ected to be
ma nza r.ed.
ORDS : Alternative Technology; Chromium; Drinking 4ater Standards;
Excavation; Ground 4ater; Ground ‘Jater Treatment; Heavy etals; Leachata
Collect or./Treatment; O&N; Offsite Disposal; Soil.
—100—
-------
(
SECTION III
RECORDS OF DECISION
SUMMARY TABLE
The FY86 Record of Decision (ROD) Summary Table provides an
overview of site problems, selected remedies, cleanup criteria and estimated
costs provided in the RODs signed during FY86. The tacle is presented by
Region, in alphabetical order according to the site name.
J
-------
FY86 RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY TABLE
01 Baird and
McGuare, MA
01 Kellogg—
Deering Well
Field, CT
6W, SW, sedi-
ments and soils
contasnina ted
with VOCs, in-
organics, and
extractable
organics
Sofls, sediments 191,000 cy
SW and 6W con-
taminated with
VOCs, inor-
ganics, pesti-
cides. dioxin.
phenols, base—
neutral com-
pounds, PAils
and heavy metals
6W, Soil and
air contaminated
with heavy
metals, VOCs,
toluene. benzene
6W contaminated N/A
with TCE, PCE.
OCE and other
VOCs
VOC-contamin-
ated 6W, SW
and soils
Extension of existing
water Supply
Excavation and onsite ther-
mel destruction of con-
taminated soils;
6W pump and treat
Bring into operation exist-
ing air stripping facilities
to remove VOCs from GW,
discharge to an existing
treatment plant
10,800 cy Excavation & onsite treat-
ment of soils via aeration.
soil washing or composting;
onsite disposal; 6W pump
and offsite treatment;
6W monitoring
Excavation will
remove approximately
95 percent of con-
tamination by mass;
action levels for 6W
remediation will be
developed during
design
Soils: eliminate direct
contact threat of soils
with arsenic >300 ppm,
lead >600 ppm, chro-
mium >1000 ppm; 6W:
treatment to MCLs
Air: remedy to achieve
NAAQS and unit cancer
risks
6W treatment will
achieve a 99 percent
TCE removal efficiency
which corresponds to
a io-6 excess
cancer risk
Soil treatment to
1 ppm TVO or lower;
6W treatment to
5 ppb for PCE and
TCE
2,372,000 57,000
(present
worth)
44,386,000 O&M
costs in-
cluded in
capital
cost es-
t i mate
263,000 52,836
(present
worth)
ROD OPERABLE
REGION SITE NAME, ST SIG DATE UNIT
THREAT/
PROBLEM
N/A
WASTE
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
PERFORMANCE
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
SELECTED REMEDY
STANDARDS/GOALS
CAPITAL
COSTS
N/A
ANNUAL
O&M COSTS
01 Auburn Road, NH 09/17/86 1st O.U.
09/30/86 1st O.U.
01 Industri-plex, 09/30/86 1st 0.U.
NA
09/25/86 1st O.U.
09/30/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
1,000,000 cy Soil grading and capping;
GW monitoring; OW pump &
treat; institutional
controls
01 Tinkham
Garage. NH
12,302,300
or
12,612,000
depending on
air treatment
(present
worth)
285,500
or
311 .000
depending
on air
treatment
2,058,000
874,000
—1—
-------
FY86 RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY TABLE
01 Winthrop
Landfill, ME
11/22/85 1st O.U. G4 contaminated N/A
(Final Remedy) with organics
Alternate water supply;
institutional controls;
ground water monitoring;
RCRA cap
42,000
(ACL not
exceeded)
360,000 -
1 ,480,000
(ACL
exceeded)
GW contaminated N/A
with volatile
halogenated or-
ganic compounds
(VHOs), includ-
ing TCE, PCE
and OCE
GW and soils
contaminated
with VOCs,
PCBs, inor-
ganics and
lead
Continue operation of
existing air stripping
system: GW punp and treat
28.000 cy Excavation, heat addition
and onsite landfilling of
soils; GW treatment & alt-
ernate water supply
Existing air strip-
ping system exceeds
all State and Federal
ARARs for GW (10 ugh
TCE for State; 5 ugh
ICE for Federal)
Specific performance 5.490.000
standards or goals not
outlined in the ROD
02 Combe Fill
North, NJ
Landfill
02 Combe Fill
South, NJ
Landfill
02 Florence Land-
fill, NJ
09/29/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
09/29/86 1st 0 U.
(Final Remedy)
Soils and GW
contaminated
with low levels
of VOCs. phenol
and base-neutral
compounds
Soils and GW N/A
contaminated
with VOCs
Soils and GW
contaminated
with heavy
metals, phthal-
ates and vinyl
chloride
RCRA Subtitle 0 landfill
closure
RCRA capping of landfill;
GW pump 8. treat; alt. water
supply
Removal & onsite disposal
of lagoon liquids & sedi-
ments; cap & slurry wall;
leachate collection and
treatment
Specific performance
standards or goals not
outlined in the ROD
Specific performance
standards or goals not
outlined in the ROD
Specific performance 8,021,000
standards or goals not
outlined in the ROD
REGION SITE NAME. ST
ROD OPERABLE
SIG DATE UNIT
T N P EAT/
PROBLEM
EST IMATED
WASTE
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
PERFORMANCE
QUANTITY
SELECTED REMEDY
STANDARDS/GOALS
02 Brewster Well 09/30/86 1st O.U.
Field. NY
02 Caldwell 09/25/86 1st O.U.
Trucking, NJ
ESTIMATED
CAPITAL COSTS
Establish ACL for
each ground water
contaminant
ANNUAL
O&M COSTS
6,000.000
N/A
163,912 27.468
48,000
06/27/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
N/A
10.500.000 168,000
46,060,700 673,000
170,000
—2—
-------
FY86 RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY TABLE
02 Kentucky
Avenue
Well Field,
NY
Soils and 04
contaminated
with dioxin.
PCBs, and
organics
GW contaminated N/A
with VOCs. ICE
and chlorinated
sol vents
Possible extraction and
incineration of non-aqueous
phase liquids; 04 pimip &
treat; construction of
plume contaminant systems
Hookup of all private
well users to public water
Supply; 04 monitoring
6.500 cy Excavation and offsite
disposal of soils and waste
material; GW pump and treat
Cancer risk lçvel of
less than iü° will
be achieved
Remedy to attain MCI
for ICE (5 ppb)
O&1I costs
not pro-
vided in
ROD
303,000 19.000
Effluent from 04 pump 2.322.000
and treat will attain
SDWA criteria
02 Marathon 09/30/86 1st O.U.
Battery. NY
SW. sediments.
and biota
contaminated
with cadmium.
nickel, and
cobalt
Soils and GW
contaminated
with ICE. DCL.
vinyl chloride
and copper
GW contaminated N/A
with VOCs. in-
organics and ICE
30.083 cy Excavation and offsite dis-
posal; sediment thickening
and chemical fixation;
marsh restoration; revege-
tation
GW pumping. onsite pre-
treatment and discharge
to a P01W; site capping
Sediments will be
treated to a 100 mg/kg
estabi ished background
concentration for
cadmium. Standards for
total cadmium water
concentra ions are
6.6 x 10 and 2.0 x
io mg/i for water
hardness levels of 50
and 200 mg/i respec-
tively
TCE & PCE. 5 ugh;
chromium and lead.
100 ppm; 2inc, 350
ppm; copper. 170 PPm
for soils based on
Federal MCIs and State
cri ten a
Extraction and treat-
ment until TVO con-
centration in GW
reaches 10 ppb or less
7,005,000
(sanitary L/F)
or
ii .735,000
(RCRA I/F)
REGION SITE NAME. ST
ROD OPERABLE
SIG DATE UNIT
02 Hyde Park, NY
THREAT/
PROBLEM
ESTIMATED
WASTE
QUANTITY
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
SELECTED REMEDY
80.000 tons
11/26/85 1st 0.U.
(Final Remedy)
09/30/86 1st 0.U.
09/29/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
02 Lang Property.
NJ
PERFORMANCE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
STANDARDS/GOALS CAPITAL COSTS 0&tl COSTS
Not provided
in ROD
VOC and heavy
metal -contajiii -
nated soils, 04,
SW and sediments
6 12.000
02 Metaltec/Aero- 06/30/86 1st 0.U.
systems. NJ
02 Price Landfill. 09/29/86 2nd D.U.
NJ (Final Remedy)
16,640.000 3,530,000
for year
180. 000
for years
2-5
127,000
for years
6-30
179 000
10.000 cy Excavation, heat treatment
and offsite disposal of
soils;
4.000 cy Excavation and offsite
disposal of soils, alter-
nate water supply
9,050,000
(present
worth)
1.010.000
(for
years 1-5)
—3—
-------
FY86 RECfl fl (IF AFrTcTflN IIMMAQY TaPir
ROD OPERABLE
SIG DATE UNIT
ESTIMATED
WASTE
QUANTITY
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
SELECTED REMEDY
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS/GOALS
ESTIMATED ANNUAL
CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS
02 Rockaway
Borough Well
Field. NJ
02 Sharkey Land-
fill, NJ
02 Vestal Water
Supply Well
1-1, NY
03 Army Creek
Landfill. DE
03 Blosenski
Landfill. PA
09/29/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
TCE & PCE con- N/A
tamination of
6W
Soils & 6W con- N/A
taxninated with
VOCs, ICE, in-
organics and
heavy metals
Soils, sedi- 700 cy
ments and 6W
contaminated
with VOCs,
PCBs, heavy
metals and base- 2,000 cy
neutral com-
pounds
VOC & TCE- N/A
contaminated 6W
GW, SW, soil
and sediments
contaminated
with VOCs,
benzene, in-
organics, heavy
metals
6W, SW, and
soil contami-
nated with VOCs,
inorganics,
benzene, ICE,
PCBs. pesticides
Rockaway Borough will con-
tinue to operate GW treat-
ment System
Landfill capping; 6W pump
and treat
Excavation of lagoon sedi-
ments and highly contami-
nated subsurface soils with
offsite disposal;
Excavation and offsite
disposal of surface soils;
GW pump and treat
Air Stripping of well 1-1
Downgradient 6W pumping
with monitoring; landfill
capping; possible upgradient
controls
Excavation and removal of
buried drums; offsite dis-
posal; alternate water
supply; 6W monitoring and
onsite treatmenL; capping;
source reduction program
Municipal treatment
system designed to re-
move TCE & PCE to 5 ppb
Performance standards
for 6W treatment not
outlined in the ROD
Soil removal to achieve
these levels: PCBs,
5 ppm; base-neutrals,
100 ppm, TVOs, 1 ppm;
and various different
levels for heavy metals
Specific performance
standards or goals not
outlined in the ROD
Sped F ic performance
standards or goals not
outlined in the ROD
Removal of contaminated
med ,a will attain a
10 excess cancer
risk
389,400 119,750
11,000,000-
15,000,000
13,000,000
estimated
baseline
cost)
307,000
or
393 • 000
with up-
gradi eiit
controls
REGION SITE NAME, ST
THREAT!
PROBLEM
09/29/86 1st O.U.
02 Syncon Resins, 09/29/86 1st O.U.
NJ
0 74,800
23,173,000 330.000
5,600,000 209,000
06/27/86 1st O.U.
09/30/86 1st O.U.
09/29/86 1st O.U.
1,900,000 cy
N/A
12,030,000
or 12,340,000
with upgra-
dient controls
534,300
for years
I&2
—4—
-------
FY86 RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY TABLE
Soils and bed-
rock contami-
nated with
acidic sludges
and heavy
metals, noxious
gas release
GW and SW
contaminated
with heavy
metals (nickel);
3 disposal pits
contaminated
with fly ash
6W, SW, and
soils contami-
nated with TCE,
PVC, EDC. VCM
17,500 cy Stabilization/neutralization
of sludge and perched liquid
zone; In-situ treatment
of bedrock; Capping
484,600 cy Capping (2 pits); capping
and upgradient 6W diversion
in one pit; alternate water
supply; possible deed re-
strictions: 6W pump & treat
25,000 cy Excavation and removal
of contaminated soils and
Sludges; oIfsite disposal;
capping; 6W monitoring and
treatment
Soils (surface 3,900 cy
and subsurface), 192,000 gals
sludges, GW,
buildings and
debris contami-
minated with
organics and
inorganics
Incineration of onsite
chemicals; demolition and
offsite removal of buildings,
tanks, and debris; pump
and treat waste water
lagoons; metal recycling;
analysis and possible
disposal of decontamination
metal recycling fluid
Specific performance 2,695,000
standards or goals not
outlined in the ROD
Recovery wells will
operate until concern-
tratioris of VCM, EOC,
and TCE reach lppb.
O.94ppb, and 2.7ppb
respectively for 2
consecutive sample
analyses
Specific performance 3,143,000
standards or goals not
outlined iii the ROD
03 Industrial
Lane. PA
09/29/86 1st O.U.
6W contaminated N/A
with VOC5, vinyl
chloride
Alternate water supply
N/A
30,800 0
ROD OPERABLE THREAT/
REGION SITE NAME, ST SIG DATE UNIT PROBLEM
ESTIMATED
WASTE
QUANTITY
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
SELECTED REMEDY
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS/GOAL S
ESTIMATED
CAPITAL COSTS
03 Bruin Lagoon, 09/29/86 2nd O.U.
PA (Final Remedy)
03 Chisman Creek, 09/30/86 1st O.U.
VA
03 Delaware City 09/30/86 1st O.U.
PVC, DE
03 Drake Chemical. 05/13/86 2nd O.U.
PA
ANNUAL
08.11 COSTS
Action for nickel corn- 14.119.000
plies with the AWQC
for protection of fresh
water aquatic life
(88 ug/l - 280 ug/l)
and salt water aquatic
life (17 ug/l)
1.904,000
16,000
506,000
(1st
year)
64,000
(years
2-30)
43.000
0
—5-
-------
FY86 RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY TABLE
03 Lansdowne
Radiation. PA
03 leetown Pesti- 03/31/86
ce, I .N
1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Homes contain-
mated with
raditAn and other
radioactive
materials
Pesticide-con-
taminated soils
and debris
Soils. GW, SW
and sediment
contaminated
with VOCs,
heavy metals.
ICE, PCE and
base-neutral
compounds
Demolition and offsite dis-
posal of two homes;
Excavation and offsite
disposal of contaminated
soils
Excavation, consolidation
and anaerobic biodegradation
of contaminated soil;
Removal and offsite disposal
of contaminated debris.
Site grading & capping;
monitoring and data collec-
tion
Soils. 5—15 pCi/g;
radon-contaminated
materials. 0.03 WI;
gaiw ia-contaminated
materials, 0.17 rem/yr.
DOT less than 300 ppb
for treated soils
Specific performance
standards or goals not
outlined in the ROD
1.014,000 10,000
(1st yr)
7.500
(2nd yr)
1,192,580 To be de-
term 1 ned
03 Middletown
Road, M D
03/17/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
No threat N/A
03 Millcreek
Dtinp, PA
05/07/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Soils, sediments N/A
and GW contam-
inated with
VOCs, PCBs.
inorganics,
heavy metals.
PAHs and phthal-
ates
Excavation and onsite con-
solidation of soils under a
RCRA cap; 6W p jnp & treat
PCBs, 10 ppm; PAHs,
2940 ppb; TCE, 10 ppb;
phenols, 9 ppm;
toluene, 1783 ppb
12,000.000 - 1,763.000
18,000000 (present
worth)
03 Taylor Borough, 03/17/86 2nd O.U.
PA (Final Remedy)
Possible GW
contamination
by VOCs and
metals
N/A
Semiannual GW monitoring;
No action.
N/A
0 16,000
REGION SITE NAME, ST
ROD OPERABLE
SIG DATE UNIT
THREAT/
PROBLEM
09/22/86 2nd 0.U.
WASTE
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
PERFORMANCE
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
SELECTED REMEDY
STANDARDS/GOALS
CAPITAL
COSTS
03 Limestone Road, 09/30/86
MD
N/A
3600 cy
(soil)
N/A
1st O.U.
ANNUAL
O&,l COSTS
4,000,000 — “minimal”
4 • 500 • 000
No Action
N/A
0
-6-
-------
FY86 RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY TABLE
03 Tybouts Corner
Landfill, DE
03/06/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Soils & GW con-
taminated with
TCE, benzene.
VOCs and inor-
gafli Cs
Excavation of waste and soils
with onsite consolidation and
capping. 6W pump & treat
For GW; 100 ppb TVO;
cancer risk for
carcinogens
4. 600. 000
(present
worth)
1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Soils contain-
mated with
tars contain-
ing phenols and
PANs
Soils will be çxca-
vated to a 10” can-
cer risk level for con-
taminants present
onsite.
04 Distler
Brickyard, KY
06/18/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
09/25/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
08/19/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Soils and SW
contaminated
with VOCs, PCBs
heavy metals.
PANs, chlorin-
ated aromatics
and phthalates
Soils, sedi-
ments, SW. and
6W contaminated
with VOCs, PCP.
organics, heavy
metals, chromium
and toluene
Soils and GW
contaminated
with VOCs. ICE.
toluene. heavy
metals and in-
organics
Soils and GW
contaminated
with VOCs, PCE,
ICE, toluene.
inorganics and
metal s
Excavation of soils, sedi-
ments and sludge with onsite
contairinent and capping
Excavation and onsite incin-
eration of soils; onsite
backfilling with decontami-
nated soils; 6W recovery
and treatment; storage and
analysis of recovered GW,
onsite carbon adsorption;
GW treatment
Not Excavation and offsite dis—
available posal of all contaminated
soil; GW pump and offsite
treatment at POTW
Specific performance
standards or goals not
outlined in the ROD
Excavation of all
soils containing PCP
in excess of 10mg/kg;
6W will be treated to
levels which comply
with Drinking Water
Standards or Water
Quality Criteria
Excavation of all
soils to background
levels; treatment
of GW to background
levels
Soils will be exca-
vated to background
levels, and GW will be
treated to background
levels
795.349 Not
available
3,000,000— 0
3.800.000
1,569,360
for years
I & 2,
46,360
for years
3-30
ROD
REGION SITE NAME, ST SIG DATE
OPERABLE
UNIT
THREAT/
PROBLEM
ESTIMATED
WASTE
QUANTITY
03 Westline Site. 07/03/86
PA
N/A
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF PERFORMANCE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
SELECTED REMEDY STANDARDS/GOALS CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS
04 A.L. Taylor.
KY
04 Coleman Evans,
FL
710 cy Excavation and offsite in-
cineration of tar deposits
FS estimate
$35,000,000
PRP estimate
315.000,000
N/A
9.000 cy
744,000 0
04 Distler Farm.
KY
08/19/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
8,000 cy Excavation and offsite
disposal of contaminated
soils; GW pump & treat
7.500 • 000
(present
worth)
11.138,400
113,600
(years
1-10)
—7-
-------
FY86 RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY TABLE
04 Gallaway
Ponds. TN
09/26/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Pond sediments
contaminated
with pesticides.
inorgani Cs.
toxaphene, and
chlordane
Excavation of sediments, on-
site disposal. RCRA Sub-
title C closure
Specific performance
standards or goals not
outlined in the ROD
344.735 163,265
(30—year
present
worth)
04 Hipps Road
Landfill, FL
09/03/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Q4 contaminated N/A
with VOCs, ICE,
metals and BTX
fractions
GW ptinp and treatment at
POTW; RCRA Subtitle 0
landfill closure; relocation
of residents
GW will be treated to
meet S WA requirements
or 10 cancer risk
1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Soils and GW
containi nated
with TCE. XE.
vinyl chloride
and heavy metals
Soil criteria: TVO.
lppm; lead, 0.5 mg/l;
nickel, 1 mg/l;
copper. 10 mg/l
d criteria: TCE, 3.2
ug/1; vinyl chloride,
1 ugh; DCE, 70 ug/l
653,730 364.215
(for
2-year
ape
at ion)
04 Lees Lane
Landfill. KY
09/25/86 2nd 0U.
(Final Remedy)
09/25/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Soil, SW, and 212.400
GW contaminated tons
with VOCs, heavy
metals. morgan—
ics
4,800 cy
(for a
cleanup
level of
20 ppm)
Removal of exposed druns
and offsite disposal;
capping; gas collection
and venting system; possible
alternate water supply; GW
monitoring; bank stabiliza-
tion; institutional controls
Excavation of PCB-con-
taminated soils with either
onsite incineration, offsite
incineration; or solidi-
fication/stabili2ation of
the waste
Specific performance
standards not Out-
lined in ROD; ACL will
be developed from GW
monitoring data
Onsite in-
cm. 1.1—1.8M
Offsite in—
cm. 1 2—2.OM
Sal id/Stab.
750.000
REGION SITE NAME, ST
ROD OPERABLE
SIG DATE UNIT
THREAT/
PROBLEM
ESTIMATED
WASTE
QUANTITY
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
SELECTED REMEDY
1.600 cy
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS/GOALS
ESTIMATED
CAPITAL COSTS
04 Hollingsworth, 04/10/86
FL
ANNUAL
O&H COSTS
3,900,000
4,400,000
Not Excavation, aeration and
available onsite replacement of
contaminated soils; GW
pLsnp and treat
Not
specified
04 Mowbray Engi-
neering. AL
Swamp soils con-
taminated with
PCBs
2,343.000
Soils with 25 ppm PCB5
or greater will be
excavated and treated
127,440
O&M costs
included
in esti-
mated
remedy
costs
—8—
-------
FY86 RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY TABLE
ROD OPERABLE
REGION SITE NAME, ST SIG DATE UNIT
09/26/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Soil & pond
waters contami-
nated with
sludges, heavy
metals, VOCs,
and inorganics
Soils. GW, SW
and sediments
contaminated
with heavy
metals
PCB lppm,
approx.
