NCD079044426_19941215_General Electric Co. Shepherd Farm_SERB C _NPL Listing Documents-OCR

-
c-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
.... I \,
i
REGION IV r-=R~IE-c-e-~v-=e~o-,
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365 DEC 2 0 1994
5UPERFUND SECTION
\\ECEJy<')
Solid 'M ~ O{C, aste
4WD-WPB
19 1994 ¾
Mr. Mike Kelly, Chief
Superfund Section
·"'6't.yENT~·
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
SUBJ: National Priorities List, Final Rule #13
Dear Mr. Kelly:
The Agency will announce on December 16, 1994, in the
Federal Register, Final Rule #13 to the National Priorities List
(NPL). This final rule adds 18 sites to the NPL, seven (7) of
which are in Region 4. The Region 4 sites are as follows:
1.
=)2.
3.
4.
5.
6 •
Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant), South Carolina;
General Electric/Shepherd Farms, East Flat Rock, North
Carolina;
ICG Iselin Railroad Yard, Jackson, Tennessee;
Escambia Wood, Pensacola, Florida;
Aqua-Tech Environmental Inc. ( grace Labs) , Greer, .South
Carolina;
USMCRD Parris Island Marine Corps Recruit Depot, South
Carolina; and
USMCAS Cherry Point Marine Corp Air Station, North Carolina.
Enclosed are various background materials pertaining to the
rule. If you have any questions, please contact Deborah Vaughn-
Wright at 404/347-5059, ext. 6160.
Sincerely yours,
V(.lf./~
Narindar Kumar, Chief
Superfund Site Assessment Section
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Pat DeRosa
;
Printed on Recycled Paper
t &EPA
{
• United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
401 M St., S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
• NPL-FR-U13-4-4
December 1994
. Support Docum_ent for the Revised
·National -Priorities List Final Rule -
December 1994
.,_,......_v111--
Moun~1a~1n::.__1J•-l
,..,...
New England
I
• •
ABSTRACT
Pursuant to Section 105(a) (8) (B) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986, the U.S. Environmental .Protection Agency (EPA) periodically
adds hazardous waste sites to the National Priorities List (NPL).
Prior to actually listing a sit~, EPA proposes the site in the
Federal Register and solicits public comments.
This document provides technical responses to public comments
received on three sites proposed on February 7, 1992 (57 FR
4824), three sites proposed on October 14, 1992 (57 FR 47204),
four sites proposed on May 10, 1993 (58 FR 27507), two sites
proposed on January 18, 1994 (59-FR 2568), and three sites
proposed on August 23, 1994· (59 FR 43314). They are being added
to the NPL in a final rule ·published in the Federal Register in
December 1994. The rule also _adds three other sites to. the NPL
on which no comments were received ..
ii
j
(
,·
I
'
(
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
Executive Summary
Introduction
Comments on
1 •. 1 NY
1.2 NY
Region 2 Sites
Onondaga Lake
Pfohl Brothers
Comments on Region 3 Sites
Landfill
•
PAGE
V
ix
1.1-1
1. 2-1
2 .1 VA Fort Eustis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .1-1
Comments on Region 4 Sites
3.1 FL Escambia Wood-Pensacola . 3.1-1
3.2 NC General Electric Co./Shepherd Farm 3.2-1
3.3 SC Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) 3.3-1
3.4 TN ICG Iselin Railroad Yard 3.4-1
Comments on Region 5 Sites
4.1 MN Baytown Township Ground Water Plume 4.1-1
Comments on Region 6 Sites
5.1 LA Agriculture Street Landfill 5.1-1
5.2 NM Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe
Tie Treating Plant (Albuquerque) 5.2-1
Comments on Region 7 Sites
6.1 IA Mason City Coal Gasification Plant . 6.1-1
6.2 NE Ogallala Ground Water Contamination 6.2-1
Comments on Region 9 Sites
7.1 CA Concord Naval Weapons Station 7.1-1
7.2 HI Del Monte Corporation (Oahu Plantation) 7.2-1
Comments on Region 10 Sites
8.1 OR Reynolds Metals Company . . 8.1-1
iii
(
• •
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 105(a) (8) (B) of the Comprehensive Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986,
requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. An original National
Priorities List (NPL) was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR
40658). CERCLA also requires EPA to update the list at least
annually.
This document provides technical responses to public comments
received on three sites proposed on February 7, 1992 (57 FR
4824), three sites proposed on October 14, 1992 (57 FR 47204),
four sites proposed on May 10, 1993 (58 FR 27507), two sites
proposed on January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2568), and three sites
proposed on August 23, 1994 (59 FR 43314). They are being added
to the NPL in a final rule published in the Federal Register in
December 1994.