48.000 cy;
lead 1000
ppm. 21,500
cy;
arsenic) 5
ppm,
9,000 cy
(waste qtys.
not additive)
94,000 cy
(soil)
20,000 cy
(sediment)
GW contaminated N/A
with VOCS. PAils,
PCBs, PCE, in-
organics and
pesticides
GW contaminated N/A
with VOCs, in-
organics, ICE,
and metals
RCRA Subtitle 0 landfill
closure; leachate collection
treatment, and onsite dis-
posal; SW treatment and
onsite discharge; cover
system for sludge pond
waste
Excavation, solidification
and onsite disposal of’
contaminated soils and
sediments; Q4 pLIUp & treat;
SW treatment indicator
GW pimp & treat, discharge
to SW
GW monitoring; installation
of additional monitoring
wells; institutional
controls
Specific performance
standards or goals not
outlined in the ROD
Cleanup criteria for
indicator chemicals
were set based on
Federal and State
standards and risk-
based levels
GW will be treated to
attain ACL equivalent
to io excess cancer
risk
462,025 44,900
for 1st
year;
34,900
for sub-
sequent
years
THREAT/
PROBLEM
Soils, sedi-
Iments and 4
contaminated
with PCBs,
organics and
heavy metals
WASTE
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
PERFORMANCE
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
QUANTITY
SELECTED REMEDY
STANDARDS/GOALS
CAPITAL
COSTS
DM1
COSTS
stabilization, and onsite
exceeding
1 ppm
PCB,
disposal of
soils
1000
5 ppm
ppm lead,
arsenic
and
Collection
and offsite
disposal of
free oil
N/A
04 Pepper’s Steel, 03/12/86 1st O.U.
FL (Final Remedy)
04 Pioneer Sand.
FL
04 Sapp Battery, 09/26/86 1st O.U.
FL (Final Remedy)
04 SCRDI/Dixiana. 09/26/86
SC
05 A&F Materials, 08/14/86 2nd O.U.
IL (Final Remedy)
14,318,544 25,631
75 1.250 2,128.100
(30-year
period)
N/A
PRP will pay
for remedy
costs
PRP will
pay for
O&H costs
-9-
-------
FYR6 R CflPfl 01 nrrTclflN SW1HAPY TARIF
ROD OPERABLE
REGION SITE NAME, ST SIG DATE UNIT
05 Arrowhead
Refinery, MN
05 Burlington
Northern. MN
09/30/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
06/04/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Soils and small
areas of GW con-
taininated with
creosote wastes
including PAHs,
phenols and
heterocyc 1 es
SW. sediments.
GW and soils
contaminated
with heavy
metals and
cyanide
Onsite
soils with
) SOOppm
lead.
20.000cy;
battery
casing
chips. 3.800
cy; offslte
soils not
specified
Excavation and offsite dis-
posal of all soils with
500 ppm lead; Excavation
and onsite disposal of all
soils with lead between
background and 500 ppm
Excavation and onsite
aerobic breakdown and
transformation of contain-
mated soils and sludges,
capping
Excavation, solidification!
fixation and offsite dis-
posal of metal hydroxide
sludges; GW pump and treat
Offslte disposal of
soils with lead
>SOoppin. Onsite
disposal of soils
with lead between
background and 500 ppm.
Excavation of offsite
soils will be conducted
until background levels
are reached.
Soils and sediments
will be excavated and
tre ted to achieve a
100 excess cancer
risk level; GW treat-
ment will remove 98
percent of VOCs
Possible goals are to
achieve detoxification
of soils as defined by
the microtox test; and
achieve total PAH and
benzene extractable
concentrations in the
treatment zone equal to
or less than concentra-
tions present in soils
left in place
GW cleanup based on
current lowest regu-
lated concentration
for each indicator
chemical; soil cleanup
based on endangerment
assessment
22,000,000 130,000-
180,000
1,256.700— 115,000
1,335,400
TM RE Al/
PROBL EM
05 Arcanum Iron & 09/26/86 1st O.U.
Metal. OH (Final Remedy)
ESTIMATED
WASTE
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
PERFORMANCE
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
QUANTITY
SELECTED REMEDY
STANDARDS/GOALS
CAPITAL
COSTS
0&H
COSTS
Soils, Q4, SW,
and sediments
contanil nated
with lead,
antimony
and arsenic
Q4, soils and
sediment con-
taininated with
VOCs, PAHs. and
lead
9,929,000 37.000
Excavation and onsite inciri-
erat ion of contaminated
soils, sediments, and
sludge; GW pump and treat;
alternate water supply
4,600 cy
(sludge)
20,500 cy
(soils R.
sediments)
9,500 cy
250 cy
05 Burrows SanI- 09/30/86 1st O.U.
tation Site, MI (Final Remedy)
562.000 36.000
-10-
-------
lYRE. PFCflQn flI nFrTcTflIJ cIIMMAPY TARII
05 Fields Brook. 09/30/86 1st O.U.
OH
05 LaSalle Elec-
trical. IL
4 contaminated N/A
with heavy
metals. ICE,
cyanide and
VOCs
Brook sediments 36.000 cy
contann nated
with VOCs, heavy
metals. ICE.
PCE, PCBs, and
base-neutral
compounds
Soils and sedi-
ments contami -
nated with or-
ganics and
heavy metals
Offsite soils
contaminated
with PCBs
Excavation, solidification
and onsite disposal of
contaminated sediments
4.000 cy Excavation, solidification
and offsite disposal of
soils and sludges
110.000 gal Removal, solidification and
offsite disposal of aqueous
lagoon wastes
Cleanup levels will
achieve an appropriate
ingestion rate of 0.lg/
day of soil for a 70kg
adult
Sediments with con-
tain nants above the
l0 excess cancer
risk level will be
excavated and con-
sol idated
Excavation and incin-
eration of soils with
greater than 5 ppm
PCBs in the first 12
inches of soil, and
greater than 10 ppm
in soils at depths
below 12 inches
26,400,000
(present
worth)
05 Byron Johnson 09/23/86 2nU O.U,
Salvage Yard.
IL
ROD
REGION SITE NAME, ST SIG DATE
OPERABLE
UNIT
THREAT/
PROBLEM
WASTE
QUANTITY
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
SELECTED REMEDY
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS/GOALS
ESTIMATED
CAPITAL COSTS
ANNUAL
O&H COSTS
Provision for alternate
water supply via home
carbon treatment units and
bottled water
05 Forest Waste,
MI
05 Lake Sandy Jo.
IN
626,800
(5-year
present
worth)
72,000
16,000 cy Excavation, thermal
treatment, onsite residual
disposal of contaminated
sediments
Remedy lll comply with 115.500
the 10_b cancer risk
levels for the suspected
carcinogens
Sediments will b ex— 35,100.000
cavated to a 10
excess cancer risk or
to 50 ppm PCBs or less
1,295,000
06/30/86 2nd O.U.
09/26/86 1st 0.1.1.
(Final Remedy)
08/29/86 1st O.U.
Soils, SW and
sediments con-
taminated with
PAils, base-
neutral com-
pounds and heavy
metals
2,500 cy Excavation and onsite con-
solidation of contaminated
sediments, soil capping;
alternate water supply
25.530 cy Excavation and onsite
incineration of offsite
soils
4,747,000 63,000
—11—
-------
FY86 RECORD Of DECISION SUMMARY TABLE
ROD OPERABLE
SIG DATE UNIT
ESTIMATED
WASTE
QUANTITY
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
SELECTED REMEDY
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS/GOALS
ESTIMATED ANNUAL
CAPITAL COSTS DAM COSTS
OS Metainora Land-
fill, HI
6W and soil con- 18.150 cy
taminated with
VOCs, including
PCE and TCE,
and heavy metals
Excavation and offsite
incineration of wastes
from areas 1 and 4
The FY88 RI/FS will
establish soil and
ground water cleanup
targets
05 New Brighton! 06/30/86 4th O.U.
Arden Hills/
St. Anthony.
MN
05 Novaco Indus- 06/27/86 1st O.U.
tries. MI
6W contaminated N/A
with TCE. PCE
and other or-
ganics
Chromi tin-con-
taminated 6W
Well construction to pro-
vide an alternate water
supply
36,000,000 6W pump & treat; discharge
gal to SW
6W treatment will 560.000
achieve Federal or
State drinking water
criteria
05 Reilly Tar
& Chemical, MN
05 Spiegelberg
Landfill, MI
Soils and 6W
contaminated
with PANs and
phenols
Soils, 6W
contaminated
with sludge
and paint
wastes consis-
ting of VOCs
and base-neutral
compounds
800,000 cy-
1 ,000,000cy
6W pLgllp and treat; capping
and filling of exposed
wastes; discharge of hazard-
dous waste to sanitary sewer;
GW monitoring
Drinking water
criteria for PANs
were developed through
State and EPA con-
sul tat ions
All mater 1 als exceed-
ing a 10 excess
cancer risk will be
excavated as defined
in the ROD
Cost es-
t imates
not
fully
developed
06 Cecil Lind-
sey, AR
04/23/86 1st O.U. No significant N/A
(Final Remedy) threat
No action, with site access
restriction and GW monitoring
REGION SITE NAME. ST
THREAT!
PROBLEM
09/30/86 1s O.U.
41,500,000 0
(30-year pre-
sent worth)
05 Seymour, IN
Not applicable 600,500
05/30/86 2nd O.U.
09/30/86 1st O.U.
09/30/86 1st O.U.
22,820
419,000
(for 6—
year per-
iod)
Soil and 6W
contaminated
with VOCs,
organics, heavy
metals, toluene,
benzene
101 .690,000
gals
Extraction and treatment of
6W
Cost esti-
mates not
fully deve-
loped
550,000
(present
worth)
Water discharge will
conform with POT .I
standards
5,000 cy Excavation of waste
materials with: offsite
incineration of liquid
paint sludges;
10,000 cy offsite disposal of solid
paint sludges
O&M costs
included
in capital
cost esti-
mate
15,771,000 - 0
18, 395,000
Not applicable 61,000 10,000
—12-
-------
FY86 RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY TABLE
ROD OPERABLE
SIG DATE UNIT
ESTIMATED
WASTE
QUANTITY
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
SELECTED REMEDY
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS/GOALS
ESTIMATED ANNUAL
CAPITAL COSTS O&H COSTS
06 Odessa Chro- 09/08/86 1st O.U.
mium I, TX
06 Odessa Chro- 09/08/86 1st 0.U.
mii.nn II, TX
Soils and Q4
contaminated
with VOCs. PAHs,
PCBs, ICE and
fuel oils
GW contaminated N/A
with chromium
and other heavy
metals
OW contaminated N/A
with chromium
22.500 cy Excavation and offsite dis-
posal of contaminated soils
and drums; OW pump & treat;
cap
Negotiating agreements with
Odessa City to extend water
supply; construct water
distribution system
Extension of municipal
water service to affected
areas
Excavation of soils to 14,990,000
100 ppm PCBs; treatment
of OW contamination
below 1 ppb TCE
06 Sikes Disposal
Pits, TX
09/18/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
GW. soils and SW 150,000 cy
contaminated
with organics ,
BIX fractions
Excavation and onsite in-
cineration of sludges and
soils; onsite ash disposal
Sludges and soils will
be excavated to 10 ppm
VOAs
0 United Creo-
soting Site.
TX
07 Des Moines
TCE, IA
Soils contami—
minated with
PCP, PANs and
creosote
OW contaminated N/A
with ICE. PCE
and other or-
ganics
OW pump & treat; discharge
to SW
Excavation and dis-
posal of all soils
contaminated above
100 ppm PAN
Extraction and treat-
ment will continue
until maxinun TCE
conc. in monitoring
wells is 5 ug/l or
less for 4 corisecu-
tive months
Cost estimate 43,000
undeveloped
07 (llisville, HO 09/29/86 2nd 0.U. Soil contami-
nated with
dioxins. heavy
metals. VOCs
Not Excavation and onsite
available interim storage of dioxin
contaminated soil; excava-
vation, transport 8. offsite
land disposal of soils
containing nondioxin waste
REGION SITE NAME. ST
06 Geneva In-
dustries. TX
THREAT/
PROBLEM
09/18/86 1st O.Li.
(Final Remedy)
Not applicable
247. 920
532.000
(years 1
and 2)
14.350
51 .575
09/30/86 1st O.U.
07/21/86 1st D li.
Not applicable 476,570
84,000 cy Excavation and onsite con-
solidation of soils; tem-
porary cap; permanent
relocation of 6 households
102,217,000 41,000
1,196,000 63,000
Not available
20,200,000
estimated
present
worth
O&M costs
included
in esti-
ma ted
capital
costs
—13-
-------
FYR6 RFrflPfl 1W flrrTcTflIJ ciiI4MaPV TARI
ROD OPERABLE
REGION SITE NAME. ST SIG DATE UNIT
08 Denver Raditin/ 09/30/86
ROaCO, CO
2nd O.U. Soil and build-
ings contami-
nated with
radiun
Excavation and offsite dis-
posal of contaminated soils
and debris; or
Excavation, stabilization
and temporary onsite consoli-
dation of contaminated soils
139,300 6,000
(initial
cost)
08 Denver Radium 03/24/86 1st O.U.
Site Streets,
CO
08 Libby Ground 09/26/86 1st O.U.
Water, MT
Asphalt con-
taminated with
radiun
Soil and GW
contaminated
with creosote.
organics, and
inorganics
38,500 cy Leave contaminated material
in place; institutional con-
trols; routine maintenance
Alternate water supply;
institutional controls
Remedy meets standards 30.000
for “Remedial Action at
Inactive Uranhiaii Pro-
cessing Sites”
152,000
(includes
first year
DAM costs)
PRP will
assume
costs
08 Marshall
Landfill, CO
09/26/86 1st O.U.
(Final Remedy)
Onsite G.4 and SW N/A
and offsite GW
contaminated
with VOCs, or-
ganics. heavy
metals. ICE,
PCE and benzene
Fencing, regrading, and
revegetation of site;
construction of perimeter
ditches to collect contami-
nated GW; air stripping;
GW and SW nonitoring
Contaminated water
will be treated to
achieve removal of:
benzene 0; TCEs 0;
cadmium 0.6 mg/i;
lead 4 mg/i
08 North Dakota
Arsenic
Trioxide, ND
08 S mjggler
Mountain. CO
Soil and GW
contaminated
with cadmium,
lead, heavy
metals
Expansion of rural water
system; construction of
system and hook-up of homes;
treatment system construc-
tion; possible institutional
controls
410.000 cy Excavation; onsite disposal;
capping; GW monitoring;
alternate water supply;
possible GW treatment
Ensure that water
supplied for domestic
and agricultural
purposes attains the
MCI for arsenic
Excavation and onsite 1,816,550
isolation of soils with
lead greater than
5000 ppm; GW will
be monitored to comply
with SDWA Standards
650,000
1st (total
cost for
years
2-10)
THREAT/
PROBLEM
ESTIMATED
WASTE
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
PERFORMANCE
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
QUANTITY
SELECTED REMEDY
STANDARDS/GOALS
CAPITAL
COSTS
O&M
COSTS
7,000 cy
of soil
200 cy of
demolished
buildings
Remedy meets standards 1,417,000 0
for “Remedial Action at
Inactive Uranium Pro-
cessing Sites”
N/A
N/A
Costs will
vary
64,000
PRP will
assume
costs
09/26/86 1st O.U. GW contaminated N/A
(Final Remedy) with arsenic
09/26/86 1st O.U.
1,819,000 152,800
2,296,000
(includes
year O&H)
30.900
-14-
-------
FY86 RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY TABLE
ROD OPERABLE
SIG DATE UNIT
ESTIMATED
WASTE
QUANTITY
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
SELECTED REMEDY
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS/GOALS
ESTIMATED ANNUAL
CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS
08 Union Pacific
Railroad, WY
10 Queen City
Farms, WA
Soil and GW
contaminated
with PCBs,
creosote, or-
ganics
SW runoff from
Iron Mountain
contaminated
with acid mine
drainage (AND)
Consisting of
sulfuric acid
and heavy metals.
Fish and sediment
in local SW are
also affected
Soils, sediments 22,000 cy
and SW contami-
nated with VOCs,
chromium, lead.
ICE, PCB5 and
acids
Contaminant isolation
system consisting of re—
channeling the river;
treatment of contaminated
ground water with a carbon
adsorption system: slurry
wall; GWmonitoring
Capping of selected cracked
and caved ground areas; dam
enlargement
Excavation, stabilization
and offsite disposal of
sludges, sediments and
soils; cap placement
Specific performance
standards or goals not
outlined in the ROD
Cleanup program will be
designed to meet EPA
Water Quality Criteria
for Protection of
Aquatic Life for the
Nworst case condition
of 1978
Specific performance
standards or goals not
outlined In the ROD
O&M costs
included
in capital
cost esti-
mate
3.439.000 O&M to be
conducted
and funded
by PRPs
10 Toftdahl
Druns, WA
09/30/86 1st O.U. No significant N/A
(Final Remedy) threat
10 United Chrome. 09/12/86 1st O.U.
DR (Final Remedy)
GW and soils
containi nated
with chromium
No action; GW monitoring by N/A
the State of WA
Excavation and offsite dis-
posal of soils; flushing of
soils above shallow GW
table; 4 pump and treat;
discharge to P01W or SW
Treated effluent. 0.02 1,580,000
mg/i chromium; confined
aquifer. 0.05 mg/i
chromium; unconfined
aquifer, 10 fig/i chro-
mi un
REGION SITE NAME, ST
TM RE AT/
PROBLEM
09/26/86 1st O.U.
09 Iron Mountain. 10/03/86 1st O.U.
CA
10/24/85 1st O.U.
Greater
than
700,000 cy
2.5 acres
(to be
capped)
7,000.000 57,000
72, 100 , 000-
85,100.000
(present
worth)
350 tons
(for off-
site dis-
posal)
0
0
261 .000
-15—
-------
SECTION IV
INDEX OF APPROVED
REMEDIAL ACTIONS: FY 1982 - 1985
The Index o Approved Remedial Actions provides an overview of the
selected remedial actions and subsequent actions or media to be addressed,
by future operable units, for all RODs signed between FY82-85. The index
is presented by Region, in alphabetical order according to the site name.
J
-------
I (lilt X lii Alhi*i (thJL I) UI ML 1)1 AL Al I I l.HIS
(AS OF 05/23/86)
Dl I 41 111(41 1 I: ,iij i Iscer I i*tj/
PIyinouth MA
Iii L•ijrIi 1 t.cOl9e 1111 hi
IILlIIL (i 141
ALl 1011
ilesited i i ALL Iiul
• t l (C4v41 son of Iletko ki’s Dulilli 811(1 oIlier
Cogitatul,iatetl o ii with coi* o I Idat loll
oii ite
• HUlA cdl llui ol consolidated wd teS
tja vent Ill4J JIId Ioriiiwater 1 1 141I4(JCiJICAt
• l.e tallutioiitjf Icachate collection
yStLIIl
• Collection ol IC4LII4LC and ott ite
dispo al at a lIceii ed wa 1 w tCC
t,C iiiI iit (ac ii lty Or Un lte treatineilt
411(1 (115(1*81 e to iIi ckgs*uin Brook
• E teiis Itlil Of public water Supply to tile
ilex I 111.111 IL *1)41 ‘PP I
• tence cut ire SIte
• iIl tdlIJt loll of Ill&We exteIl ive jrouiid
water inoiiitoriiiy y tciiI
• i(e.iiovai 4,1(1 IJihIte dispolal ol tjtikS
J 10C Sated pIIl w0(k 411(1 IiiuiI*Ijt lOll tO 8
UCHA JIllIrUveLl fJCility
• tiiciid l2AIStill(J wJtCI ui )ply ‘ y tL lLl
• 111 yiit IlL I IL lIleIILl )I JOC I..
• Surf aic w t i dIve. IUll dud cuikct Ion
y t CIII
• Vent fl two ,k wiLls 0(1-935 LOIiC&.tIUll
sy teui vent 1119 to the 4tllI(JSlliIeIt
• full peripheral IedLtlatC C01 ICL L IOII
y I LUI
I) I orlucu I jooii
ite jrailiiij
- Capp inj
- Relocat loll of turus dra Ill I C
) l ctt IL• 1*0 1* 11 AIcJ
- Dewat er In 11ie p*igld Jii&I Iuwei’ 1119
aled 9 (01 11 1*1 w4tC, Iev l
- Stisl/w. t Cxl 4V4L loll
— il wjtci iiiij l 1i 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 5 41111 UIl It
1411*11 I III lI j
— M I II II*i. III *J I II 11114 I ii y WI l ii
II I, 111*_Ill I II . 58 1 y
• tauuii(1 w t it
• SuurC ttiistr*jl
• lirollil itJt C1
• (IfSIlc Ill/IS
• bdet 1411115
• 1Ou1LL• (UlItlol
Media to he Aidges
sed or Stibsequcuit
Reijiedial Actions
Grouull.i water
(1511
RCqU IrcilIcuit S
Pt -oJec tLd
lie let lOll
Date
Site/State Aitivity Date Si jused
UI liCaCt)ll lIei jIits 1 C I 1st 9/23/1 1 5
ILcllIL±d ial
A L lull
1st 9/3(3/115
ilellled lal
Ait lUll
UI Lliarlis beorlje . MA ‘liL1 1/il/US
Ilcined 14 I
ALt loll
L II h loioiuonCo l und. MA 1st 9/30/11 5
I I CIIIcd 14 I
Ai 11011
SUUI LC LOlILI ol
-------
UIVIX Lit APPILIJVLIJ UIHLUIAL ACIlOtiS
(AS Of 05/2i/EIfi)
i4cdiä to lie Adlires- Projected
Sed or SteI eiu .it 08 1 1 lie let ion
iteyiosi Site/State AL.L! i bate Slyiled lteiiicdual Act iuti lteinedial Actions i enents — Oat
U I llo oiuotictj Ponds MA - treatineeci witti d Cit -ye of effIu ,it
( lo ut. ) wut r
— Cousi.uct ion ot otis itt, Iaadli I I
- at 5tosatuoei of wetland areas
i) liocoinOnto i uged and Djscleare e Strean
- Mechanical dred 9 ing and ons e
dispc al of edliii nts
— IreatileC nL of osid water in system
cumistructed for Kettle Pond area
4) Lit is Street
dra li t
) lsohLed Areas
Rëiii 1 or ont awugmated neater I a Is
and oiesite disposal
iii Keele kiiviron 1st ll/l /U3 . Reimeoval amid uftslte dscpusal of Iayuuie . LøouiiI water
ii ,,iLal • Mel Hci mit dl I contents teed I leee ,r and ii lyle ly SurIae:e waLer
Au loft COtltleiliglmteLj soil
Lii Il uKin sIte Mt Il M I/ l b/ Ui . Omesute ileatliny amId salvaje 01 tanks . Gitaimeed water
- Of (site disposal of liquids and sludyes Soil
(H MuK lii S ite M L iul Otis lie aerat ion of sot is Mu Li i, ihit ,’ ac (lute
Uui i iediu l - Otis itt , disposal of approtimimateiy 16
Action diumas
• Soil tests in petroleum coiitammilieated
area S
• Co.i ti uCt a yrowid wtt r cit-act ion.
ireatiimeiii • tfl&J surf ace water dlscfiarye
ys t CIII
• ROevaluate yround water peilom -miunce
s t andaris
• Otis ite yruuiid water and surface water
muon I br lily pro ramim
• Site reemio aI and clus j,-e activities
Li i Nyaieaa Chemmitcal • MA i t 9/4 1 ( 1 5 . t cavat ion .a ,itI consol Idat ion of iudy • t i ullIld watt,,
lL imied I a I de eo it s/ eeI lellcsit s • Scd imileilt S
ALt loll . (OIlS tiitct HCUA cap over cut lie 11111 • Sct lajeils
a, Ca
• lI iyrad lent suit aic and jruuimd wat i
livers lull SyS ( cmli
• l)uwimijr ad metmt •ji oiled water little Ii or lily
)‘S I CUt
-------
I tilIt- X Lit- A1 ’I’IIOVI It ILIMI I) I At- AL I IONS
(AS OF 05/2) 106)
SILC/Stdtt :
01 t t iciIlo lurin. U I
t)ate Slyiied
hi
It CIIILO I 4 I
Act ion
9/ JO/OS
Ilcuicti iul ALL I1ul ,
• INt Itt: t1l posa I u ir linur sly I ’L l ) 4 1 1d
iit ,ioI COntdlillildtetI oI h in a UCHA/ISCA
luu4(l II
• Site t:Iü ure JLLIVILIC
Ht dlu Lu tic AihIce ,-
Sed or Sult ellucIl1
Ucitied iul Act ions
Grouiid wIle.
l ’ro cc I ii
O .t1 Lie let io u
Het 1 u_i i Clilelli hut c
Exc4v4 1 lo ll uiid oltsita disposal of l yooii
Coiittnil S 4114.1 l iyli y Coot inInjtcd so I
Cup c i i i Ire Itc with 2 of ilay
IiiStahIuL loll of a Iu i y wal I
ltiiperv LOuiS C up
SUppICIIICIIL II I
9/22/Hi
tfouiid w Lei LILr4CL Ion antI treutineliL
sys (cii i
Lii .4eSLt:fui Sjiid I.
t.ruvcl• UI
9/28/84 • Insta ll t 1,11 1 at L rIiugi C4Ill &i filLers
a tCIil;tOi ary Ille Is lire
Iii Lull a I loft of a IJerIIIiilL’ll1 a It d(1i41 C
w 1er ujiply
1t1lIl I C Loilti oh
Gr u&jiid wit LI
I .’
I I LulL Il u I
A&1 lull
0? Uritlijcpui L • N J hi
0 t:iii .:ti I u I
At. 1 11) 11
Itt:lIl0V (1 wIS 1. c w 1 ci uiid St. I lilicill S I 111111
1)11114.1 aitil 1 )09 reLJl jilt: 41111 4 UVel 1.10111 41 4±4 5
- Ircut wJ i c water .iiij d I Clij, ye to sL reinl
• t*t.Jvule VOL coot uuiistiutt:d o ii aiiii Ill-
LIiIt:rdte tili itC iii ut1 i1e
- [ vu luute SIJI I wuSil 1119. 5e(Ji e&JJl 114 11 4 110
oilier ICt.IlII ltIoyleS LO reihice Liet: volume of
soils to lie lllCIllCCJtCd
• Cover e*l4vated I1e4 wlLh coulpucted soil
C
• lii t ii I ScI .&I1 It felICe di Oulld s lie 41111
work uleus
• I nip I cil IclI I thou Ito. lily prOiJr Jill Lu asseS S
c i IcC I lvCIlt:s S itt rctiictl I I I ilL 111) 11
• 1)1 spu u I iii UI I y was IC itiI ed lincilt /
s Isillyc V 14 tIlls ut: lllC lIlt:, 41 lull
• Itt.iiiuvj I 41111 di sgius i I u t LtiulL utilluliL t:&1
w tt± liy (lilSile trejIlilcIlt
• lIt tiw CAC4vJt lull 41111 (l±llIllVj I uS I siLt:
• Mu lii i t±luIIIC C p 1 1 1 14 1) lily of I SIC •ji utiiitl wit i,
• Ilcinuv ul 41111 iii I s lie ill S 05 .1 I of I ant and
wj l C
• lust ull 41 lull ul j Id It t:i I y p liit•l Inc
Iii tiuiiitl w41 Cl
I 41)11(111
i I0i 11 1 I—
lii Ne-Solve. HA
1st
ltciiit:d ial
Ac 11011
/ 1 1/ 8 )
01 Sylvester. Nil 1/29/H?
hI
Ucuiicd 141
At t suit
&) UIIIJ LILCI I ui IIl NJ
L rutiiid wJIcr
OI( iL CIJIILlllii-
1141 lull
No further 4CL lull
‘4/ ill/US
l /Jl/lI4
5ll I I
-------
INIJEX I)1 APPULIV [ I1 IIITMLtiIAL AtlI0t i
(AS 01 05/23/86)
Media to he Addres- Projected
sed or Subsequent OUI &let ion
Ueyion SIte/State Activity Date Signed Neliledlal ACtioii Remedial Actions ltequIreiiicsit Date
02 Burnt fly Uutj• NJ 1st 11/16/83 I*cavat ion and u1t ite disposal of Ii- Further Study
l e*iied i al qtiids. sludges, asphalt pfles, drumS, con— of tie western
Action taitilnated soil from lagoons and northern wetlaud
wet lands
• Restore sites Ot lijilial Contours and
veijelat lOll
• Monitor ground water for lIve years
02 Chiemiiical Loiitrol , NJ 1st 9/19/83 • Reu ival of gas cylinders . Ground water
• Reconstruct lois of Sturiii Sewer catch • Soil
Act ion ba ins aud grates . Sourt.e control
• C l aii 1119 of tise s turin Sewer sys t clii
and construct Ion of curbing
• Dcio.itaniiiiat Ion at ho trailer and
vacuum truck
02 0 loper lu ht • LsCavat ion and tmlt Ite dispasu I of con- . pio turtiier act ion
Property. NJ Reijiediul tniiiiiuated wa tc , soil ased surface
At.. I ion ii i uuu
• Ctiii tract ion at a HLIIA cup
• Pump a,lii treat tjrouisil water
02 Fr sedniagi 1st 4/ i(J/tIS • tin 4L tIOII No tar ihier act Ion
Property. NJ Reifled i a I • Mini I tor lug uns lie wells for I ive year S
Act lull - heed restrict ions
432 GINS Lasidt ill • NJ hi ti/ li/ O S . iuir truct Itin of cap. retjrad lug at
Ilcuited I ul Is t lug I audi I II s
Act lull . CoiisLruct Ion of act lvc gas cal lect 10 , 1
uiiul trcatiiie,it Sy teiii
• Criiistruct loll of ground water gmuiots lug 4111)
Lieu tiiieii t s ysi ciii • 1 reatiiient and di cli4i ge
at tjruuiiii water to POFtI or surface waters
• Ifeuiieti lat loll of lb II y Run and Br iar Lake
• Ciiii t ruc t lull of su, Igi..c w4ter cant rol s
• luip lenient at iou of 4110151 tar 11143 progr am
• Culls t faCt lull 411 I mice
• tAtCuld t Istiiltj water supply syStelil
431 Goose Fariii NJ hi • F lui is LullLali IIulJteuj sum I I and ijruuuiti water • Sal I
bImliLli I a I uuuldel I y lug s It C • LI eat ground waLes
Act 14,11 aitti le IlliC it lust U Still
• I uiiuiiiL I tt_ t liluj Ill tJ.Jl dull Lu uj (c, IlullIC tile
lutcul Iii .mp tile s IL C
-------
Ititlix 0 APPHIJVIII ItLIIIIJIAL All IONS
(As Of O5/2i/fI6)
U IIuj,hui l Uivei NY hi
LuIIcd I u I
ALt lUll
IILIIILd iu I
Act son
UeIIICiJI4I Act bon
• Lusiduct 1e t 1119 prO9rdlIl to detei in inc
extent oF PCII cuntarn iieat ion In tlruui
pit rc i deterallille need for oiI
.eiii d iot Iiii
• 1’o .i trut. t 9rOuild w It c r / leoclsate
col kct ion trench
• Isi talI Clily Cd dud slurry woII
• Coii truct dc i lye tjo collection o . Id
I fCdtlIICII I y t CIII
• UL .dter eACdvdte mid fill ledCiIdte
poiid 4011 I o joon
• Fence SIte ond work areas
• liuplenie,it urtoce woter cont’oh to
Ci I ug e proper Coii trucL loiI illIplelnell—
tut 10gb aud reliability of reiiiedi l coin-
pundit S
• lilIp ICiiiCgit lull. It or in j p. OlJI am 10 O eSS
ettect lvdIIi. ot reutitlidi 41 & IOn
- (ii Icc I 11) 1 1 Ogtii LrCUIlllCllt tif ij(uuiid wdtel/
leutliute hum trcnch• di o, 4i to PUN or
uut i WULC1 .
• Ill—pidLO LOIIIJIIIIIICIIL ul rellullalit isorel hId
uicililS itS
• [ VU I out 14.111 iii .dat d 1 liii i i WULCI I, c ot lileilL
I 1 iC ii Ity
• [ *cavdL 14.1 .1 aild oif lie di mgiosaI of
(0111 d li i ill Ut ci i O I I 4(41.1 WUS IC
• Pcuv iS loll Ioi a pet moilent 4 lIe. hat C
wlLdt u ip1y
• Moi.itorl.i j o hS Ste weIl for (lye years
lu. tile, eva luat lull u I
I leuiiuip leLililu IotJ cs
(or out dull ili 1 t1 i I vei
suuj illudlit
Projec toil
lielet Ion
flote
02 1 l Idi I 1411111 II I • NJ 1st
Il L11l 1 di a I
Act lull
11/J/ 1J 2 . Ill Ldhl4t 11.01 ut slurry w II
• Cull
• 11151 4 11 d l 11.111 01 (JruulI.I Wilt CC LU I itt. I iO(l
wci Is
• lreotiiieut ut ijrotmiid wOl Cs wi lii i ii slurry
WaIl at hid local P0 1 1 4
• SuiIacc waler
• Croti iii w L CC
9/JtJ/lI • lnst.ili ujiuuului wale. /Ic cli te t±ALCUCI lUll
uiu.i lllJc ( 14 )11 w I Is wi 111141 LU.lta illibeilt
‘ .1 LIII 10 I IIISII .iiiil dLi Jt CE SySI CIII
! uouI Site/SidLe
02 Coo e F4rlil NJ
(C D I II.
02 lie le.i Krai,icr NJ
Keti 14 to be Adilres-
sod or SuliSeI$uollt
ReIned 141 Act 11)115
0814
k u ii tiliell L s
Activity hate Sl9ued
1st 9/21/1 15
ldt iIetii4 I
Action
b/2U/d4
No Fur tiler ULt lOll
02 Krysowaly Ia..iu NJ
02 1 IjIJI I lj..ull i 1 1 NJ
• i to 1u tiic, dcl loll
11111
U .1111 .11 j I
A 1 lull
-------
INULX U I A1&’HIJV [ IJ HLMLLIIAL ALIlUNS
(AS 01 0 t/2i/ti6)
02 Lone Pine
Laiidiill NJ
02 LOve LanaI NY 1st
ii i iiICtI I a I
A t io i
02 Wean elItleld NY 1st
Ii ciitt±ii I I
Action
02 I’A thwe jti, NY ht
Ii iiii ii Ii I
At. I 11111
__________ Ni &iied ia I Act bus
• Puuip and treat jrouuid w4ter/IeaclIate
within tile contaitiineuit System and
dRchar Je to POIPJ. surface waters
or ap 1 iroved hazardouS waste Iacil ty
• I lIStal I 0 1L1 iiiusiltor ground water
wells duwiigradient of the site
• Flush Couitaiuimegil system to cleanse
encapsulated materIal of water-borne
COiltJll lil ldflt S
• Instal lot ion of islurry wall
• lilStàll4t ion ol a multi-layer surface
seal
• Installation oh ground water collection
welI
• Treatment 01 ground water by a P01
or OnSite plant
• Ilydr aol lU I ly u. le ss de iyubatcd sewers
• Nctiiove mid dewatCr COuitatnuiiatetl
sediiiieiits Is Un creeks
• iitspec L sewer teaches for dc l cci s and
repair da4nagcsi flood gate
• llredge and clean culverts
• Loiistrtac t a berm at the area iiear the
102nd Sti ct uuti ll
• Inter liii oiis lie storage of Cdimii iItS
• Install an udaiboiSLiatbuti buiidiiiy
• Heac t Iv4ti• 111 11 11 ic ipa I we I Is • constr uct
two air-stripping systemS. treat ground
wat r diSciiaige to public water Supply
S ys t ciii
• LiLtei ld existing Olean water li ics to
J] piiv t w l1 users
- Inspect McGraw-tdhon industrial SCwCI
and agia iy,e repair and rep Iii Ciliefit opt iouis
• IheCuiiiuieuid lust itut iouial controls reS-
(F IC I 1119 tjrouiiitl wdt CI liSti
• lull late SuurCC Cools o kilts
I 111111 ed c C oval loll .iuid otis lie I CIIIIIVO I
iii i. lUll J ill il4 ated i I sub o, I 0 5. C i. Out s
iii1 di tolls
€Oulp I c I loll u I I IC I ti
I nv est igat lOll tin the
exieliL ot oltsite
grouuld water Cüntaiiii-
Media to be Atldres-
sed or Siut etjiienL
ketisedial Actions
ohil
Ilegu ireiuieiits
PIOJCC I eti
tie let ion
(late
ion SitelSt ate Act Ivity ulote Signeti
02 t Ipari [ audI ill • NJ
(coat.
1st 9/2 1 1/114
Ikuised Ia I
ALL lull
9/24/1 15
flat loll
liii t ties eva I uat loll
of periliailelst reiiicd I a I
altcriiat byes
• Source eusitroi
• Of l iit. wet Iouutls
sE oily
I i
-------
INIJIX lit- AI 1 I 1 HOVLI) It t -Mt- hAL ALIIOiiS
(AS OF OS/2i/86)
jj gl Site/State
O PAS tlsweyO. NY
(coot. )
Act ivity lMte Si iscd
Hesusedial Act buS
• Construction of a perimeter slurry wall
• NINA Part 264 cap and site yradissy
• Ground water i isOnitorIsi
• Ground water auiil leachate recovery and
I lea I uiu ii t
Iledia to be Addres-
Sed or Subseqsiesit
Hewed 141 Act ions
Projec tel
1) 8 1 1 Lie let iou
itequ bre sitent s Date
Og Ps-ice Lauidt ill.
NJ
(J Slut lair Heliiiery
NY
1st
Iteined 141
Act iou
l t
Ilt_ •uu ll •lI i a I
Act loss
• Iteuuvsva I and ci I te di SpOsa I of drums
jijil tab pack S
• [ xcav tiugi auid utisite di pu l of
v IS Oily Colitausiluiated soil
• Pumping and 1-esnova! of Coultaininated
tjruwid water thur IIs J e cavat ion
• t4onituriny osiSite wells fur five years
• Additional soil aiid stream smnplsisy
Itepl ccuuseuit 411(1 relucat Ion ci the water
Supply well field and trasismissiosi
lac slit ies
• Asia lyS is ot $) luius inasla Jeusseult souri C
control and jrouusd water Li Cataueiit
r Cuili.d I e
• Removal and citsite dispu aI Ui tOO druuiis
isuuid cii I he surface c i the leiit r al
Elevated tauidfil l Ar j (CELAI
• I c avat loss ustl Otis ite consul Isiat loss in
the CIIA of w 5te Irons the South
I andi i I I area
• 1cisc cut ire site
• till the South L audi ill with C lean
till
• Lap tile consul idated waste iii the
lILA uS iuuj a UCNA approved cap
• Pa: t lal (iesiesee River chausss I izat ion
to 1 lreveuit eros bib 4 5 5 ( 1 1 loud log
• t vcavdt itill auitl cit site (1 ISIJOsa I of all
di titus l b packs ausd visibly
cositaunssi tcd soil
• Mutt itor iusuj mis it e wel l tui I bye years
• Site uj, 4dliig and so, fat e restos at logs
• Aulilit iousa I soil asid stu easui sautupl iisij
• Atidit iussal soil
and/or secl intent
e C4vat ion
• GrUund water
• Source control
• P I suite usia usa ticiusors t
• Source cuinfrol
• Ground water
• Nd isle, y port scsi oh
tii site
• Aslil it solid I ti i
d li i i icr sCti hitch
ejitavat lull
• Gruuuuitl w4i ci
• Suurce Louts ul
Ot Pijak Edruul. NJ
1st
Heisted ial
Au. t loll
1st
Ikuu ic d Ia I
ALt 5055
9/jU/04
9/ 10/ti 1
9/JO/US
9/ JO/UI
01 Spessce iaruui tlJ
-------
INIJIX U API’itUVktI HLMEIJIAL ACIIONS
(A OF 05/2i/IIG)
!i 5 . ! Site/St
02 wupe Oil, NJ
Activity i)ate Slijoed
1 st
HLThI±dI I
Ac I. Ion
9/21/85
itLlIii Li Ia Ac & ions
• Ueuiov4l and otfsite dIsposal of Laiiks
aiid buildunq debris
• Offsfte incineration, treatment or
di posal of tank contents
• Iiistaflat lou of cap
• Ixcavat loll and ofisite dIsposal of sludye
waste area
• E*cavat ion and oItsiie dIsposal of PCII
co,itaiiisnatcd soil
Mcd ia to be Addres-
sed or SUbseqUent
aeiiiedial Act ions
• Ground water
• Soil
Projected
(i& 14 (ieletioii
Kequ ireitient 5 Date
st
A eiiied Ia I
Act ion
1st
It 11 1 1L 1I i I I
Act loll
• t cavat lOll d Od ch .iuica I treatiiieiit of PCIJ
culit4ihiliated soil
• OltsIte disposal of coritagiutnated
Ispilaltic material
• Use of treated soils as Clean fill il l
esiCavated 41C45
• Hepave roadways anti driveways
• Ireit perched water in sewer trench
• Construct hiydi.aul ic barr icr at end of
sewer trench
• Cuiuiuct pilot pi.aiit treatability Study
to ietei’nnigit effect ivC PCD Lr atiiiegit
Si.. hiettie
• Sample fur PLUs iii soil, Sewdije auld
sed inient S
• ittiiov l ud of Rite disposal of liquid
I JiJUIJII COOt cut S
• I>hiys icul stthi I hit loll of la ioouis
• I If I ueii I pond c leillup
• Iliie stibiliiitioii
• Coiistruct Ion of a rouiiJ water ii ivel 5 lOll
I IlililiC I
• itciiuiv l atid ColiSo I idat ion of 10111 auiiinated
Sti I Is dud Seti iuii iit friii t lie di’ inaije
ditch, di iiu ije swale, buried layuun
jul drum iii sj)OS4 I areas and ouis itti
iii Spiisá I uiitier C l )
• 1 - i tiuriucu’ lud j idijooul died and s lud j
.Iisiuii il dl 1±1
• i sis I al I InCcs jiuti ii lkc to pi Ut sC t Site
l i till lt)ii — wear I I iii vL•lI t
• I .,siltii_ I ilre It•s ijiu si ushy of so I Is to
is ti’s IiIiu rtcuiI ii i CACJV3L 1(111 jul
1 151) liii)
I urt 15cr S I tidy ill s u.u —
I Jilsiuidi cii Iji Oisiiil wdt Cf
to assess heed for future
reined ia I at. t loll
02 14 Ide beach • NY
9/ 30/U5
9/t //tI5
01 hruiii Laysiusi , PA 1st
Iteincti ii i
Act loji
01 Duii jlissvulIe , PA
No I ui tlici di. t loll
ii
-------
INf IX (it A} PltOVff ltLHtt)IAL AIIIONS
(A Of 05/2i/tI6)
Media to be Addre - Projected
ed or Suli Ltiu git 0t h lie let loll
ftcg Ion S ste/State Act iv $t bate Signed licisiedla IACL lon t elllCdla I Act ions Ueguireiiietits Date
Di Drake Chernical PA ht 9/10/04 . Cap nd grade leacliate streaiu . Crowui water
Remedial - Part Sal e4cavat soil and temporary onsite . Surface water
Action turatje of co taiiil,iated etisuiegit . Source control
Ccui truct lull of ConduIt 4110 grallu lar
dtaiiis
01 [ oterprise kt 5/ 10/84 . Ultsste dl posal of oiis w ilI lil fail . No further act iu s
Avenu 1 PA IL iiedial key Indicator parameter test levels
Act loll . Uack( ill Ifig of site with so I is wh icli
5l4 5 5ed paramm ter test
• Grade aisd vegetate site as a liusal cover
0.1 F I Cimer & Is 1 5/4/84 • lllIpeoveinetIts Ill lml imuf 4C tur lug I ac silty . No to, tiler act loll
j O,t u I’A Heia medl 4l to 1 ncvCist release
Act Ion . Dos ite liista I lat Ion Ut pump Ilig wells and
jiack d colulall aerat loll to redUCe cOnt4mn s-
hauL levels in efflue.ils
• DIscharge of treated f(luent Into sur-
fat c water
• reatlllclit of coot aifliflated wells
01 llau vey-i(llutt • ft 1st 9/30/ 05 • lol Icc t &. ti cat surface water 1 dispose . iet iauid .