The 15 sites addressed in this document, with their proposed
and final Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scores, are listed in the
following table.
V
Sites Addressed in this Document
State Site Name City/County Proposed Date
NY
NY
VA
FL
NC
SC
< TN
I-'·
MN
LA
NM
IA
NE
Onondaga Lake
Pfohl Brothers Landfill
Fort Eustis
Escambia Wood -Pensacola
General Electric Co./Shepherd Farm
Koppers Co. Inc. (Charleston Plant)
ICG Iselin Railroad Yard
Baytown Township Ground Water Plume
Agriculture Street Landfill
Region 2
Syracuse
Cheektowaga
R e g i o n 3
Newport News
Region 4
May 10, 1993
May 10, 1993
January 18,
1994
Pensacola August 23, 1994
East Flat Rock February 7,
Charleston
Jackson
R e g i o n 5
Washington
County
1992
February 7,
1992
May 10, 1993
October 14,
19921
R e g i o n 6
New Orleans
Albuquerque Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Tie Treating
Plant (Albuquerque)
August 23, 1994
October 14,
1992
Mason City Coal Gasification Plant
Ogallala Ground Water Contamination
R e g i o n 7
Mason City
Ogallala
January 18,
1994
October 14,
1992
HRS Score
Proposed Final
so
50.11
so
so
70.71
so
so
35.62
so
so
69.33
so
so
50.11
so
so
70. 71
so
so
35.62
so
so
69.33
so
1 Proposed as Lake Elmo Airport Ground Water Plume (Baytown Township Ground Water Contami~ation Area)
•
State Site Name
Concord Naval Weapons Station
City/County
R e g i o n 9
Concord CA
HI Del Monte Corporation (Oahu Plantation) Honolulu
<: ,.,. ,.,.
OR Reynolds Metals Company
County
R e g i o n 1 O
Troutdale
Proposed Date
February 7,
1992
May 10, 1993
August 23, 1994
HRS Score
Proposed
so
so
70.71
Final
so
so
70.71 •
•
(
(
• •
INTRODUCTION
This document explains the rationale for adding 15 sites to
the National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites and also provides the detailed technical responses to
public comments received on the sites. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) proposed three sites on February 7, 1992
(57 FR 4824), three sites on October 14, 1992 (57 FR 47204), four
sites on May 10, 1993 (58 FR 27507), ·two sites on January 18,
1994 (59 FR 2568), and three sites on August 23, 1994 (59 FR
43314). They are being added to the NPL in a final rule
published in the Federal Register in December 1994. The rule
also adds three other sites to the NPL on which no comments were
received.
Background of NPL
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections
9601 et seq. (CERCLA or the Act) in response to the dangers of
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA was amended on
October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA), Public Law No. 99-499, stat., 1613 et seq. To
implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR
Part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA
Section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20,
1981). The NCP, further revised by EPA on September 16, 1985 (50
FR 37624) and November 20, 1985 (50 FR 47912), sets forth
guidelines and procedures needed to respond under CERCLA to
releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants. On March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666), EPA
further revised the NCP in response to SARA.
Section 105(a) (8) (A) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires
that the NCP include
ix
• •
criteria for determining priorities among releases
or threatened releases throughout the United
States for the purpose of taking remedial action
and, to the extent practicable, take into account
the potential urgency of such action, for the
purpose of taking removal action.
Removal action involves cleanup or other actions that are taken
in response to emergency conditions or on a short-term or
temporary basis (CERCLA Section 101(23)). Remedial action tends
to be long-term in nature and involves response actions that are
consistent with a permanent remedy for a release (CERCLA Section
101(24)). Criteria for placing sites on the NPL, which makes
them eligible for remedial actions financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA, were included in the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS), which EPA promulgated as Appendix A of the NCP (47
· FR 31219, July 16, 1982). On December 14, 1990 (56 FR 51532),
EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS in response to SARA, and
established the effective date for the HRS revisions as March 15,
1991.
Section 105(a) (8) (B) of CERCLA, as amended, requires that the
statutory criteria provided by the HRS be used to prepare a li?t
of national priorities among the known releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
throughout the United States. The list, which is Appendix B of
the NCP, is the NPL.
An original NPL of 406 sites was promulgated on September 8,
1983 (48 FR 40658). At that time, an HRS score of 28.50 was
established .as the cutoff for listing because it yielded an.
initial NPL of at least 400 sites, as suggested by CERCLA. The
NPL has been expanded several times since then, most recently on
May 31, 1994 (59 FR 27989). The Agency also has published a
number of proposed rulemakings to add sites to the NPL. The most
recent proposal was on August 23, 1994 (59 FR 43314).