Hemedi .il utisite . Surface w tct
Act lull • I1LI 1IUVJI 4110 offsite ds po al of 5edlmmIe,st
sludges, bulk wastes, drums, and d Uris
• lnst li iJroulld water e*trjct IOn j ul11
ti eatlileIlt system, treat ground water 411 ( 1
apply to sofI to flush Out CouitauiInant
• P u epai C sIte surface (or flushing by.
p adlllg area • Cover 1119 wIth ‘ of clean
soilS establ Ish 1119 vegetat lo iS
01 il l va landfill, PA 1st i/U/US . lisstallot loll of an alternate water supply • NO further act loll
I ie u m m c.1 a I by ext cad lui9 all cx Is t 1 (19 water 1114111
ALt ion . COsistrumt sun of a UCI1A cap
• Construction of surf’oce water dIvelSiOll
and gas veat log systems
• Cugiduct a pruiilesiijss study to fully
ili I lOCale thi source of Culltallllgla-
14)11 aisml d teiiimln S lilt —hole am_I lv lty
• Cuui tr..c t 1(1 11 of .iii ouss It e t rc 4tiI . il
141 lllty
• l’iiiig .11141 Ii eat gi .iuli(I W4t , ( source
IIILI ul)
l1,,ii I I Ui 41141 ‘ .141151 IL I I.. t ‘liii 4 L I IS aliaS
.111 I .11 4 4Jl I
-------
INIJEX (I Al PI*UVkIJ It [ MIOIA1 ALl l o r iS
(A 01 O /23/H6)
HetIsa to be Adilre - •ijecteti
sed a , - Sbstqueiit tie let I OU
jlori Site/st ate At. t Iv Ity Ilate Ipied I*inediol Act IO,IS fleia d so I Act iuii Itcqulreiiietits tiate
Ui LOCI (dwJllISd Retuse 1st 3/2Z/US . txcavat Ion iid ottsite disposal of druuis * o lu (her 4LL loll
Site• PA HthnedIal 4 (1(1 blijIlly Contoa ilnotcd till
Action . Construct a leocliate collect ion system
• limstoIl tioim of surface water drainage
dIvers Ion
• Clay capping ond construct ion ul gas
went 1119 y temiis
• IlecafistruCt toll of access road
• l)ev Ioin Ii& smt of L Ik)II I tor 1119 progr amil
0) Luii 5duwile 1st . Perimi.*iieist re IOCOt loll of re IdC lItS . Oeiiiol IL 11111 iitl
Itad lot IoIl • PA Hemued s al remmlov31 of a
Act ion house
( Ii LeO 590 1 lecti IC • PA 1st /I 1/11. 1 • LMcovat Ion and reimujvo I Ut COimtamuhilOted • No furtime, aCt lUll
H OII C IJI aI soil. trasmslu , -imiei-s and ddjr s
Act loll • Ulisite disposal at soil
• I)cmmio lit lull of uiis It C 1)01 Id IllLJs
• tiiCktlliiiiij tJr4dliIg 411(1 vL9etat ion at
site to moinhmnl,e Closlon aild Control
i’uiiot I
(Ii P4c1tdou PA hiM b/ /tJ4 . L leais mitI , emliuve ulldeitjrUuiId w4St LEtitilid w.it C,
SLOrJ9C Ljlik
• [ LjvJtluii and ultslte dlspo al 0*
wIslOly cuntainimlated soil
• [ valuate osialytical results uS sail
JIIO
Ui HiA loo As 501 laL CS • ‘ii&i • Ueuuiv a I aiiii oft Site dispusa I ot the bruuimtl wJt C I
PA Reined lot oils it e t a.ik• debr is and cont amnhimat ed • Sed lineilt S
Act ion soil
• I luilLetI C*Cavat lull ot soils
• Ciiiis I (UC I loll iii a UCRA Cop
• I)ivcrsloii of stirfaic water
• MJI IItCII4(lLtj of surfoic water dIvers ion
dILt.lm uid COVCi
• I IJIILIIIL t 0 cumHjJI ell llS I we u i lii lilt) Study to
dcLc •immuinc. oj i 1 iruprlote Cap desi jii
• I VJ Itiat e tilL• LI ilot sun facto, do, lilt) tlm
i Sis 1911 lilloSe
di Mal tli ,w i_i b/!/L iI 5’, •tV Ii1 , 11101111 i ijl aIei Sd v IcC 0 y 110 I , i (lie, Jt.t 1(111
I I 1 I ‘ ‘ 141 I ii.j • VA ii. 01 I 4.1 (. ie. hilt of CJ I t ‘liii S ) St Liii
A I ititi
-------
ItIULX of Al ’PHh)V [ L) IILHEIJIAI A11ION
(A Of 0512i/86)
! . I !! Lb te/Stdte O te Sij
d i Moyer LdIIdt ill, PA l
Hczncdi4 I
Act ion
U i SdIId (a vel &
tOne HO
I ”
I i i n ied I d
Act lull
li i ±l I dl Ac I. lt)Il
• instdll soil cover
• i ro Ion dud edlmeuit at ion Contra I med ure
• Surfate water divers ion
• Leacliate collectIon, treatiiawit and
d I .cIiat-tJc
• Metliauie ija leLovery aild sale
• ieCur ii y/fe± ,ii I iy luiea ures
• Ground w t u mon itcir 1119
• C1o urc •lt Colic lu ion of iJd gelserat 50 (1
• ti&avatlwi amid ot1 ite ds po .al at
Iiai id u Ilidlel ia ls
• ( ruiiiid water extract SOIl Hid treatmitegit
with dI cIiar je to pouith , aquller, or
Hill Creek.
• Heiiioval .iiiii utft ite di .posuI of diuin
amid reuiuiamit
• Collect ion amid tredtiu g t at culit 4iilnat d
UC(dCC wdtCt
• Excavation and oit ite dispa al at
Coiit inltiated olk , wa te , dilti
ed linemits Irtimim two of the furiiier
tirumim storaije areas (Drum Stoia je
Aiea . l& )
• hJ H.ktIlhimIj aliti placeimiemit Of d 24-Inihi
OI 1 COvC I Over thin iemná In lily three
i ii , li la, dragiui Sturayc d i i ci
• lii I all at lUll of Cud I I I 1111k I
ii mmiiiiil tile per nile I ei’ üI I lie 0 II
( iJVt.l C I I 4rt 4 ,
If PRP neyot hit HillS
and/or tise miiethaiit yas
altermiativelail, time
following wifl be done.
- Grade Site, i istall
rlp-rap flatten Ieap
S lopi .
— Gas vent ‘liii dUd 1110111—
tor 1119
- Surface water LO IICCL IU (l
dUd disciiarije to Skip-
pack Creek
- teacuiate cohlcttuiimi
dud I rca timmemit to neat
i I I level
Ill IJI uuiitl w t i
- Cruuimd amiti Sul I a e
w tc1 111011 lbs lli(J
cap lila Iimtegiaiice •
ICdCIIJLC ti JtiiiCmit
Soil
Ground water
Eu. ilic, Stuily
of Ciiimtgiulmiateti
ground wdtC(
Medlo Lu lie Addres-
stid or Sub L•1itmeiiL
Reiiiedi I Act soils
0114
Hequ lreiimeimt s
Projec td
D c let ion
Date -
9/ JO/US
9/it)/liS
b/ U/iTh
1 st
hleined sal
Act sums
(Phia e I)
iii taylor tiorouylm. PA
Ii
-------
I N dEX tif AP1’idtIVttt ittliFtulAL ALiltutiS
(AS 01 0S/23/U6
04 ttiscayne Palulier
Sites, FL
04 flavie Laiidtlil. FL 1st
Raited iai
Act ion
04 M i a li t I dir tan
Services, FL
04 varsul Spill
Site, FL
04 4isiteliliusii Waste
Oil Pits, Ft
denied 141 Act miss
• txcavat lo u and o ils it o dis 4 )osaI of
coiitaatiiiated soils and wastes
• upyrade the existing air-stripping
facility to treat leachate, shallow
tjround water, antI surface (un-Oil
•‘ 1 Lti 1 , ’V’ t% ”b’L , iS jt,’ ‘i’eie’l debt n , tilt
41 1(1 grade propti ty
• Cover site with top soil and seed cap
• L cavat in t l and 1 unsolidat lul l 04 cant dint-
stated soi Is Ii ow area S both on anti off
t he site Lit an Oils itt ItCHA iantid ill
• Ail li air — sit ipp lily t O es 1st inij wat Cr
ti cat l ug systun
• Operate Mia mi Sprliitj & Preston
miuti licipal wells
• liewater and stabilize sludge la’juoit
contents & place in s iiiyle I nied
cell
• Install cap on cell
• Lxi uvat ion and oils ite disposal ot soil
• Ii eatuneiit of ground water encousstored
diii lug etcavat loll
• ho act loll
- t itli St tilL t toil ol a slur. y wall at ound the
LIII Ii C site
• Ii eattin_ilt ol cunt am Inat ed p otnltt not ci
• I t av at lull and d i spin a I at cant aininat ed
cii latent 5 ninki t_ ap
‘mill tat_c tap ti le ciii lie site (l itliA E64)
Groond water
OfIsite contau li—
oat ton
C lusin e i i i NW S lit ii
St. [ until ill (to be
addressed by tOE) in
Fvt 1 )
lon Site/State jvit Oate Signed
Media La lie Addi e s-
sed or Subsequent
Remedial Act toils
dM4
I reilient S
Projected
tie let tast
fl ate
03
dyson ’s
tinitup, PA
1st
12/El/il l
ltetited I a I
Action
04
Pane ,
It
1 1411
(resoLe,
1st
Itense illal
9/3( 1/US
At t loll
1 st
liemned ial
Act lost
U/lb/US
9/ id/ OS
1 st
l4e ined I a I
Act ion
9/ I l /t IE
1st
litilled Ia I
Act loi s
1st
it i uicti ia I
Ai t li mit
5/JO/m IS
&OultiI water
• tliuund water
• CroulId water
• Crunuid water
• t roond nat Ci
-------
INIJIX of APl UOVfl) ULMILIIAI ALIIONS
(AS Of O5/23/81)
Media to be Addres- Projected
sed or Suh cquesiL (Jul Deletion
j n Site/State Activity i)ate Si jiicd Uelnedi4l Actions Remedial ACtIOnS Ilequlreiiients Date
05 1 Materials- 1AM 1 1/23/8 ] U i val and ulfsite disposal ot Ground water
Gicentip IL cositaiulnated tank liquids and drum Soil
was tes
• Ieiiiporarlly cap lagooiis
• Conduct AI/FS
05 ALl Materials 6/14/8 5 . Removal and ott ite dispusal of all soils No further action
Loinpasty IL cogitaiiiiiiotetj over the recoii*iseiided act ion
levels
• Groisiid water iasaa ltorlstg
• C east 1119 and removal ot ons it e equIpment
and build logs
• test itig of soil underlying the building.
with dlspo al If cositamlnated above the
recoiiinended act Ion levels
• Site grading
• Aemova I of the fence surround 1 1 19 the site
05 Acme SoIvents IL 1st Piovisiun for interim alter jte water • Ground water
ft ncd ia I suppi y sys tern by inst a I lat 100 oh home . Final i euiied i a I act lust to
Act ion ai host t reatsisesit on its res tore drink isig wat ci
• Cavatioii and ohisite disposal of noii-
inc ineratiic w te • It o.. isterat ion of
other waStC materials and soils
05 11cr I in & iarro MI ls . I cavat ion of contaiiiinated l udI llI . Ground watci
Remedial iruin and soil areas - SurfaLe wdtCi
Act lun - Separate PCB nd sion-PCU watte • Soil
& dl p e oils lie
• Iiicisierate liquid wastes and landfill
ulid wast ofisite
• Aackfill or cap site
• Conilssct uI/IS oh soil and ground water
runt asii islgi lust
05 Byron/Juhnsosi hi i/li/US L*cavat loii and ohisite dispo aI of all . Residual oiI
Sa $vatje II. Hciiicii ial iii sims and it lsjh I y cosit niulnat cd so i ‘Is • Ground water
At. L loll In — itu treatiiieiit oh all so ii with
t.yali ide Ovei I ppm
OS Leusetery t)uiisp. Ml 1st 9/11/115 [ t.avat lust and o ils di gio a I ui • Ground watc,
Ikisicd l a I 50 di usn coal L a liii iiuj 1’( us • ui Is • • So i I
ALL lull so I veili s jiiii pa lilt s I utiges at a UCHA
iiL [ ‘ Sal l • iii llttl l/l// 1 14 • Pa isv I lull liii a p. i iuJilcist a lt , iiat Lruuii.i wairs
w t Li ‘ 1 Pl 1 I y
-------
INIILX OF AI’ 1 1 K0V1() IILMLI )IAL ACrious
(AS 01 05/fl/86)
Medig to be Addre - Projected
sed or Subsequent oui ti et ioii
l4eylon Site/State Activity lijte Siyned Heizietisal Actions Resaedial Act bus keiluirciuellts Date
OS tharlevoix • M I 2 nd Allow contaminant plumes to discharye . i to further act lull
Uciiiedi a l to I oI e Michlyan under natura I flow
Act lout couid it Ions
• lout litu Iouttj-teriii monitor lily of plumes
• Inst itut ioiial controls on 1115141 lot iwi
of private wells
05 Chem-Uyuie liii [ L i t ) 1/ /ti5 Instollat itill of a yi ouuud water extract ion No lurtliur act ion
system with .ubsequeuit I reOtiflelit of
the Couitauuiiiated water
• Oeiiuolit lost of ouisite t)ulldiuuujs
• RclilOvUI of selected soil
• Construction of a RCAA cap
05 Cross tir tIiers II 1kM 3/2 /85 . Ixcavatiusi asid olisite disposal of . ReSidual souls
surf idol aiud hurled waste materials • Ground water
nd visibly cont iaiu ited soil
05 uu Claire l 1 kM b/lU/ OS • ColIstruct lull of au -strlpp llltj facilities tirUuuiti waler
to remove VOls from tile Contailiinated . Source control
qi tiuritl water and iii chartje to mull ic ipo I
WaLC I tCI2JLIIICI1I. plant and dlstrltlutlotu
systCi li
05 Forest waste • MI 1kM Fence CouistruC lion Sour e LWILI-OI
Off It e LtJIlt4lll 1,1.11 lull
05 Kusiusier Ldildt ili M It 1st b/ 12flJ 5 • Piuvislouu br an alternate water supply • Souuce control
Atilledlal Ground water
Act lull
OS I ask ill Poplar hi 8/9/04 . Inc ullerat loll of coiltaulloated waste oil . Source cOntrol
Oul (Xi fleiiicdial • ireatment of coiit4iiiigtatcd waste waler • Grüund water
Act loll
05 1 cliii I icr/Hank oto hi 9/I//US P01 14) dIld treat 9 rouuid water by dir— • Source control
MIt Itumed sat stripp l.i j for u tell-year per luti or until
A&.tioiu aCceptable lev i aid lilet
• [ tteutd Ldiillller ater Supply SystCiil
to tfect d 4ICUS
• Abanduuiiuiesit (I I 10111 dIll usual Cd wells
I,’
-------
ifflut 01 Ah PUUVII) UENLOIAL ALEIONS
(AS 01 0 /2]/86)
Media to b Addres- Projected
setl or ub t 1 u iiL 0K j tie let loll
Si tel State Act Iv I ty flat a Signed Heuied Ia I Ac. I ions tleined ii I Act lullS qu lreineiit s Oat e
tJ pjain Street, IN 1 st 8/2 185 Logistructloji of air-stripping IacilitIe Complete Ui/IS
to remove VOCs from the contaiulnated on ground water
Act Io ground witer tllscbarged into water
treatment System amid drink lug waler
distribut ion System
OS Morris Arsenic • MN 1st 8/1/85 No at. t Ion No I urthier at. L ion
Ueincd Sal
Act ion
05 New hr IglIto1l MN 1 KM 6/24/ti] ii’ter liii treatiiwuit of iii i Ic Ipa I . Gruuiid water
Inter i to Water weiR by granular act lv led
treatment) Carbon and air- sti ipp ing
1)5 New tic i jhlto.i MN 1 1111 9/ 19/ Ui . E ittemid CA 151 lug pub! IC water supply . Ground water
(4ater Supply systeat to u1ected private well users
Sy st iii)
05 New fir i .jI lt ou MN IbM ti/ /iJ4 I I end CA (St lug public w4ter supply . Ground waLer
( atcr Si,pp ly sySteth to reptat.e coot .IlIilulated ‘lion Ic Ipal
Systeiii) SySte m
05 New Lyiuc i/F . (UI Ri . 11151 all ap over laiidt ill No turlimel it. t (Oil
It e ut medl al . iii 1 II 31(1.1 operate e lractItJlI/ctIlI_
Act loll tailIlilCill w l Is to d wjt ,’ l itdt ill
aiid C hum 1(141 C I C d l.. IIJ t C
• 0ii Ite lreatuimeiil UI ground woter and
leachuate using biulogical dlsc
sod 111111 Iuydro* Ida p1CC ipltat loll
sit1 granular act ivaled carbon
• thuu II c.jmusul i.lat lOll of Cuisijin—
•(Slluse mu ally ((lilt .liillilJt C li tiChi IS
& lu I I at a H(RA illI II I c C I .1 I lii y
tlj i i i I I 31 ed w 1111 I I Ca tI
-------
IHI)LX OF AliPItOvLtI ItEMITII IA I ACtIONS
(As OF OS/2i/1I6)
Hedia to lie Addre - Projected
cd or Sub ci 1 ueiit 06 1 1 D c let ion
[ ! Site/State Act i v 11)1 Date Signed IteIIIedl4l Ax.t lullS Remedial Act lullS Itequilemi lelIts Date
05 Old MiII till 1st 8/1/85 Heumoval aud tif1 iLe disposal of 9fi Ito further act Ion
Reined Ia I percent of cont aumilialit s in so I I
Action . Ground water extraction and treatment
usiII tjranular activated carbon
• luipu c aquifer use restrictioiis
• Provisiosis br public watCr supply to
those residesices potentially aftected
by cotitauminated jround waler
05 Outboard Marine 1st 5/1 5/84 • E.cavat loll anti o1t ite disposal iii PCB ho further action
Cusp. IL fl i i ied ial coiitaiiiinated imiat s ials
Act iou Construct ons ste cont ilunCi lt ccii for
iiiuderately cuntamiiiated PCB material
• L)Ives L ground waler arutnud Comita lulluelut
LCII
• Cun truc t c lay-i liled tlCwater log latJOOtl
• Ircat supcrgiatunt jutS retui ii to harbor
• Cap
OS Reilly Jar. MN 1st . LuuiSt(uCt ion uS a granular act ivat J Grutind water
R i i ie mJgal C4IbOII water treatment System • Soil
Action • Peat bug
05 Sclummalz I)uinp. itl 1st 0/ 1 1/ 115 . EKCaVdt ion amid ofisite disposal ol Conduct RI/ES
Itmuici li al coultaiaisu ted l iuildltlmj debris
Ax.t lull
05 Verona el I I- ield 1 1tH Prov ide new water capacity by di’ ill lug t rouuid water
HI flew wells
• Iguip lcuueiit barr icr SyS t CIII
• It cat purge water by air-strippiuitj System
• I i eat air emis luns by activated carbon
adsorpt Ion System
• (wit iuiUt UI/f S
05 Vet USIa el I I ield uud • Ii Cat CUnlamiiiii .tl ed sol Is by eiiIiaiic d • Loot Iumue II I
MI R uictIiai volat iliiatloui • Source control at
At t lull Cuill, a ill Ji (JUIII I wdter L 0111 41111114111 p Iuiiie Ut 1 1cr I IIUWII Stills C CS
by puiumgt log and treat luiJ at exist imig
air sts ipper
(15 tdjucou lila Sautil st 9/ 10/U S Iui . tall Ie cim t c &.uI led loll is a ins fiutuire I I /i to
& Cu ave I • Ii Itcued laS . Pu liv liii! I or I eaclial e ( II spoS al at amlires S 95 (itillil
Ai 1 14111 uiUmidu 5t WJIJC Ii eatimiesil. plault or at witCi • t)uil cC dulL. 01
all i m ft It e ti..i Ia, S ii s wj t I reatiulelit
S ji. i lit y
-------
IMJ [ X III AI’PIWVtU ItLMLt)IAL AIIIONS
(A Of 0t/2i/86)
ste/Stote Ac !l Date Siyned
OS i4aucogido Sand. IL
(coilt ‘d)
01 Uayou IJontouca LA st
ltc iuedi l
ALt I O u
fteiued i a I At: t ions
• Re.jradc seLl Ied depressed aiitl eroded
areas with Clean so Il çovei
• Acyttate hare and eroded areas
• Construct eiice around site
• Grtiurid water
• Bayou
lib lJin-Lcoloyy
Sy t iiis. I X
• ions ruCtioii of onsite til 10541 cell with
yiithet Ic 1 iller leachate LOt ICLL Ion
ySt m. and tinal cover
• Stab hue waste and peace In o t is ite cell
• Raise elev L ion of site above IOU-year
flood plain
• Loijstruct 1eiic and warn my s
• Install yrouiid water inosiitorlncj SyStem
hi
O I l Rout). IX
Act Ion
1st
OIl DI II Iiiyci . LA I lcii i d i
Act lull
• i LJVtltIOIl atiti tt ite disposal of wd te
hater ma I
• OuLki ill and sCed site
• Cutistruc L fence anti warnhlly s lyns
• Iii tall yround water iuonhtoriiitj system
• Olts ite blulutjlcal treatment of con—
taml ated pit water
• Otis ite lucimieration of oryaiiic liquids
• OlisIte disposal of sludcjes/tars and soils
• Oiis it e I and t reatihient of Iie4v il y
CuliLdmiliiI4tCt I soils dud Sludyes
• Dits it C COat a iiitiic,it and c app limy of sI ItjIiL I y
cuiitauimuia ted solh
• Clu e and seal uuimjruuted t)iiShte well
• Pimmmm 1 i and treat slial low ijroumid water
adli $ let
• Jiea t auuii di 5C 114, t C oI IS It C II
cuiittiiiuhuiat iJ I luith
• ALL Study oiiyo lily
to detciomimic it
40y .j(ntmumd water
aitioum is re-
qu Ired
• Grouiid water
• Soil
• Ground wjtel
• 1uod
— I lii OIL eiit.iit Luuil i iletit ia I
— U 11 i 11 .ly sele& I iou. uuut I mutal l/t .1
Media to he Addres-
seil or Subsequent
Remedial Act louts
1st
ftemimed ial
Act loll
li/IS/OS • Otis ite disposal of creosote waste
6/6/04
OU1
Uequ I rclmmeui t S
PrOJCC tell
De let iotm
Date
OIl Ctyst l Liiemnical•’ 3 NIH) 9/l1/tJ
IX
06 ii mijim I auud Ac Id
Pit. IX
No turLii r aLt ion
1st
ltuajied ial
Act ion
I,
-------
INI)LX O AP(’UOVCti ItIt4u1 1A1 ACIIONS
(AS Of O /23/86)
Hedio to be Addre - Projected
ed or Suti eiiue it Uiil IJelet ( in
lon .ite/Stote ALL Ivj boLe iluliciliol Act ioii Rei dio Act (un j u1reinetits I)OLC
tTh South Volley, Nil (Kit i/22/h1 lii LotIoIiôn of a new wotei uppIy well . SourLe coisiioi
Ground woter
Ob Tar Creek • hi RL 6/61U4 . U1ver Ion and tIlk iiitj oL two major Inflow tb (urthier dci Ion
t iied lal ore±aS
ALL loft Pluy 1 6 welh
• (n tol ( yround water Illoultor lily ystew
hG Ir boyle ht b/I I/ll . I nc liberal lull and deep well Inject iüft • No turtlier oct lOu
Cheinica I, l x R nied tal ol ih I ank and dru u conte nt
Act loll . (L coiit aiblilat ion ut all Oils I I c strucLure
• O1t lte dlsgiu al ot trash dod debrt
• i4echan (Co I oer t Ion of coiit on mated soil s
0! AiiJc*, IA 1 KM 1 1/24/Ni • Otis lie dIsposal ot bulk Ili luid S md . Ground water
semI-solIds by deep well (nject(oii • Soil
• Oiislte dralnayc control
0/ Aldex • IA od 9/ 1O/t 14 • fxcavot $4.10 u d tills it e ii ispo aI of Our led • GrOund water
ftm ui.i1 141 W4 5te 5 mild Coilt .tijiiimjied soil
ALL ion • lJac-k I II itnj, yrodiiiy Ond Ccd liLj of tile
site
• E xftalls inn of I 1IC 11100 II or idly well nCtwU(k
ii iaiiiiu l yruuitd wit er (c t limy
• hdae ululilily and waSh iocj Iiit r br sort aces.
I luor s a iJ II • i ,
- fl iaiuvC nd s fvaije the haibed-WIre
gid chaIn link fences di ound the
lie
- Ilciunve tue ijrwel ii . the IWO
di ulil 5101 diJe dl ’CdS
2) Kosml IC Pi ti 1 iCi’iy
EWC3V T oII nfl ol isi i
&II spaS o I L II ((Jilt mm liiai eu 501 I
di imiis • cans • and oLhi i tielir Is
- mom I I uu’j and aiialys is
-------
Jldit X O APPR(lVtU IIEMLUIAL ACtIONS
(AS hf 0S/2J/IJÔ)
HeOla tu be AdJres PruJe LLt t
sed u Sot etiuei L O&JI Di It t lull
ion Site/SI ate Act iv It 1 flat e S Ittuiied ia I Act Ions fleiii ei l a I Act lulls j qu izeuieut s V l C
0) 1 Iwes ijeacis. HO 1 st 1/ 13/84 Consti sjct wis ite Ifitef Irn st Je tr uaiient Sul
(1llt4!r n lea ied la l - faCi lity
Stoi-dtje facility) Actloii Iraitspnrt hI .jhly conLolllIn t& d soil
lion olbei sites for stoa -ayc in
Sd( lily
• flesiuratitsii of other sites by CaCJVdLIUI I
sid lciiipur ry relocation of at (ected
res itient s
09 ilIIttowii. MI 4/14/84 Abai* .Ioii es.isthlI9 qround water Supply •
Supplemental RUt) aj )loS • t ep1acciueiu and ,-elocation of water
I y 41141 tc 4nsi I 55 lUl l I gC I I it les
• - oin j 54up1 1 119 of residential water
sys I
08 .Ioodhiury 1st 1/19/US tl Isite sposal ot pest ic lil - No turthier act lun
Che n 1caI • LU ll&thed La I COOt illoal t±0 soil
Act ion • fill Site IUC muraL Ion ot s ubbl
09 Cell ue Chieui m c a I 1184 • Ott s it e I spoct and di s os a I of t .ail 1119 • So m I
.toc -I s CA pi1e nd cuntai,is,iated soil • t.ruuod walei
Conduct RI/f Sui face w4LCi
09 Ce Itoh Llaemiial • LA tiiiI I *CJva( loll L Ott Site 8 ispo at ot No turl tier act lull
lhciii d iii coot amine led soils
Act I&1II
09 UcI NurLe LA 1st 9/JO/OS • k Cav . I mwl 8 . removal of uil • No liii the’ ad lull
Ocliled ia i I *1 r act lull L I eetiii iiI of &oiat am l Ila ted
Act iu jruuiid waler
• OlSilusal c ii sjieiit rarOon liliers
• Ossiansa I ul 4:111 ulIIiuIIl—( 1db was Lu lii liii-.
to RLI 1A I”-.
1 1
-------
ItIIJtX 01 At 1 1’ItUVLO IILMtUIAL ACtIONS
tAS OF 0 5 /23106 )
Media to be Adtires- Projectcd
sed or Stibseqiieiit G U I (it let loll
Itegion Sue/State Act ivity !sjit ned Remedial Act lulls Rentedial Act ions itequirenients Gate
09 lIoontairl View/ 1 st 6/ 1/ 83 Periiianuiit relocation of its l U c i U s No further act loll
Globe. AL Re medial Oa ite burial of containerized mobile
Act ton Itti li es
• Site C lostirt by Cappillg
• Eeoc 11 19 40(1 llhIllltelialtce
09 San Gatiriel/ S/I 1/84 1115141 lat loll ot packed Lower alt- • I I I uund water
Area I. CA IR K strlpplll4j ystenis to treat Con-
taminated gruolid water
• Conduct MIlES
09 String fellow IRK //22/83 • Fence sit e 1 luatlitalli cap 1 and ot fsite • Source control
Acid Pits 1 CA disposal ci leacliate . G(Oillid water
Suit
09 Str 1119101 low Acid /lld • 1*trdct 41141 treat ground water and • Soil
Pits, CA Rcaicdial discharge to P01W . Source control
Act ion • tong teim RI/IS
09 I 41011 ililu 1st k/ / // Ui ltc 1 iaCk (hetti IC a Ij 1 iest IC Ide mater a Is • No l ull iiei ac 11011
f a , m l Jiuso I ar H enteul i a I st ored u is it e
Ierratories 1 AS Action • IiccolltaInuIiate aiitl seal utisite storage
tic ilit ics
• Iralisport alt waste mat eria Is to Illalilla lid
tar ci [ site disposal
10 Puliders Lot uicr• hA 1 1 tH 6/l/U4 • tunsti aCt loll c i a u —stripp 1119 towerS at to 0 , 1 1 1 11 water
wells .
• Maintenauice of system
r 00 o t..•9f.t’5t. • C uctiLl • iOil5 OIl
unstal tat loll and use of wells
t AC aval 11111 anti tills it C d Isposa I of septic
ants ailul ii ’ a In I i e Id PIP 1119
I ’ I a ’ e atiui 101 st I at I ye I es t I IC t tolls Il
I L 4 at 1,111 iii .,ul Is
I .
-------
INDEX 01- APPKOVE(J ItLM1-IIIAL ACtIONS
AS (II OS/2)/LU)
lied i a to lie Addre — l irojecLeU
sed or Sub eqiic.it [ ) tl I e let ion
Si telStat e Act i Ily liicd itewedsa I Act lullS UelD ed a Act IonS nireineut s ___________
I II South Jacowd Llia iiiel IRM 3/ 10/83 . Pwnp and treat Well l A . Ground water
tell 12A. WA . Air-stripping Soil
it) Sooth taco ma LhauIuL• I 2nd 5/3/ 1 1 5 Cuiit moe to operate JNH No turther act ion
Well 12A. WA di al Construct lou of a ground water treatrn t
Act l n teus wht e tract Ioil treatment. and
dISCIIaIg ot ground wate, will occur
• [ . cavaL Ion and olfsite disposal ut
Ctiiitjaiiiii t d SOIl
• Soil (lusliliig
• Na inti. naiue Of inst itut iu ,la I cuntru Is
I D Wes tern 1st 0 /5/1 14 • Dos it e and i s iwetcu unoui Itur my of dir • Ground water
Processing. WA Iluiiedial quality Soil
Act ioO Nu uio aI and oitsmt dispusal/mncmneratio,i
of 411 (sulk I Iquitis . drtuiuued I iqutds•
waste piles and other debris
• linovat 41 1L$ proper dl posal ut all
l(aii turiiiurs and SubS tat lOll equ ipmelit
• Eleiiiol it ion and olts ate dl posaI of all
00 5 Ite buildings
• 0 1504 111 I IIUJ Ut all OVIS Ite bulk StOt age
I. unk s
• Cu t tO I auid ti eat St orowat er
It) Western Process iny 2iuil 9/25/OS • Soil sampl lug and auaalys is of on aint . Gru uni water
WA K etiic dial OIISIIC areas
Act mo o • E CaVa4.IOII & OIlS ILC dIs .nssaI Ut
selacted sull and uion soll materlaIs
C C4v4LC ur clean I luy all utilIty d Od
process Ilties In Area I
- [ unstruct anti 0Ll fat2
-------
I tiIH X Ut- AI Pi((ivEft t Il [ I)l Al All It-INS
(A OF t11/23/86)
l4 dia to bg AdtIr - ProJected
___________ sed or S’iIi cqueiiL lie let IOI
Ion Site/State A tsvity Dale Su lteint dial Actiwi . Reo edu I Ait ogis _________
ID desterii t rocessjn9 . [ *covat Ion and onsite tiRposal of
iA (coiitd) selected soils, exCavatluit of
of utility Ilne clean utsitly
ituiiho les an t i vaults
• Inst a I I and ma l t a in cap
• Perform b sitji scale tests ot sos
sol i tt It icat ion L ctue Ique
• Excavate Hill Cr e sedlineiits
//
-------
I
SECTION V
RECORDS OF DECISION
KEY WORD LIST: FY 1982 - 1986
The ROD Key Word List presents the RODs approved from FY82-86
by major key word categones and subcategories. The key words are a
compilation of those identified for each site in the ROD abstracts found at
the beginning of this document. The first two pages of this list provide an
index of all key words and subcategories. The following text lists those RODs
associated with each key word.
J
-------
SUPERFtJND RECORDS OF DECISION
KEY WORD INDEX
Listed below are major key word categories and their
Superfund Records of Decision (RODs).
sub—categories for
KEY WORDS
(By Category)
Primary Hazardous
Substances Detected
Acids
Arsenic
Asbestos
Carcinogenic
Compounds
Chromium
Dioxin
Heavy Metals
Inorganics
Mining Wastes
Oils
Organ i cs/VOCs
PAH
PCB5
PC E
Pesticides
Phenols
Radioactive
Mater ials
Sludge
Solvents
Synfuels
TC E
Toluene
Contaminated Media
Air
Ground Water
Sediments (Creek/River!
St ream)
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Wetlands
Woods
Public Health and
Environmental Threats
Direct Contact
Public Exposure
Remedy Selection
Consent Decree
Deed Restriction
Fund Balancing
No Action Remedy
O& M
ROD Addendum
Temporary Remedial
Measure
Water Supply
Alternate Water Supply
Drinking Water
Contaminants
Site Specific
Character istics
Flood Plain
Seismic
Sole—Source Aquifer
Subsidence
Standard/Regulations
Permits/Guidance
Drinking Water Standards
Institutional Controls
Public Health Advisory
RCRA
RCRA Closure Requirements
RCRA Landfill Specifica-
tions
RCRA Locational Require-
ments
Standard/Regulations
Permits/Guidance
(Continued)
State Criteria
State Permit
‘PSCA Onsite Disposal
Requirements
Water Quality Criteria
Testing/Pilot Studies
Leachability Tests
Treatability Studies
Technology
Aeration
Air Stripping
Capping
Containment
Dredging
Excavat ion
Filling
Granular Activated
Carbon
Ground Water Monitoring
Ground Water Treatment
Incineration
Land Treatment
Leachate Collection!
Treatment
Levees
Offsite Disposal
Onsite Containment
Onsite Disposal
Relocation
Plume Managemement
Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW)
Slurry Wall
Solidification
Stabil ization
-------
SUPERFUND RECORDS OF DECISION
KEY WORD INDEX
Technology
(Continued)
Surface Water Diversion/
Collection
Treatment Technology
Venting
Miscellaneous
Municipally—Owned Site
Historically Significant
ACL
Background Levels
Deferred Decision
-------
01/27/86
SUPERFTJND REXORDS OF DECISION:
KEY WORD LIST
Listed below are major key word categories and their sub—categories for Superfund
Records of Decision (RODS). Opposite each of these categories is a broad sampling of
sites whose ROD contains the listed key word. Some categories may become obsolete or
new categories may develop over time due to changes in the focus of the Superfund remedy
selection process. The Superfund managers in each Region have copies of all RODs.
KEY WORDS ASSOCIATED ROD SITES
(By Category)
Primary Hazardous
Substances Detected Site, State, (Region )
Acids Charles George, MA (I)*; Nyanza Chemical, MA (I): Western
Sand & Gravel, RI (I); Chemical Control, NJ (II); PAS
Oswego, NY (II); Bruin Lagoon, PA (III); Douglassville, PA
(III); Lackawan.na Refuse Site, PA (III); A&F Materials-IRN,
IL (V); Chem—Dyne—EDD, OH (V); Forest- Waste, MI (V)*;
Highlands Acid Pit, TX (Vt); Tar Creek, flK (VI); Celtor
Chemical Works, CA (IX); Iron Mou ,t r Mir es, CA (IX);
Stringfellow Acid Pits, CA (IX)*, Queen C it, Fac-ms—IRM/EDD
WA (X); Western Processing, WA (X)
Arsenic Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Industti—plex, MA (I); Nyanza
Chemical, MA (I); Chemical Control, NJ (II); DImperio
Property, NJ (II); Helen Krarrer, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill,
NJ (II)*; Love Canal, NY (II); Sinclair Refinery, NY (II);
Sperice Farm, NJ (II); Syncon Resins, NJ (II); Chismari
Creek, VA (III); Douglassville, PA (III); McAdoo—IRM, PA
(lit); Moyer Landfill, PA (III); American Creosote, FL
(IV); Davie Landfill, FL (IV); Pepper’s Steel—EDD, FL (IV );
Sapp Battery, FL (IV); Whitehouge Waste Oil Pits, FL (IV );
Arcanuni Iron & Metal, OH (V); Byron/Johnson Salvage ?ard,
IL (V); Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V); Morris Arsenic, (V);
Arsenic Trioxide, ND (VIII); Militown, MT (VIII);
Millto .m—S, MT (VIII); Celtor Chemical, CA (IX)*; McColl,
CA (IX); Western Processing, WA (X);
Asbestos Mew Lyrtie, OH CV); Mountain View/Globe, AZ (IX)
Carcinogenic Compounds Charles George, MA (I); Hocomor.co Pond, MA (I);
Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ (II); Taylor Borough, PA (III);
Mollirigsworth, FL (IV); Reilly Tar, I (V); Queen City
Farms—IRM/EDD, WA (H);
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcer’erit Decision Document
1
-------
01/27/86
Primary Hazardous
Substances Detected
(continued) Site, State, (Region )
Chromium Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Industri-p1e , MA (I); Nyanza
Chemical, MA (I); D’Imperio Property. NJ (II); Lang
Property, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Sinclair
Refinery, NY (II); Spence Farm. NJ (II); Syncon Resins, NJ
(II); Douglassville, PA (III); Limestone Road, MD (III);
Matthews Electroplating, VA (III); McAdoo—IRM, PA (III);
Davie Landfill, FL (IV); Pepper’s Steel—EDD, FL (IV);
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits, FL (IV); Burrows Sanitation, MI
(V); Northernaire, MI (V); Novaco Industries, MI (V);
Schinalz Dump, WI (V); Wauconda Sand & Gravel, IL (V);
Odessa Chromium I, TX (VI); Odessa Chromi.uxn II, TX (VI);
Del Norte, CA (IX); Queen City Fartns—IRZ’l/EDD, WA (K);
United Chrome, OR (X); Western Processing, WA
Dioxin Baird & McGuire, MA (I); Hyde Park—EDD, NY (II); Love
Canal, NY (II); Times Beach, MO (VII); Ellisville MO (VII);
Ellisville Site Area, MO (VII)*;
Heavy Metals Auburn Road, NH (I); Baird & Mc( uire, MA (I); -
Cannon/Plymouth, MA (I); Charles George, MA (I)*; Rocomonco
Pond, MA (I); Keefe Environiiiental, NH (I); Nyanza Chemical,
MA (I); Re—Solve, MA (I); Sylvester, NH (I); Bog Creek
Farm, NJ (II); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II); Caidwell Trucking,
NJ (II); D’Imperio Property. NJ (II); Florence Landfill, NJ
(II); GEMS Landfill, NJ (II); Lang Property, NJ (II);
Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Lone Pine Landfill, NJ (II);
Marathon Battery, NY (II); Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ (II);
PAS Oswego, NY (II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Sharkey Landfill,
NJ (II); Sinclair Refinery, NJ (II); Syncon Resins, NJ
(II); Army Creek Landfill, DE (III); Blosenski Landfill, PA
(III); Bruin Lagoon, PA (III)*; Chisman Creek, VA (III);
Enterprise Avenue, PA (III); Harvey—Knott, DE (III);
McAdoo—IRM, PA (III); Milicreek. PA (III); Moyer Landfill,
PA (III); Sand, Gravel & Stone, MD (III); Wade, PA (III);
A. L. Taylor, KY (IV); American Creosote, FL (IV); Distler
Brickyard, KY (IV); Hipps Road Landfill, FL (IV);
Hollingsworth, FL (IV); Miami Drum Svcs, FL (IV); Pepper’s
Steel—EDD, FL (IV); Pioneer Sand, FL (IV); Sapp Battery, FL
(IV); A&F Materials—EDD, IL (V); A&F Materials—IRM, IL (V);
Arcanuzn Iron & Metal, OH CV); Burrows Sanitation, MI (V);
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
2
-------
01/27/86
Primary Hazardous
Substances Detected
(continued) Site, State, (Region )
Heavy Metals Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard, IL (V); Byron Salvage Yard, IL
(Continued) (V)*; Forest Waste, MI (V)*; Lake Sandy Jo, IN (V); Schrnalz
Dump, WI (V); Seymour, IN (V); Waucortda Sand & Gravel, IL
(V); Bio-Ecology Systems, TX (VI); Highlands Acid Pit, TX
(VI); Odessa Chromium I, TX (VI); Old Inger, LA (VI);
MOTCO, TX (VI); Tar Creek, OK (VI); Libby Ground Water, MT
(VIII); Marshall Landfill, CO (VIII); Militown, MT (VIII);
Milltown—S, MT (VIII); Smuggler Mountain, CO (VIII); Union
Pacific, WY (VIII); Woodbury Chemical, CO (VIII); Celtor
Chemical Works, CA (IX); Celtor Chemical, CA (IX)*; Iron
Mountain Mine, CA (IX); Jibboom Junkyard, CA (IX);
Stringfellow Acid Pits—IRM, CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid
Pits, CA (IX)*; Queen City FarTns—IRM/EDD, WA (X); United
Chrome, OR (X); Western Processing, WA (X); Western
Processing, WA (X)*
Inorganics Auburn Road, NH (I); Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Nyanza
Chemical, MA (I); Picillo Farm, RI (I); Sylvester, NH (I);
Bog Creek Farm, NJ (II ); Caldwell Trucking, NJ (II); -
Chemical Control, NJ (II); DImperio Property, NJ (IT);
Florence Landfill, NJ (II); Friedman Property, NJ (II);
G 4S Landfill, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Krysowaty
Farm, NJ (II); Love Canal, NY (II); Price Landfill, NJ
(II)*; Sharkey Landfill, NJ (II); Sinclair Refinery, NY
(II); Army Creek Landfill, DE (III); Bruin Lagoon, PA
(III)*; Chisman Creek, VA (III); Douglassville, PA (III);
Drake Chemical, PA (III); Harvey—Knott, DE (III); Leetown
Pesticide, WV (III); Limestone Road, MD (III); McAdoo—IRM,
PA (III); Wade, PA (III); Distler Brickyard, KY (IV);
Gallaway Ponds, TN (IV); Hipps Road Landfill, FL (IV);
Pioneer Sand, FL (IV); SCRDI Dixiana, SC (IV); A. L.
Taylor, KY (IV); A&F Materials—EDD, IL CV); A&F
Materials—IRM, IL (V); Acme Solvents, IL (V); Burrows
Sanitation, MI (V); Cemetery Dump, MI (V); Chem—Dyne-EDD,
OH (V); Forest Waste, MI (V)*; Lake Sandy Jo, IN (V);
Re 1ly Tar, MN (V); Waucorida Sand & Gravel, IL (V); Cecil
Lindsey, AR (VI); MOTCO, TX (VI); Tar Creek, OK (VI);
Ellisville, MO (VII); Libby Ground Water, MT (VIII); Iron
Mountain Mine, CA (IX)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
3
-------
01/27/ 86
Primary Hazardous
Substances Detected
(continued) Site, State. (Region )
Mining Wastes Tar Creek, OK (VI); Militown, MT (VIII); Smuggler Mountain,
CO (VIII); Celtor Chemical Works, CA (IX); Iron Mountain
Mine. CA (IX)
Oils McKin, ME (I)*; Bridgeport, NJ (II); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ
(II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Price Landfill, NJ (II); Bruin
Lagoon, PA (III); Bruin Lagoon. PA (III)*; Enterprise
Avenue, PA (III); Coleman Evans, FL (IV); Miami Drum
Services, FL (IV); Mowbray Engineering, AL (IV); A&F
Materials—IRZ’l, IL (V); Forest Waste—IRM, MI (V); Forest
Waste, MI (V); Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH (V); New Lyme, OH
(V); Old Mill, OH (V); Outboard Marine Corp., IL (V);
Reilly Tar, ‘J CV); Geneva Industries, TX (VI); Old lager.
LA (VI); Ellisville, MO (VII); Union Pacific, WY (VIII);
Western Processing, WA (X)
Organics/VOCs Auturn Road, NH (I); Baird & McGuire, MA (I); Beacon
Heights, CT (I); Charles George, MA (I); Hocomonco Pond, MA
(I); Induri-r —plex, MA (I); Keefe Environmental, NH (I);
Kellogg—Deering e11 Field, CT (I); McKin—IRZ4, ME (I);
Nyanza Chemical. MA (I); Picillo Farm, RI (I); Sylvester,
NH (I); Re—Solve. MA (I); Tinkham Garage, NH (I); Western
Sand & Gravel. RI (I); Winthrop Landfill—EDO, ME (I); Bog
Creek Farm, NJ (II) ; Brewster Well Field, NY (II);
Bridgeport, NJ (II): Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II); Caidwell
Trucking, NJ (II ); Chem ca1 Control, NJ (II); Cornbe Fill
North Landfill, NJ (II ); Combe Fill South Landfill. NJ
(II); D’Imperio Property, NJ (II); Florence Landfill,NJ
(II); Friedman Property, NJ (II); G 4S Landfill, NJ (II);
Goose Farm. NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Hyde Park—EDO,
NY (II); Kentucky Avenue Welifield, NY (II); Lang Property,
NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ
(II)*; Lone Pine Landfill, NJ (II); Love Canal, NY (II);
Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ (II); Olean Well Field, NY (II);
PAS Oswego, NY (II); Pijak Farm. NJ (II); Price Landfill,
NJ (II)*; Sharkey Landfill, NJ (II); Sinclair Refinery, NY
(II); Swope Oil, NJ (II); Syncon Resins, NJ (II); Vestal,
NY (II); Army Creek Landfill, DE (III); Blosenski Landfill,
PA (III); Bruin Lagoon. PA (III)*; Douglassville, PA (III);
Drake Chemical, PA (III); Harvey—Knott, DE (III);
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
4
-------
01/27/ 86
Pri nary Hazardous
Substances Detected
(continued) Site, State, (Region )
Orgazucs/VOCs Industrial Lane, PA (III); Leetown Pesticide, WV (III ) ;
(continued) Limestone Road, MD (III); McAdoo—IRM, PA (III); Milicreek,
PA (III); Moyer Landfill, PA (III); Sand, Gravel & Stone,
MD (III); Taylor Borough, PA (III); Tybouts Corner, DE
(III ); Tyson’s Dump, PA (III); Wade, PA (III); American
Creosote, FL (IV); Biscayne Aquifer Sites, FL (IV ); Coleman
Evans, FL (IV); Distler Brickyard, KY (IV); Distler Farm,
KY (IV); Gallaway Ponds, TN (IV); Hipps Road Landfill, FL
(IV); Hollingsworth, FL (IV); Pepper’s Steel—EDO, FL (IV);
Pioneer Sand, FL (IV); SCRDI Dixiana, SC (IV); A. L.
Taylor, KY (IV); A&F Materials-EDD, IL (V); A&F
Materials—IRM, IL (V); Acme Solvents, IL (V); Arrowhead
Refinery, MN (V); Berlin & Farro, MI (V); Byron/Johnson
Salvage Yard, IL (V); Byron Salvage Yard, IL (V)*; Cemetery
Dump, MI (V); Charlevoix, MI (V); Charlevoj.,c, MI (V)*;
Cheni-Dyne—EDD, OH (V); Eau Claire-IRM, WI (V); Kumrner
Landfill, MN (V); Main St. Welifield, IN (V); New
Brighton-Interim Water Treatment, MN (V); New Brighton/St.
Anthony-IRM, MN (V); New Brighton—Water Supply System, MN
(V); New Lyme, OH (V); Old Mill OH (V); Reilly Tar &
Chernica].-EDD, MN (V); Seymour, IN (V); Verona Well
Field—IRM, MI (V); Verona WeU Field, MI (V)*; Wauconda
Sand & Grave., IL (V); Cecil Lindsey, AR (VI); Geneva
Industries, TX (Vt); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI); MOTCO, TX
(VI); Old Inger LA (Vt); Sikes Disposal Pits, TX (VI);
South Vallev-IR , NM (VI); Triangle Chemical, TX (VI);
Aidex—IRM, IA (VU); Aidex, IA (VII)*; Des Moines TCE. IA
(VII); Ellisville, MO (VII); Ellisville Site Area, MO
(VII)k; Libby Ground Water, MT (VIII); Marshall Landfill,
CO (VIII); Union Pacific, WY (VIII); Woodbury Chemical, CO
(VIII); Del Norte, CA (IX); McColl, CA (IX); Stringfellow
Acid Pits—IRM, CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid Pits, CA (IX)*;
Ponders Corrter—IRM, WA (X); Queen City Farms—IRM/EDO, WA
(X); South Tacoma, WA (X); South Tacoma Channel—Well 12A,
WA (X)*; Western Processing, WA (X); Western Processing, WA
(X)*
PAR (Polynuclear Aromatic Baird & McGuire, MA (I); Cannon/Plymouth, MA (I); Caidwell
Hydrocarbons) Trucking, NJ (II); Douglassville, PA (III); Millcreek, PA
(III ); Taylor Borough, PA (III); Westline Site, PA, (III );
American Creosote, FL (IV); SCRDI Dixiana, SC (IV); A. L.
Taylor, KY (IV); Whitehouse Waste Oil P .ts, FL (IV);
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
5
-------
01/27/86
Primary Hazardous
Substances Detected
(continued) Site, State, (Region )
PAN (Polynuclear Aromatic Arrowhead Refinery, M M (V); Lake Sandy Jo, IN (V);
Hydrocarbons) Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH (V); Reilly Tar, MM (V) ; Reilly Tar &
(continued) Chemica].—EDD, MM CV); Geneva Industries, TX (VI); United
Creosoting, TX (VI); Libby Ground Water, MT (VIII); Western
Processing, WA (X)*
PCBs (Polychiorinated Picillo Farm, RI (I); Tinkham Garage, NI-I (I); Bridgeport,
Biphenyls) NJ (II); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II); Caldwell Trucking, NJ
(II); Chemical Control, NJ (II); Goose Farm, NJ (II); Hyde
Park—EDD, NY (II); Hudson River, NY (II); Krysowaty Farm,
NJ (II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Sinclair Refinery, NY (II);
Swope Oil, NJ (II); Syncon Resins. NJ (II); Wide Beach, NY
(II); Douglassville, PA (III); Harvey—Knott, DE (III);
Lehigh Electric, PA (III); Millcreek, PA (III); Mowbray
Engineering, AL (IV); Pepper’s Steel—EDD, FL (IV); SCRDI
Dixiana, SC (IV); A&F Materials—IRM, IL (V); A&F
Materials—EDD, IL (V); Acme Solvents, IL (V); Berlin &
Farro, MI (V); Byrort/Johnson Salvage Yard, IL (V);
Chem—Dyne—EDD, OK (V); Forest Waste-IRM, MI (V); Forest
Waste, MI (V)*; LaSalle Electrical, IL (V); Laskin/Poplar
Oil, OH (V); Old Mill, OH (V); Outboard Marine Corp., IL
(V); Schmalz Dump, JI (V); Bio—Ecology Systems, TX (VI);
Geneva Industries, TX (VI); MOTCO, TX (VI) : Jibboom
Junkyard, CA (IX); Taputimu Farm, AS (IX); Queen City
Farms—IRZ 1/EDD, WA (X); West . rn Processing, WA (X)*
PCE (Tetrachloroethylene/ Keefe Environmental, NH (I): Picillo Farm, RI (I);
Perchloroethylene) Brewster Well Field, N? (II); CaldweH Trucking, NJ (II);
Combe Fill South Landfill, NJ (II); Metaltec/Aerosystems,
NJ (II); Rockaway Borough Wellfield, NJ (II); Fischer &
Porter, PA (III); SCRDI Dixiana, SC (IV); A. L. Taylor, KY
(IV); Byron Salvage Yard, IL (V)*; Charlevoix, MI (V);
Charlevoix, MI (V)*; Main St. “Jelifield, IN (V); New
Brighton/Arden Hills/St. Anthony, MN (V); Verona Well
Field—IRM, MI (V); Verona Well Field, MI (V)*; Geneva
Industries, TX (VI); Marshall Landfill, CO (VIII); San
Gabriel! Area I, CA (IX); Ponders Corner, WA (X)*; Queen
City Farrns—IRM/EDD, WA (X); South Tacoma Channel-Well l2A,
WA (X)*
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
6
-------
01/27/86
Primary Hazardous
Substances Detected
(continued) Site, State, (Region )
Pesticides Baird & McGuire, MA (I); Cannon/Plymouth MA (I); Chemical
Control, NJ (II); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II); Lone Pine
Landfill, NJ (II); Love Canal, NY (II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II );
Syncon Resins, NJ (II); Douglassville, PA (III); Drake
Chemical, PA (III); Leetown Pesticide, WV (III); Gallaway
Ponds, TN (IV); Miami Drum Svcs, FL (IV); SCRDI Dixiaria, SC
(IV); Chem—Dyne-EDD, OH CV); Old Inger, LA (VI); Aidex-IRM,
IA (VII); Ellisville, MO (VII); Woodbury Chemical, CO (VIII);
Del Norte, CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid Pits—IRM, CA (IX);
Stringfellow Acid Pits, CA (IX)*; Taputimu Farm, AS (IX);
Western Processing, WA (X)
Phenols Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Picillo Farm, RI (I); Goose Farm, NJ
(II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Hyde Park—EDD, NY (II); Lipari
Landfill, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Love Canal, NY
(II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Sinclair Refinery, NY (II);
Douglassville, PA (III); Milicreek, PA (III); Sand, Gra el &
Stone, MD (III); Westline, PA (III); Coleman Evans, FL. (IV);
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits, FL (IV); La kin/Poplar Oil, OH
(V); Reilly Tar & Chemical—EDD, MN CV); Geneva Industries, TX
(VI); Sikes Disposal Pits, TX (VI); El]isville, MO (VII);
Queen City Farms-IRZ4/EDD, WA (X); Western Processing, WA (X)*
Radioactive Materials Lansdowne Radiation, PA (III) Lartsdowne Radiation, RA
(III)*; Moyer Landfill, PA (UI); Den-icr Radium/ROBCO, CO
(VIII); Denver Radium Site Streets, CO (VIII)
Sludge Tinkham Garage, NH (I); Bridgeport, NJ (II); Florence
Landfill, NJ (II); Price Landfill, NJ (II); Price Landfill,
NJ (II)*; Swope Oil, NJ (II); Bruin Lagoon, PA (III); Bruin
Lagoon, PA (III)*; Enterprise Avenue, PA (III); Lackawanna
Refuse Site, PA (III); McAdoo Associates, PA (III)*; Davie
Landfill, FL (IV); Pioneer Sand, FL (IV); Berlin & Farro, MI
(V); Burrows Sanitation, MI (V); Forest Waste—IRM, MI (V);
Forest Waste, MI (V)*; Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH, CV); New Lyme,
OH (V); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI); MOTCO, TX (VI); Old
Inger, LA (VI); Sikes Disposal Pits, TX (VI); Des Moines TCE,
IA (VII); Ellisville, MO (VII); McColl, CA (IX)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
7
-------
01/27/86
Primary Hazardous
Substances Detected
(continued) Site, State, (Region )
Solvents Keefe Environmental, NH (I); McKiri, ME (I)*; Western Sand &
Gravel, RI (I); Winthrop Landfill—EDD, ME (I); Burnt Fly
Bog, NJ (II); Chemical Control, NJ (II); Kentucky Avenue
Welifield, NY (II); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II); Lipari.
Landfill, NJ (II); Lone Pine Landfill, NJ (II); Spence
Farm, NJ (II); Vestal, NY (II ); Enterprise Avenue, PA
(III); Lackawanna Refuse Site, PA (III); McAdoo—IRM, PA
(III); McAdoo Associates, PA (III)*; Millcreek, PA (III);
Miami Drum Svcs, FL (IV); A&F Materials— 1R14, IL (V); Berlin
& Farro, MI CV); Charlevoix, MI (V); Cross Bros., IL (V);
New Brighton—Interim Water Treatment, MN CV); New
Brighton—Water Supply System, MN (V); New Lyme. OH (V); Old
Mill, OH CV); Verona Well Field, MI (V)*; Bio—Ecology
Systems, TX (VI); Old Inger, LA (VI); Ellisville, MO (VII);
Taputimu Farm, AS (IX); Ponders Corner—IRZI, WA CX); Ponders
Corner, WA (X)*; South Tacoma, WA CX); Western Proces ing.
WA(X) -
Synfuels Western Processing, WA (X)
TCE (Trichloroethylene) Auburn Road, NH (I); Charles George. MA (I); Keefe
Environmental, NH (I); Ke11ogg- eer ing Well Field, CT (I);
McKin—IRM, ME (I); Tinkham Oarag , NP (I); Western Sand &
Gravel, RI (I); Brewster We i Field, NY (II); Caidwell
Trucking, NJ (II); Combe Fi1 South Landfill, NJ (II);
D’Imperio Property, NJ (II): Goose Farrr NJ (II); Lang
Property, NJ (II); Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ (II); Olean
Well Field, NY (II); Price Landfill, NJ (II)k; Rockaway
Borough Weilfield, NJ (II); Sharkey Landfill, NJ (II);
Vestal, NY (II); Blosenski Landfill, PA (III); Fischer &
Porter, PA (III); Heleva Landfill, PA (III); Industrial
Lane, PA (III); Limestone Road, MD (III); Milicreek, PA
(III); Moyer Landfill, PA (III); Taylor Borough, PA (III);
Distler Brickyard, KY (IV); Hollingsworth, FL (IV); A&F
Materials—EDD, IL (V); Acme Solvents, IL (V); Byron Salvage
Yard, IL (V)*; Charlevoix, MI CV); Charlevoix, MI (V)*;
LeHillier/Marikato, MN (V); Main St. Wellfield, IN (V); New
Brighton/Arden Hills/St. Anthony, MN CV); New
Brighton—Interim Water Treatment, MN (V); New Brighton/St.
Anthony—IRM, MN CV); New Brighton—Water Supply System,
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
8
-------
01/27/86
Primary Hazardous
Substances Detected
(continued) Site. State, (Region )
TCE (Trichioroethylene) MN (V); Seymour, IN (V); Verona Well Field—IRM, MI CV);
(continued) Verona Well Field, MI (V)*; Eio—Ecology Systems, TX (VI);
Geneva Industries, TX (VI); Des Moines TCE, IA (VII);
Marshall Landfill, CO (VII); San Gabriel/Area I, CA (IX);
Queen City Farms-IRM/EDD, WA (K); South Tacoma, WA CX);
South Tacoma Channel—Well 12A, WA (X)*; Western Processing,
WA (X)
Toluene Charles George, MA (I); Industr—plex, MA (I); Winthrop
Landfill—EDD, (I); Bog Creek Farm, NJ (II); Bridgeport,
NJ (II); Combe Fill Worth Landfill, NJ (II); Combe Fill
South Landfill, NJ (II); DImperio Property, NJ (It); Goose
Farm, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Hyde Park-EDO, NY
(II); Lang Property, NJ (II); Lipari. Landfill, NJ (II);
Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Love Canal, NY (II); Sinclair
Refinery, NY (II); Blosenski Landfill, PA (III);
McAdoo-IRM, PA (III); McAdoo Associates, PA (III)*; Mo ’er
Landfill, PA (III); Taylor Borough, PA (III); Tybouts
Corner, DE (Ill); American Creosote, FL (IV); Distler
Brickyard. KY (IV); Hipps Road Landfill, FL (IV); A. L.
Taylor, KY (IV); New Lyme, OH (V); Seymour, IN (V); Verona
Well Field, MI (V)*; Sikes Disposal Pits, TX (VI); Triangle
Chem. , TX (VI); Ellisville, MO (VII); Queen City
Farms—IRM/EDD, WA (X); cJest rn Processing, WA (X)*
Contaminated Media
Air McKin—IRM, ME (I); Sylvester, N}1 (I); Combe Fill South
Landfill, NJ (II); GEMS Landfill, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ
(II); Love Canal, NY (II); Heleva Landf 1l, PA (III);
Lansdowne Radiation, PA (III)*; Taylor Borough, PA (III);
Wade, PA (III); Berlin & Farro, MI (V); Chem—Dyne-EDD, OH
(V); Outboard Marine, IL (V); Verona Well Field—IRM, MI
(V); Mountain View/Globe, AZ (IX); Taputimu Farm, AS (IX);
South Tacoma, WA (X)
Ground Water Auburn Road, Ni-i (I); Baird & McGuire, MA (I); Beacon
Heights, CT (I); Cannon/Plymouth, MA (I); Charles George,
MA (I); Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Industri—plex, MA (I);
Kei ogg—Deering Well Field, CT (I); MoKin—IRM, (I);
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
9
-------
01/27/86
Contaminated Media
(continued) Site, State, (Region )
Ground Water Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Picillo Farm, RI (I); Re-Solve, MA
(continued) (I); Sylvester, NH (I); Tinkharn Garage, NH (I); Western
Sand & Gravel, RI (I); Winthrop Landfill—EDD, ME (I); Bog
Creek Farm, NJ (II); Brewster Well Field, NY (II);
Bridgeport, NJ (II); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II); Caidwel].
Trucking, NJ (II); Chemical Control, NJ (It); Combe Fill
North Landfill, NJ (II); Combe Fill South Landfill, NJ
(II); D’Imperio Property, NJ (II); Florence Landfill, NJ
(II); Friedman Property, NJ (II); G S Landfill, NJ (II);
Goose Farm, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Hyde Park—EDD,
NY (II); Kentucky Avenue Wellfie].d, NY (II); Krysowaty
Farm, NJ (II); Lar.g Property, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ
(II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Lone Pine Landfill, NJ
(II); Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ (II); Olean Well Field, NY
(II); PAS Oswego, NY (II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Price
Landfill, NJ (II); Price Landfill. NJ (II)*; Rockaway
Borough Welifield, NJ (II); Sharkey Landfill, NJ (II);
Sinclair Refinery, NY (II); Spence Farm, NJ (II); Swo e
Oil, NJ (II); Syncon Resins, NJ (II); Vestal, NY (II); Army
Creek Landfill, DE (III); Blosenski Landfill, P (lit);
Bruin Lagoon, PA (III); Bruin Lagoon, PA (III)*; Chisman
Creek, VA (III); Douglassville, PA (III); Drake Chemical,
PA (III); Fischer & Porter, PA (III); Harvey—Knott, DE
(III); Heleva Landfill, PA (lit); Industrial Lane, PA
(III); Limestone Road, MD (III); Matthews Electroplating,
VA (III); McAdoo-IRN, PA (III); McAdoo Associates, PA
(IIt)*; Millcreek, PA (III); Moyer Landfill, PA (III);
Sand, Gravel & Stone, MD (III); Tybouts Corner, DE (III);
Tysons Dump. PA (III); Wade, PA (III); Westline, PA (III);
American Creosote, FL (IV); Biscayne Aquifer Sites, FL
(IV ); Coleman Evans, FL (IV); Dav e Landfill, FL (IV);
Distler Brickyard, KY (IV); Hipps Road Landfill, FL (IV);
Hollingsworth, FL (IV); Miami Drum Services, FL (IV);
Pepper’s Steel-EDD, FL (IV); SCRDI Dixiana, SC (IV); Sapo
Battery, FL (IV); Varsol Spill Site, FL (IV); Whitehouse
Waste Oil Pits, FL (IV); A&F Materials—EDO, IL (V); A&F
Materials—IRM, IL (V); Acme Solvents, IL (V); Arcanum Iron
& Metal, OH (V); Arrowhead Refinery, MN (V); Burrows
Sanitation, MI (V); Byron Salvage Yard, IL (V)*;
Charlevoix, Mt (V); Charlevoix, MI (V)*; Chem—Dyne—EDD, OH
(V); Eau Claire—:RM, WI (V); Forest Waste, MI (V)*; Lake
Sandy Jo, IN (V); LeHillier/Mankato, MN (V); Main St.
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
10
-------
01/27/86
Contaminated Media
(continued) Site, State, (Region )
Ground Water Weilfield, IN (V); New Brighton/Arden Hills/St. Anthony, MN
(continued) (V); Mew Brighton-Interim Water Treatment, MN (V); New
Brighton/St. Anthony-IRM, MN (V); New Brighton-Water Supply
System. MN CV); New Lyme, OH (V); Northernaire, MI (V); Novaco
Industries, MI (V); Old Mill, OH (V); Outboard Marine Corp.,
IL (V); Reilly Tar, MN (V); Reilly Tar & Chemical-EDD, MN (V);
Seymour, IN (V); Verona Well Field—IRM, MI CV); Verona Well
Field, MI (V)*; Wauconda Sand & Gravel, IL CV); Bayou
Bonfouca, LA (VI); Bio—Ecology Systems, TX (VI); Cecil
Lindsey, AR (VI); Geneva Industries, TX (VI); Highlands Acid
Pit, TX (VI); MOTCO, TX (VI); Odessa Chromium I, TX (VI);
Odessa Chromium II, TX (VI); Old Inger, LA (VI); Sikes
Disposal Pits, TX (VI); South Valley—IRM, NM (VI); Tar Creek,
OK (VI); tJnited Creosoting, TX (VI); Aidex—IRM, IA (VII);
Aidex, IA (VII)*; Des Moines TCE. IA (VII); Arsenic Trioxide,
ND (VIII); Libby Ground Water, MT (VIII); Marshall Landfill,
CO (VIII); Milltown—S, MT (VIII); Smuggler Mountain, CO -.
(VIII); Union Pacific, WY (VIII); Celtor Chemical Works, CA
(IX); Del Norte, CA (IX); McColl, CA (IX); San Gabriel/Area I,
CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid Pits—IRM, CA (IX); Stringfellow
Acid Pits, CA (IX)*; Ponders Corner—IRM, WA (X); Ponders
Corner, WA (X)*; Queen City Farms—IRII/EDD, WA (X); South
Tacoma, WA CX); South Tacoma Channel—Well 12A, WA (X)*; United
Chrome, OR (X); Western Processing, WA (X); Western
Processing, WA CX) ”
Sedirr nts (Creek/ iver/ Auburn Road, NH (I); Cannon/Plymouth, MA (I); Hocomorico Pond,
Stream) MA (I); Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Tinkham Garage, NH (I);
Caldwell Trucking, NJ (II); Combe Fill South Landfill, NJ
(II); GEMS Landfill, NJ (II); Hudson River, NY (II); Love
Canal, NY (II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Syncon Resins, NJ (II);
Wide Beach, NY (II); Army Creek Landfill, DE (III); Bruin
Lagoon, PA (III)*; Chisman Creek, VA (III); Douglassville, PA
(III); Harvey—Knott, DE (III); Leetown Pesticide, WV (III);
Limestone Road, MD (III); Milicreek, PA (III); Sand, Gravel &
Stone, MD (III); Tyson’s Dump, PA (III); Westlirte, PA (III);
American Creosote, FL (IV); Coleman Evans, FL (IV); Pepper’s
Steel—EDO, FL (IV); Sapp Battery, FL (IV); Whitehouse Waste
Oil Pits, FL (IV); Arcanum Iron & Metal, OH (V); Arrowhead
Refinery, MN (V); Burrows Sanitation, MI (V); Fields Brook, OH
(V); Forest Waste, 1I (V)”; Lake Sandy Jo, IN CV); Outboard
Marine Corp., IL (V); Schmalz Dump, WI CV); Wauconda Sand &
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
11
-------
01/27/86
Contaminated Media
(continued) Site, State, (Regi
Sediments (Creek/Riven Gravel, IL (V); Bayou Bonfouca, LA (VI); Cecil Lindsey, AR
Stream) (VI);Geneva Industries, TX (VI); Sikes Disposal Pits, TX
(continued) (VI); Militown, MT (VIII); Woodbury Chemical (VIII); Iron
Mountain Mine, CA (IX); Queen City Farms—IRfrl/EDD, WA (X);
Western Processing, WA (X)*
Sludge Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Industri—plex, MA (I); Nyanza
Chemical, MA (I); Bridgeport, NJ (II); Swope Oil, NJ (II);
American Creosote, FL (IV); Arrowhead Refinery, (V); Berlin
& Farro. MI (V); Bio—Ecology Systems, TX (VI); Highlands Acid
Pit, TX (VI); Old Inger , LA (VI); Queen City Farms—IRM/EDD, WA
(X)
Soil Auburn Road, NH (I); Baird & McGuire, MA (I); Beacon Heights,
CT (I); Cannon/Plymouth, MA (I); Hocomonco Pond, MA (I);
Industri—plex. MA (I); Keefe Environmental, Ni-i (I); Mckin—IRZI,
ME (I); Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Picillo Farm, RI (I);
Re—Solve, MA (I): Tinkham Garage, NB (I); Western Sand & -
Gravel, RI (I); Bog Creek Farm, NJ (II); Brewster Well Field,
NY (II); Bridgeport, NJ (It); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II); Caidwell
Trucking, NJ (II); Chemical Control, NJ (II); Combe Fill North
Landfill, NJ (II); Combe Fill South Landfill, NJ (II);
DImperio Property, NJ (II); Florence Landfill, NJ (II); G S
Landfill, NJ (II); Goose Farm, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II);
Hyde Park—EDD, NY (II); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II); Lang
Property, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (It); Lipani Landfill,
NJ (II)*; Lone Pine Landfill, NJ (II); Love Canal, NY (II);
Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ (II); PAS Oswego, NY (II); Pijak
Farm, NJ (II); Price Landfill, NJ (II); Sharkey Landfill, NJ
(II); Sinclair Refinery, NY (II); Spence Farm, NJ (II); Swope
Oil, NJ (II); Syncon Resins, NJ (II); Vestal, NY (II); Wide
Beach, NY (II); Army Creek Landfill, DE (III); Blosenskj
Landfill, PA (III); Bruiri Lagoon, PA (III); Douglassville, PA
(III); Drake Chemical, PA (III); Harvey—Knott, DE (III);
Enterprise Avenue, PA (III ); Lackawanna Refuse Site, PA (III);
Lansdowne Radiation, PA, (III); Lansdowne Radiation, PA
(III)*; Leetown Pesticide, WV (III ); Lehigh Electric,
PA (III); McAdoo—IRM, PA (III); McAdoo ssociates, PA (III)*;
Millcreek, PA (III); Matthews Electroplating, VA (III); Sand,
Gravel & Stone, MD (III); Taylor Borough, PA (III); Tybouts
Corner, DE (III); Tyson’s Dump, PA (III); r,Jade PA (III);
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
12
-------
01/27/86
Contaminated Media
(continued) Site, State. (Region )
Soil Westline, PA (III); An erican Creosote, FL (IV); Coleman Evans,
(continued) FL (IV); Gallaway Ponds, TN (IV); Hipps Road Landfill, FL
(IV); Hollingsworth, FL (IV); Miami Drun Services, FL (IV);
Mowbray Engineering, AL (IV); Pepper’s Steel—EDD, FL (IV);
Pioneeer Sand, FL (IV); Sapp Battery, FL (IV); Whitehouse
Waste Oil Pits, FL (IV); A&F Materials—IRM, IL (V); A&F
Materials-EDD, IL CV); Acme Solvents, IL (V); Arcanuztt Iron &
Metal, OH (V); Arrowhead Refinery, MN (V); Berlin & Farro, MI
(V); Burrows Sanitation, MI (V); Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard,
IL (V); Cemetery Dump, MI (V); Chern—Dyne—EDD, OH (V); Cross
Bros., IL (V); Distler Brickyard, KY (V); Forest Waste—IRM, MI
CV); Forest Waste, MI (V)*; Lake Sandy Jo, IN (V); LaSalle
Electrical, IL (V); Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH (V); Main St.
Wellfjeld, IN (V); Morris Arsenic, MN (V); Mew Lyme, OH (V);
Northernaire. MI (V); Old Mill, OH (V); Outboard Marir.e Corp.,
IL (V); Reilly Tar, MN CV); Reilly Tar & Chemical—EDD, MN (V);
Schmalz Dump, WI (V); Seymour, IN (V); Verona Well Field, MI
(V)*; Wauconda Sand & Gravel, IL (V); Bayou Bonfouca, LA (VI);
Bio—Ecology Systems, TX (VI); Cecil Lindsey, AR (VI); Geneva
Industries, TX (VI); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI); MOTCO, TX
(VI); Old Inger, LA (VI); Sikes Disposai Pits, TX (VI);
Triangle Chem., TX (VI); United Creosoting , TX (VI);
Aidex—IRM, IA (VII); Aide c, IA (VII)*; Des Moires TCE, IA
(VII); Ellisvj.lle, MO (VII); Ellisville Site Area, MO (VII)*;
Times Beach, MO (VII); Denver Rathum/ROBC( , CO (VIII); Libby
Ground Water, MT (VIII); Militown, MT (Vhf); Milltown—S, MT
(VIII); Smuggler Mountain. CO (VIII); Unior Pacific, WY
(VIII); Woodbury Chemical, CO (VIII): Celtor Chemical Works,
CA (IX); Celtor Chemical, CA (IX)*; Del Morte, CA (IX);
Jibboom Junkyard, CA (IX); McColl, CA (IX); Mountain
View/Globe. AZ (IX); Stringfellow Acid P ts—IRM, CA (IX);
Stringfellow Acid Pits, CA (IX)*; Taputimu Farm, AS (IX);
Ponders Corner—IRM, WA (X); Ponders Corner, WA (X)*; South
Tacoma, WA (X); South Tacoma Channel-Well l2A, WA (X)*; United
Chrome, OR (X); Western Processing, WA (X); Western
Processing, WA (X)*
Surface Water Auburn Road, NH (I); Beacon Heights, CT (I); Cannon/Plymouth,
MA (I); Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); McKin—IRM, ME (I); Nyanza
Chemical, MA (I); Re—Solve, MA (I); Sylvester, NH (I); Tirikham
Garage, NH (I); Brewster Well Field, NY (II); Burnt Fly Bog,
NJ (II); Caldwell Trucking, NJ (II); Combe Fill South
Landf 11, NJ (II); GEMS Landfill, NJ (II); Helen (ramer, NJ
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Dec sLon
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
13
-------
01/27/86
Contaminated Media
(continued) Site, State. (Region )
Surface Water (II); Hudson River, NY (II); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II); Lipari.
(continued) Landfill, NJ (II); Lone Pine Landfill, NJ (It); Love Canal, NY
(II); Marathon Battery, NY (II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II ); Price
Landfill, NJ (II) ; Sharkey Landfill, NJ (II ); Sinclair
Refinery, NY (III); Army Creek Landfill, DE (III); Brutri
Lagoon, PA (III ); Chisman Creek, VA (III); Douglassville, PA
(Ir:t); Drake Chemical. PA (III ); Enterprise Avenue, PA (III);
Fischer & Porter PA (III ); Harvey—Knott, DE (III); Heleva
Landfill, PA (1:1); Lackawarina Refuse Site, PA (III);
Limestone Road, MD (III); McAdoo Associates, PA (III)*;
Milicreek, PA (Ill); Moyer Landfill, PA (III ); Sand, Gravel &
Stone, MD (III); Taylor Borough, PA (III); Tyson’s Dump, PA
(III); Westline, PA (III ); Gallaway Ponds, TN (IV); Pioneer
Sand, FL (IV); Sapp Battery, FL (IV); Whitehouse Waste Oil
Pits, FL (IV); A&F Materials—EDO, IL (V); Arcanuin Iron &
Metal, OH (V); Arrowhead Refinery, MN (V); Berlin & Farro, MI
(V); Burrows Sanitation, MI (V); Chem—Dyne—EDD, OH (V);
Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH (V); Old Mill, OH (V); Outboard Mari’he
Corp., IL (V); Reilly Tar, MN (V); Reilly Tar & Chemical—EDD,
MN (V); Waucorida Sand & Gravel, IL (V); Bi .o—Ecology Systems,
TX (VI); Cecil Lindsey, AR (VI); Geneva Industries, TX (VI);
MOTCO, TX (VI ); Old Inger, LA (VI); Sikes Disposal Pits, TX
(VI>; Tar Creek, OK (VI>; Libby Ground Water, MT (VIII);
Marshall Lartdf .J, CO (VIII); Smuggler Mountain, CO (VIII);
Celtor Chemical Works, CA (IX); Celtor Chemical, CA (IX)*;
Iron Mountain Mine. CA (IX ); McCall, CA (IX); Stringfellow
Acid Pits—IRM, CA (IX); Stririgfellow Acid Pit.s, CA (IX)*;
Western Processing, WA (X)*
Wetlands Nocononco Pond, MA (I); Industri-plex, MA (I); Nyart a
Chemical, MA (I); T nkham Garage, NH (I); Bog Creek F rm, NJ
(II); Bridgeport. NJ (II); Burnt Fly Bog. NJ (11); Combe Fill
South Landfill, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); PAS Oswego, NY
(II ); Wide Beach, NY (II); Chisrnari Creek. VA (III );
Harvey—Knott, DE (III); Millcreek, PA (III); Westlirie, PA
(III); Arrowhead efinery, MN (V); Burrows Sanitation, MI (V);
Reilly Tar & Chemical-EDD, MN (V); Schmalz Dump, WI (V); Old
Inger, LA (VI); Tar Creek, OK (VI)
Woods Tinkham Garage, NH (I); Lansdowne Radiation, PA (III); Old
Inger, LA (VI)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDO Enforcement Decis ion Document
14
-------
01/27/86
Public Health and
& vironmental Threats Site, State, (Region )
Direct Contact Iridustri—plex, MA (I); Winthrop Landfill—EDD, ME (I); Hudson
River, NY (II); Love Canal, NY (II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II) ;
Spence Farm, NJ (II); Forest Waste—IRi.i, MI (V)
Public Exposure Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II); Love Canal, NY (II);
Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ (II) Lansdowne Radiation, PA CIII);
Milicreek, PA (III); Verona Well Field—IRM, MI (V); McColl, CA
(IX)
Remedy Selection
Consent Decree Winthrop Landfill—EDD, ME (I): Hyde Park—EDD, NY (II); Fischer
& Porter, PA (III); A&F Materials Company—EDD, IL (V);
Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V); Reilly Tar & Chemical-EDD, MN (V)
Deed Restriction Winthrop Landfiil—EDD, ME (I); Friedman Property, NJ (II);
Chisman Creek. VA (III); Arcanum Iron & Metal, OH (V); Lake
Sandy Jo, IN (V); Morris Arsenic, MN (V); Reilly Tar & -
Chemical-EDD, MN (V); South Tacoma Channel—Well l2A, WA (X)*;
Western Processing. WA (X)*
Fund Balancing Outboard Marine Corp., IL (V); Iron Mountain Mine, CA (IX)
No Action Remedy Friedman Property. NJ (II); Middletown Road, (III); Taylor
Borough, PA (III)*; Varsol Spill, FL (IV); Morris Arsenic, MN
(V); Cecil Lindsey, AR (VI); Toftdah]. Drum, WA (X)*
0 & M Auburn Road, NH (I); Baird & McGuire, MA (I); Industri—plex,
MA (I); Kellogg—Deering Well Field, CT (I); Re—Solve, MA (I);
Tinkham Garage, NH (I); Winthrop Landfill—EDD, ME (I);
Brewster Well Field, NY (II ); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II); Caldwell
Trucking, NJ (II); Combe Fill North Landfill, NJ (II); Combe
Fill South Landfill, NJ (II ); DImperio Property, NJ (II);
Florence Landfill, NJ (II); Hyde Park—EDD, NY (II): Kentucky
Avenue Welifield, KY (II); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II); Lang
Property, NJ (II); Love Canal, NY (II); Marathon Battery, NY
(II); Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ (II); PAS Oswego, NY (II);
Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Price Landfill, NJ (II); Price Landfill,
NJ (II)*; Rockaway Borough Welifield, NJ (II); Sharkey
Landf ill, NJ (II); Spence Farm, NJ (II ); Syncon Resins, NJ
(II); Vestal, NY (II); Army Creek Landfill, DE (III);
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
15
-------
01/27/86
Remedy Selection Site, State, (Region )
(continued)
0 & M Blosenski Landfill, PA (III); Bruin Lagoon, PA (lit); Bruiri
(continued) Lagoon, PA (III)*; Chisman Creek, VA (III); Drake Chemical, PA
(III); Heleva Landfill, PA (III); Lansdowne Radiation, PA
(III)*; Limestone Road, MD (III); Matthews Electroplating, VA
(III); Millcreek, PA (III); Tybouts Corner Landfill, DE (III);
Distler Brickyard, KY (IV); Distler Farm, KY (IV); Gallaway
Ponds, TN (IV); Hipps Road Landfill, FL (IV); Pioneer Sand, FL
(IV); SCRDI Dixiana, SC (IV); Sapp Battery, FL (IV); A.L.
Taylor, KY (IV); Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits, FL (IV); A&F
Materials—EDD, IL (V); Arcanum Iron & Metal, OH (V); Arrowhead
Refinery, MN (V); Burrows Sanitation, MI (V); Byron/Johnson
Salvage Yard, IL (V); Byron Salvage Yard, IL (V)*; Charlevoix,
MI (V); Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V); Eau Claire—IRM, WI (V); Lake
Sandy Jo, IN (V); Old Mill, OH CV); Reilly Tar, ?‘ J (V); Reilly
Tar & Chemical—EDD, MN (V); Seymour, IN (V); Verona Well
Field—IRM, MI (V); Bio—Ecology Systems, TX (VI); Geneva
Industries, TX (VI); Odessa Chromium I, TX (VI); Odessa
Chromium It, TX (VI); Old Inger, LA (VI); Sikes Disposal Pits,
TX (Vt); Tar Creek, OK (VI); United Creosoting, TX (VI);
Aidex, IA (VII)*; Des Moines TCE, IA (VII); Ellisville Site
Area, MO (VII)*; Arsenic Trioxide, ND (VIII); Denver
Radium/ROBCQ, CO (VIII); Libby Ground Water, MT (VIII);
Milltowri, MT (VIII); Smuggler Mountain, CO (VIII);
Union Pacific, WY (VIII); Iron Mountain Mine, CA (IX); San
Gabriel/Area I, CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid Pits, CA (IX)*;
Ponders Corner—IRM, WA (X); South Tacoma Channel—Well 12A, WA
(X)*; Toftdahl Drum, WA (X); United Chrome, OR (X); Western
Processing, WA (X)*
ROD Addendum Sylvester, NH (I); Milltown, MT (VIII)
Temporary Remedial
Measure Hudson River, NY (II); Byron Salvage Yard, IL (VI)*; Denver
Radium/ROBCO, CO (VIII); Union Pacific, WY (VIII)
Water Supply
Alternate Water Supply Auburn Road, NH (I): Charles George. MA (I); Winthrop
Landfill—EDD, (I); Caidwell Trucking, NJ (LI); Cornbe Fill
South Landfill, NJ (II); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II); Bridgeport,
NJ (LI); Caldwell Trucking, NJ (II); Kentucky Avenue
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
16
-------
01/27/86
Water Supply Site, State, (Region )
(continued)
Alternate Water Supply Welifield, NY (II); Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ (II); Qleari Well
(continued) ield, NY (II); Price Landfill, NJ (II); Blosenski Landfill, PA
- (III); Chisman Creek, VA (III); Fischer & Porter, PA (III);
Industrial Lane, PA (lit); Matthews Electroplating, VA (III);
Acme Solvents, IL (V); Arrowhead Refinery, MN (V); Byron
Salvage Yard, IL (V)*; Charlevoix, MI (V); Eau Claire—IRM, WI
(V); Kummer Landfill, MN (V); Lake Sandy Jo, IN CV); New
Brighton/Arden Hills/St. Anthony, MN (V); New Brighton-Water
Supply System, MN CV); Old Mill, OH (V); Reilly Tar, MN (V);
Verona Well Field—IRM, MI (V); Odessa Chromium I, TX (VI);
Odessa Chromium II, TX (VI); South Valley—IRM, NM (VI);
Arsenic Trioxide, ND (VIII); Libby Ground Water, MT (VIII);
Milltot .rn, MT (VIII); Smuggler Mountain. CO (VIII)
Drinking Water Auburn Road, NM (I); Kellogg—Deering Well Field, CT (I);
Contaminants Brewster Well Field, NY (II); Caidwell Trucking, NJ (II);
Combe Fill South Landfill, NJ (II); Kentucky Avenue Wellfield,
NY (II); Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ (II); Rockaway Borough
Wellfield, NJ (II); Vestal, NY (II); Blosenski Landfill, PA
(III); Chisman Creek, VA (III); Fischer & Porter. PA (III);
Industrial Lane, PA (III); Hipps Road Landfill, FL (IV);
Arrowhead Refinery, MN (V); Byron Johnson Salvage Yard, IL
(V)*; Eau Claire—IRM, WI (V); Lake Sandy Jo, IN (V); Main St.
Wellfield, IN (V); Reilly Tar & Chemical—EDD, MN (V); Verona
Well Field—IRM, MI (V); Odessa Chromium I, TX (VI); Od ssa
Chromium II, TX (VI); South Valley—IRM, NM (VI); Des Moines
TCE, IA (VII); Arsenic Trioxide, ND (VIII); Libby Ground
Water, MT (VIII); Smuggler Mountain, CO (VIII)
Site Specif ic charac-
teristics
Flood Plain Baird & McGuire, MA (I); Tinkham Garage, NH (I); Florence
Landfill, NJ (II ); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Sharkey Landfill, NJ
(II); Bruin Lagoon, PA (III)*; Drake Chemical, PA (III);
Distler Brickyard, KY (IV); Hipps Road Landfill, FL (IV); A&F
Materials—EDD, IL (V); A&F Materials-IRM, IL (V); Bayou
Bonfouca, LÀ (VI); Geneva Industries, TX (VI); Highlands Acid
Pit, TX (VI); MOTCO, TX (VI); Sikes Disposal Pits, TX (VI);
Triangle Chemical, TX (VI); Celtor Chemical, CA (IX)*
Seismic McColl, CA (IX)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
17
-------
01/27/86
Site Specific Charac-
teristics Site, State, (Region )
(continued)
Sole—Source Aquifer Price Landfill, NJ (II); Rockaway Borough Weilfield, NJ (II);
Biscayne Aquifer Sites, FL (IV); Pioneer Sand, FL (IV)
Subsidence McAdoo Associates. PA (III)*; Taylor Borough, PA (III);
Wauconda Sand & Gravel, IL CV); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI)
Standards/Regulat ions/
Permits/Guidance
Drinking Water Standards Rockaway Borough Weilfield, NJ (II); Coleman Evans, FL (IV);
Old Inger, LA (VI); Burrows Sanitation, MI (VI); South
Valley—IRM, NM (VI); Milltown, MT (VIII); tinited Chrome, OR (X)
Institutional Controls Beacon Heights, CT (I); Winthrop Landfill—EDD, ME (I);
Friedman Property. NJ (II); Marathon Battery, NY (II); Olean
Well Field, N? (II); Chisman Creek, VA (III); Industrial Lane,
PA (III); Tybouts ‘orner, DE (III); Biscayne Aquifer Sit , FL
(IV ); Gallaway Ponds, TN (IV); Hipps Road Landfill. FL (IV);
Peppers Steel—EDD, FL (IV); Sapp Battery, FL (IV); A&F
Materials—EDD, IL (V); Arcanum Iron & Metal, OH (V); Arrowhead
Refinery, I (V); Charlevoix, MI (V)*; Lake Sandy Jo, IN (V);
Old Mill, OH (V); Reilly Tar & Chemical-EDD, ) I (V); Odessa
Chromium I, TX (VI); Odessa Chromium II, TX (VI); Old Inger,
LA (VI); United Creosoting, TX (VI); Arsenic Trioxide, ND
(VIII); Denver Radium Site Streets, CO (VIII); Libby Ground
Water, MT (VIII); Ponders Corner, WA (X)*; South Tacoma
Channel—Well 12A, WA (X)*; Western Processing, WA (X)*
Public Health Advisory Lansdowne Radiation, PA (III)
RCRA Western Sand & Gravel, RI (I); Love Canal, NY (II);
PAS Oswego, NY (II); Biscayne Aquifer Sites, FL (IV); Arcanurn
Iron & Metal, OH CV); Burrows Sanitation, MI (V); Old Mill, OH
(V); Aidex, IA (VII)*; Ellisville Site Area, MO (VII)*;
Ponders Corner, WA (X)*
RCRA Closure Requirements Winthrop Landfill—EDD, ME (I); Bridgeport, NJ (II); Combe Fill
North Landfill, NJ (II); Army Creek Landfill, DE (III);
Blosenski Landfill, PA (III); Enterprise Avenue, PA (III);
Moyer Landfill, PA (III); Tysons Dump, PA (III); Gallaway
Ponds, TN (IV); Pioneer Sand, FL (IV); Lake Sandy Jo, IN (V);
South Tacoma, WA (X); Western Processing, WA (X)*
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
18
-------
01/27/ 86
Standards/Regulat ions/
Permits/Guidance Site, State, (Region )
(continued)
RCRA Landfill Specifi— Picil].o Farm, RI (I); Caidwell Trucking, NJ (II); Lang
cations Property, NJ (II); Sharkey Landfill, NJ (II); Drake Chemical,
PA (III); Tyson’s Dump, PA (III); American Creosote, FL (IV);
Pioneer Sand, FL (IV); Spiegelberg Landfill, MI (V);
Bio—Ecology Systems, TX (VI); Western Processing, WA (X)*
RCRA Locational Require— Tyson’s Dump, PA (III); Berlin & Farro, MI (V)
ments
State Criteria Brewster Well Field, NY (II); Bridgeport, NJ (II); D’Imperio
Property, NJ (II); Goose Farm, NJ (II); Kentucky Avenue
Weilfield, NY (II); Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ (II); Sharkey
Landfill, NJ (II); Sinclair Refinery, NY (II); Swope Oil, NJ
(II); Coleman Evans, FL (IV); Hipps Road Landfill, FL (IV);
SCRDI Dixiana, SC (IV); A&F Materials—EDD, IL (V); Reilly Tar
& Chemical—EDD, I (V); Ellisvjlle Site Area, MO (VII)*; Union
Pacific, WY (VIII); Iron Mountain Mine, CA (IX); South Tacoma,
WA (X)
State Permit D’Imperio Property, NJ (II); Goose Farm, NJ (II); Army Creek
Landfill, DE (III); Verona Well Field—IRM, MI (V)
TSCA Onsite Disposal Picillo Farm, RI (I); Krysowat 1 Farm, NJ (II); Mowbray
Requirements Engineering, AL (IV); Fields Brook, OH (V)
Water Quality Criteria Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Army Creek Landftll. DE (III);
Coleman Evans, FL (IV); New Br ghton- ater Supply System, MN
(V); Verona Well Field—IRM, MI (V)
Testing/Pilot Studies
Leachability Tests Re—Solve, MA (I)
Treatability Studies Winthrop Landfill—EDD, ME (I); Leetown Pesticide, WV (IV);
Arcanum Iron & Metal, OH (V); Old Inger, LA (VI)
Technology
Aeration McKin, ME (I); Hollingsworth, FL (IV); Triangle Chemn.,, TX
(VI)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
19
-------
01/27/86
Technology Site, Name, (Region )
(continued)
Air Stripping Iridustri—plex, MA (I); Kellogg—Deering Well Field, CT (I);
Brewster Well Field, NY (II); Caidwell Trucking, NJ (II); Lang
Property, NJ (II); Olean Well Field, NY (II); Vestal, NY (II);
Price Landfill, NJ (II)*; Tysons Dump, PA (III); Biscayne
Aquifer Sites, FL (IV); Hollingsworth, FL (IV); Eau
Claire—IRM, WI (V); LeHillier/Mankato, b (V); Main St.
Weilfield, IN (V); Seymour, IN (V); Verona Well Field—IRM, MA
(V); Verona Well Field, MI (V)*; Des Moines TCE, IA (VII);
Marshall Landfill, CO (VIII); San Gabriel/Area I, CA (IX);
Ponders Corner-IRM, WA (X); Ponders Corner, WA (X)*; South
Tacoma, WA (X); South Tacoma Channel—Well 12A, WA (X)*
Capping Beacon Heights, CT (I); Charles George, MA (I)*; Hocomonco
Pond, MA (I); Industri—plex, MA (I); Nyanza Chemical, MA (I);
Re—Solve, MA (I); Sylvester, NH (I); Winthrop LandfLll—EDD,
(I); Bog Creek Farm, NJ (II); Combe Fill North Landfill, NJ
(II); Combe Fill South Landfill, NJ (II); D’Imperio Property,
NJ (II); Florence Landfill, NJ (It); GEMS Landfill, NJ (II);
Goose Farm, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill,
NJ (II); PAS Oswego, NY (II); Sharkey Landfill, NJ (II);
Sinclair Refinery, NY (II); Swope Oil, NJ (II); Army Creek
Landfill, DE (III); Blosenski Landfill, PA (III); Bruin
Lagoon, PA (III)*; Chisman Cree c VA (III); Douglassville, PA
(III); Drake Chemical, PA (III); Enterprise Avenue, PA (III);
Heleva Landfill, PA (III); Lack wanna Refuse Site, PA (III);
Limestone Road, t (III); Matthews Electroplating, VA (III);
McAdoo Associates, PA (III)*; Millcree,(, P (III); Moyer
Landfill, PA (III); Tybouts Corner, DE (III ); Tyson’s Dump, PA
(III); Wade, PA (III); Davie Landfill. FL (IV); Hipps Road
Landfill. FL (IV); A.L. Taylor, KY (IV); Whitehouse Waste Oil
Pits, FL (IV); Chem—Dyne--EDD, OH (V); New Lyme, OH (V);
Blo—Ecology Systems Site, TX (VI); Geneva Industries, TX,
(VI); Old Inger, LA (VI); United Creosoting, TX (VI); Aidex,
IA (VII)*; Smuggler Mountain, CO (VIII); Iron Mountain Mine,
CA (IX); Mountain View/Globe, AZ (IX); Queen City
Farms— 1R14/EDD, WA (X); South Tacoma, WA (K); Western
Processing, WA (X)*
Containment Hudson River, NY (II ); Lipari Landf 1l, NJ (II)*; Drake
Chemical, PA (III); New Lyme, OH (V); Outboard Marine Corp.,
IL (V); Times Beach, MO (VII)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
20
-------
01/27/86
Technology Site, Name, (Region )
(continued)
Dredging Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Hudson River, NY (II); Love Canal, NY
(II); Marathon Battery, NY (II); Outboard Marine Corp., IL
(V); Tar Creek, OK (VI)
Excavation Baird & McGuire, MA (I); Beacon Heights, CT (I); Hocomonco
Pond, MA (I); Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Picillo Farm, RI (I);
Tinkham Garage, Ni-i (I); Bog Creek Farm, NJ (II); Bridgeport,
NJ (II); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II); Caidwell Trucking, NJ (II);
D’Imperio Property, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Krysowaty
Farm, NJ (II); Lang Property, NJ (II); Love Canal, NY (II);
Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ (II); PAS Oswego, NY (II); Pi)ak
Farm, NJ (II); Swope Oil, NJ (II); Syncon Resins, NJ (II);
Wide Beach, NY (II); Blosenskj Landfill, PA (III);
Douglassville. PA (III); Drake Chemical, PA (III); Leetown
Pesticide, WV (III); Lansdowne Radiation, PA (III)*; Lehigh
Electric, PA (III); McAdoo—IRM, PA (III); McAdoo Associates,
PA (III)*; Mxllcreek, PA (III); Sand, Gravel & Stone, MD
(III); Taylor Borough, PA (III); Tyson’s Dump, PA (III);
Tybouts Corner, DE (III); Westline, PA (III); American
Creosote, FL (IV); Coleman Evans, FL (IV); Distler Brickyard,
KY (IV); Distler Farm, KY (IV); Gallaway Ponds, TM (IV);
Hollingsworth, FL (IV); Miami Drum Svcs, FL (IV); Mowbray
Engineering, AL (IV); Sapp Battery, FL (IV); A&F
Materials-EDD, IL (V); Acme Solvents, IL (V); Arcanurn Iron &
Metal, OH (V); Arrowhead Refinery, I (V); Berlin & Farro, MI
(V); Burrows Sanitation, MI (V); Byron/Johnson Salvage, IL
(V); Cemetery Dump, MI (V); Chem—Dyne-EDD, OH (V); Cross
Bros., IL (V); Forest Waste, MI (V); Lake Sandy Jo, IN (V);
LaSalle Electrical, IL (V); Northerriaire, MI (V); Old Mill, OH
CV); Outboard Marine Corp., IL (V); Schmalz Dump, WI (V);
Bayou Bonfouca, LA (VI); Geneva Industries, TX (VI); Highlands
Acid Pit, TX (VI); MOTCO, TX (VI); Old Inger, LA (VI); Sikes
Disposal Pits, TX (VI); United Creosoting, TX (VI); Aidex, IA
(VII)*; Ellisville, MO (VII); Ellisville Site Area, MO (VII)*;
Times Beach, MO (VII); Denver Radium/ROBCQ, CO (VIII); Denver
Radium Site Streets, CO (VIII); Smuggler Mou.ntain, CO (VIII);
Woodbury Chemical, CO (VIII); Celtor Chemical Works, CA (IX);
Celtor Chemical, CA (IX)*; Del Norte, CA (IX); Jibboom
Junkyard, CA (IX); McColl, CA (IX); Ponders Corner, WA (X)*;
Queen City Farms-IRM/EDD, WA CX); South Tacoma, WA (X); South
Tacoma Channel-Well 12A, WA (X)*; United Chrome, OR CX);
Western Processing, WA (X)*
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
21
-------
01/27/86
Technology Site, Name, (Region )
(continued)
Filling Lehigh Electric. PA (III); Taylor Borough, PA (III); Wade, PA
(III); Coleman Evans, FL (IV); A&F Materials—EDD, IL (V); Tar
Creek, OK (VI); Woodbury Chemical, CO (VIII)
Granular Activated Carbon Rockaway Borough Welifield, NJ (II); ‘Iew Brighton-Interim
Water Treatment, MN (V); New Lyme, OH (V); Reilly Tar, MN (V);
Reilly Tar & Chemical-EDD, MN (V); Old Inger, LA (VI); San
Gabriel/Area 1, CA (IX); Stririgfellow Acid Pits. CA (IX)*
Ground Water Monitoring Auburn Road, NH (I); Baird & McGuire, MA (I); Beacon Heights,
CT (I); Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Industri—plex, MA (I);
Kellogg-Deering Well Field, CT (I); McKin, ME (I); Nyanza
Chemical, MA (I); Picillo Farm, RI (I); Tinkham Garage, NB
(I); Winthrop Landfill—EDD, ME (I); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II);
Caldwell Trucking, NJ (II); Friedman Property, NJ (II); Hyde
Park—EDD, NY (II); Kentucky Avenue Weilfield, NY (II);
Krysowaty Farm, NJ (It); Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ (II); PAS
Oswego, NY (II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Price Landfill, NJ
(II)*; Army Creek Landfill, DE (III); Blosenski Landfill, PA
(III); Bruin Lagoon, PA (III)*; Chismari Creek, VA (III); Drake
Chemical, PA (III); Limestone Road, MD (III); Millcreek, PA
(III); Moyer Landfill, PA (III); Taylor Borough, PA (III)*;
Tybouts Corner, DE (III); Gallaway Ponds, TN (IV); Hipps Road
Landfill, FL (IV); Peppers St l—EDD, FL (IV); Pioneer Sand,
FL (IV); Sapp Battery, FL (IV); A&F Materials—EDD, IL TV);
Arcanum Iron & Metal, OH (V); Burrows Sanitation, MI (V);
Byron Salvage Yard, IL (V) ; Lake Sandy Jo, IN (V); New Lyme,
OH (V); Novaco Industries, MI (V); Reilly Tar & Chemical—EDD,
MN (V); Bio—Ecology Systems, TX (VI); Cecil Lindsey, AR (VI);
Geneva Industries, TX (VI); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI); Sikes
Disposal Pits, TX (VI); Aidex, IA (VII)*; Ellisville Site
Area, MO (VII)*; Arsenic Trioxide, ND (VIII); Marshall
Landfill, CO (VIII); Smuggler Mountain, CO (VIII); Union
Pacific, WY (VIII); Woodbury Chemical, CO (VIII); Queen City
Farms-IRZ1/EDD, WA (X); Toftdah]. Drum, WA (X)
Ground Water Treatment Baird & McGuire, MA (I); Industri—plex, MA (I);
Kellogg—Deering Well Field, CT (I); McKin, ME (I); Sylvester,
NH (I); Sylvester—S, NI-! (I); Tinkham Garage, NH (I); Winthrop
Landfill—EDD, ME (I ); Brewster Well Field, NY (II); Combe Fill
South Landfill, NJ (II); DImperio Property, NJ (II); G 4S
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
22
-------
01/27/86
Technoloqy Site, Name, (Region )
(continued)
Ground Water Treatment Landfill, NJ (II); Goose Farm, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II);
(continued) Hyde Park—EDD, NY (II); Lang Property, NJ (II); Lipari
Landfill, NJ (II)*; Olean Well Field, NY (II); PAS Oswego, NY
(II); Price Landfill, NJ (II)*; Rockaway Borough Weilfield, NJ
(II); Sharkey Landfill, NJ (II); Syncon Resins, NJ (II);
Vestal, NY (II); Blosenski. Landfill, PA (III); Harvey—Knott,
DE (III); Heleva Landfill, PA (III); Leetown Pesticide, WV
(III); Millcreek, PA (III); Tybouts Corner, DE (III); Coleman
Evans, FL (IV); Distler Brickyard, KY (IV); Hipps Road
Landfill, FL (IV); Hollingsworth, FL (IV); SCRDI Dixiana, SC
(IV); Sapp Battery, FL (IV); Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits, FL
(IV); Arrowhead Refinery, I (V); Chem—Dyne—EDD, OH (V);
LeHillier/Mankato, I (V); New Lyme, OH (V); Novaco
Industries, MI (V); Old Mill, OH (V); Seymour, IN (V); Verona
Well Field, MI (V)*; Geneva Industries, TX (VI); Des Moines
TCE, IA (VII); Marshall Landfill, CO (VIII); Union Pacific, WY
(VIII); Del Morte, CA (IX); Ponders Corner, WA (X)*; South
Tacoma Channel-Well 12A, WA (X)*; United Chrome, OR (X);
Western Processing, WA (X)*
Incineration Baird & McGuire, MA (I); Bog Creek Farm, NJ (II); Bridgeport,
NJ (II); Hyde Park—EDD, NY (II); Swope Oil, NJ (II); Drake
Chemical, PA (III); Lackawarina Refuse Site, PA (III);
Westline, PA (III); Coleman Evans, FL (IV); Mowbray
Engineering, AL (IV); Acme Solvents, IL (V); Arrowhead
Refinery, ) (V); Berlin & Farro, MI (V); Fields Brook, OH
(V); LaSalle Electrical, IL (V); Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH (V);
Metamora Landfill, MI (V); Spiegelberg Landfill, MI (V);
MOTCO, TX (VI); Sikes Disposal Pits, TX (VI); Triangle Chern.,
TX (VI); Woodbury Chemical, CO (VIII); Western Processing, WA
(X)
Land Treatment Old Inger, LA (VI)
Leachate Collection/ Beacon Heights, CT (I); Charles George, MA (I)*; Picillo
Treatment Farm, RI (I); Combe Fill South Landfill, NJ (II); Gfl S
Landfill, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ
(II)*; Price Landfill, NJ (II)*; Moyer Landfill, PA (III);
Pioneer Sand, FL (IV); New Lyme, OH (V); Wauconda Sand &
Gravel, IL (V); United Chrome, OR CX)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
23
-------
01/27/86
Technology Site, Name, (Region )
(continued)
Levees Baird & McGuire, MA (I); Douglassville, PA (III); Old Inger,
LA (VI)
Offsite Disposal Cannon/Plymouth, MA (I); Keefe Envirorunental, NH (I);
McKin—IRM, ME (I); McKin, ME (I)*; Re—Solve, MA (I); Burnt Fly
Bog. NJ (II); Chemical Control, NJ (II); D’Imperio Property,
NJ (II); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II); Lang Property, NJ (II);
Marathon Battery, NY (II); Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ (II);
Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Price Landfill. NJ (It)*; Spence Farm, NJ
(II); Swope Oil, NJ (II); Syncon Resins, NJ (II); Bruin
Lagoon, PA (III); Enterprise Avenue, PA (III); Harvey—Knott,
DE (III); Lackawarma Refuse Site, PA (III); Lansdowne
Radiation, PA (III)*; Leetowri Pesticide, WV (III); Lehigh
Electric, PA (III); McAdoo—IRN, PA (III); McAdoo Associates,
PA (III)*; Sand, Gravel & Stone, (III); Taylor Borough, PA,
(III); Westline, PA (III); Distler Brickyard, KY (IV); Miami
Drum Services, FL (IV); Pepper’s Steel—EDD, FL (IV); SCRDI
Dixiana, SC (IV); A&F Materials—IRM. IL (V); A&F
Materials—EDD, IL (V); Acme Solvents, IL CV); Arcanum Iron &
Metal, OH (V); Berlin & Farro, MI (V); Burrows Sanitation, MI
(V); Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard, IL (V); Cemetery Dump, MI
(V); Chem—Dyne—EDD, OH (V); Cross Bros., IL (V); Forest Waste,
MI (V)*; Northernaire, MI (V); Old Mill, OH (V); Outboard
Marine Corp., IL (V); Schmalz Dump, WI (V); Wauconda Sand &
Gravel, IL (V); Bayou Bortfouca, LA (VI); Cecil Lindsey, AR
(VI); Geneva Industries, TX (VI); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI);
MOTCO, TX (VI); Triangle Them.,, TX (VI); Aidex—IRM, IA (VII);
Aidex, IA (VII)*; Ellisvj.lle, MO (VII); Ellisvjlle Site Area,
MO (VII)*; Denver Radiuzn/ROBCO, CO (VIII); Denver Radium Site
Streets, CO (VIII); Woodbury Chemical, CO (VIII); Celtor
Chemical Works, CA (IX); Celtor Chemical, CA (IX)*; Del Norte
CA (IX); Jibbooni Junkyard, CA (IX); McColl, CA (IX);
Stririgfellow Acid Pits—IRM, CA (IX); Ponders Corner, WA (X)*;
Queen City Farms-IRM/EDD, WA (X); South Tacoma Channel-Well
12A, WA (X)*; United Chrome, OR (X); Western Processing, WA
(X); Western Processing, WA (X)
Onsite Containment Re—Solve, MA (I); Enterprise Avenue, PA (III); Millcreek, PA
(III); Davie Landfill, FL (IV); Lake Sandy Jo, IN (V); New
Lyme, OH (V); Outboard Marine Corp., IL (V); Bio-Ecology
Systems, TX (VI); United Creosoting, TX (VI); Ellisville Site
Area, MO (VII)*; Times Beach, MO (VII); Denver Radium/ROBCO,
CO (VIII); Western Processing, WA (X)*
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
24
-------
01/27/86
Technology Site, Name, (Region )
(continued)
Onsite Disposal Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Picillo Farm. RI (I); Tinkham Garage,
NH (I); Caidwell Trucking, NJ (II); Love Canal, NY (II); Drake
Chemical, PA (III); Enterprise Avenue, PA (III); American
Creosote, FL (IV); Gallaway Ponds, TN (IV); SCRDI Dixiana, SC
(IV); Sapp Battery. FL (IV); Arcanum Iron & Metal, OH (V);
LaSalle Electrical, IL CV): Sikes Disposal Pits, TX (VI);
Aidex, IA (VII)*; Smuggler Mountain, CO (VIII); Mountain
View/Globe, AZ (IX); Western Processing, WA (X)*
Relocation Lansdowne Radiation, PA (III); Lansdowne Radiation, PA
(III)*; United Creosoting, TX (VI); Times Beach, MO (VII);
Mountain View/Globe, AZ (IX)
Plume Management Hyde Park—EDD, NY (II); Price Landfill, NJ (II); Burrows
Sanitation, MI (V); Seymour, IN (V); Verona Well Field—IRM, MI
(V)
Publicly Owned Treatment Tinkham Garage, NH (I); GEMS Landfill, NJ (II); Helen
Works (POTW> Kramer, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Tybouts Corner, DE
(III); Seymour, IN (V); Del Norte, CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid
Pits, CA (IX)*; Western Processing, WA (X)*
Slurry Wall Sylvester, NH (I); Florence Landfill, NJ (II); Helen Kramer,
NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II); Lone Pine Landfill, NJ
(II); PAS Oswego, NY (II); Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits, FL (IV);
Geneva Industries, TX (VI); Union Pacific, WY (VIII)
Solidification Mowbray Engineering, AL (IV); Pepper’s Steel, FL (IV); Sapp
Battery, FL (IV); Fields Brook, OH (V); Forest Waste, MI (V)*;
Burrows Sanitation, MI (V); Queen City Farms, WA (H)
Stabilization Re—Solve, MA (I); Marathon Battery, NY; Bruin Lagoon, PA
(III); Bruin Lagoon, PA (III)*: Pepper’s Stael—EDD, FL (IV);
Denver Radiuni/ROSCO, CO (VIII); Queen City Farms-IRM/EDD, WA
(X)
Surface Water Diversion/ Charles George, MA (I)*; McKin, (I) ; Nyanza Chemical,
Collection MA (I); Blosenski Landfill, PA (III); Harvey—Knott, DE (III);
Heleva Landfill, PA (III); Leetown Pesticide. WV (III); Moyer
Landfill, PA (III); Taylor Borough, PA (III); Queen City
Farms—IRM/EDD, WA (X)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
25
-------
01/27/86
Technology Site, Name, (Region )
(continued)
Treatment Technology Baird & McGuire, MA (I); Tinkham Garage, NH (I); Bog Creek
Farm, NJ (II); Bridgeport, NJ (II); Caldwell Trucking, NJ
(It); Goose Farm, NJ (II); Marathon Battery, NY (It);
Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ (II); Syncon Resins, NJ (II); Wide
Beach, NY (II); Bruin Lagoon, PA (III)*; Leetown Pesticide, WV
(III ); Coleman Evans, FL (IV); Mowbray Engineering, AL (IV);
Pepper’s Steel—EDD, FL (IV); Sapp Battery, FL (IV); Arrowhead
Refinery, ? 2 I (V); Burrows Sanitation, MI (V); Forest Waste, MI
(V)*; LaSalle Electrical, IL (V); MOTCO, TX (VI); Sikes
Disposal Pits, TX (VI); Triangle Chemical, TX (VI);
Stringfellow Acid Pits, CA (IX)*; United Chrome, OR CX);
Western Processing, WA (X)*
Venting Beacon Heights, CT (I); Charles George. MA (I)*; G S
Landfill, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Heleva Landfill, PA
(III); Moyer Landfill, PA (III); New Lyme. OH (V)
Miscellaneous
Municipal ly-Owned Site Winthrop Landfill—EDO, ME (I); Rockaway Borough Wellfield, NJ
(II); Army Creek Landfill, DE (III); Enterprise Avenue, PA
(III); Denver Radium Site Streets, CO (VIII)
Historically This category represents key words that will not be
Significant highlighted after FY 1986.
ACL Sylvester, NH (I); Western Sand & Gravel, RI (I); Winthrop
Landfill—EDO, ME (I); Bog Creek Farm, NJ (II); D’Imperio
Property, NJ (II); Goose Farm, NJ (II); Blosenski Landfill, PA
(III); Harvey—Knott, DE (III); SCRDI Dixiana, SC (IV);
Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI); Aidex, IA (VII)*; Old Mill, OH
(V); Western Processing, WA (X)*
Background Levels Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Industrial Lane, PA (III ); Sand,
Gravel & Stone, MD (III); Taylor Borough, PA (III); Distler
Brickyard, KY (IV); Distler Farm. KY (IV); Reilly Tar, ‘I (V);
Triangle Chemical, TX (VI); Aidex, IA (VII)*; Arsenic
Trioxide, ND (VIII); Toftdahl Drum, WA (X)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
26
-------
01/27/86
Historically
Significant Site, Name, (Region )
(continued)
Deferred Decision Cannon/Plymouth, MA (I); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Swope Oil,
- NJ (II); Douglassville, PA (III); McAdoo Associates, PA
(III)*; Taylor Borough, PA (III); Tysons Dump, PA (III);
American Cresote, FL (IV); Davie Landfill, FL (IV); New
Brighton/Arderi Rills/St. Anthony, sI (V); Bayou Bonfouca, LA
(VI); Ponders Corner, WA (X)*; South Tacoma Channel-Well 12A,
WA (X)*
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
27
------- |