X
(
• •
Development of NPL
The primary purpose of the NPL is stated in the legislative
history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee on Environment and
Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60
[1980]) :
The priority list serves primarily informational
purposes, identifying for the States and the
public those facilities and sites or other
releases which appear to warrant remedial actions.
Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does.
not in itself reflect a judgment of the activities
of its owner or operator, it does not require
those persons to undertake any action, nor does it
assign liability to any person. Subsequent
government actions will be necessary in order to
do so, and these actions will be attended by all
appropriate procedural safeguards.
The purpose of the NPL, therefore, is primarily to serve as
an informational and management tool. The identification of a
( site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in
determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess
the nature and extent of the public health and environmental
risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-
financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL
also serves to notify the public of sites EPA believes warrant
further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the
extent potentially responsible parties are identifiable at the
time of listing, serve as notice to such parties that the Agency
may initiate CERCLA-financed remedial action.
(
CERCLA Section l0S(a) (8) (B) directs EPA to list priority
sites. "among" the known releases .or threatened release of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and Section
l0S(a) (8) (A) directs EPA to consider certain enumerated and
"other appropriate" factors in doing so .. Thus, as a matter of
policy, EPA has the discretion not to use CERCLA to respond to
xi
• .
certain types of releases. Where other authorities exist,
placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action under
CERCLA may not be appropriate. Therefore, EPA has chosen not to
place certain types of sites on the NPL even though CERCLA does
not exclude such action. If, however, the Agency later
determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy are not
being properly responded to, the Agency may consider placing them
on the NPL. NPL eligibility policies of particular relevance to
this final rule are discussed in the preamble to this rule in the
Federal Register.
Hazard Ranking System
The HRS is the principal mechanism F.PA uses to place
uncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a numerically based
screening system that uses information from initial, limited
investigations--the preliminary assessment and site inspection--
to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to
human health or the environment. HRS scores, however, do not
determine the sequence in which EPA funds remedial response
actions, since the information collected to develop HRS scores is
not sufficient in itself to determine either the extent of
contamination or the appropriate response for a particular site.
Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not necessarily
come to the Agency's attention first, so that addressing sites
strictly on the basis of ranking would in some cases require
stopping work at sites where it was already underway. Thus, EPA
relies on further, more detailed studies in the remedial
investigation/feasibility study that typically follows listing.
The HRS uses a structured value analysis approach to scoring
sites. This app·roach assigns numerical values to· factors that
relate to or indicate risk based on conditions at the site. The
factors are grouped into three categories. Each category has a
maximum value. The categories are as follows:
xii
l
• •
The likelihood that a site has released or has the
potential to release contaminants into the environment.
The characteristics of the waste (toxicity and waste
quantity) .
The people or sensitive environments ("targets") affected
by the release.
Under the HRS, four pathways can be scored for one or more
threats:
Ground Water Migration (Sgw) .
Drinking water
Surface Water Migration (S~): These threats are
evaluated for two separate migration components
(overland/flood and ground water to surface water).
Drinking water
Human food chain
Sensitive environments
Soil Exposure (S,) .
Resident population
Nearby population
Air Migration (S0 ) •
Population
After scores are calculated for one or more pathways
according to prescribed guidelines, they are combined using the
following root-mean-square equation to determine the overall site
score (S), which ranges from Oto 100:
xiii
•
S=
2 2 2 8 2 Sgw + S 8., + S 8 + a
4
If all pathway scores are low, the HRS score is low. However,
the HRS score can be relatively high even if only one pathway
score is high. This is an important requirement for HRS scoring
because some extremely dangerous sites pose threats through only
one pathway. For example, buried leaking drums of hazardous
substances can contaminate drinking water wells, but-"if the
drums are deep enough and the substances not very volatile--not
surface water or air.
Organization of this Document
Each section that follows addresses site-specific public
cqmments for sites in one of the 10 EPA regions. The sites are
arranged by EPA Region, and, within the Region, alphabetically by
State and site name. Each site discussion starts with a list of
commenters, followed by a summary of the pertinent comments and
Agency responses. A concluding statement indicates the effect of
the comment on the HRS score for the site.
Glossary
The following acronyms and abbreviations are used throughout
the text:
Agency
ATSDR
CERCLA
EPA
HRS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 u.s.c.
Sections 9601 et seq., also known as Superfund
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hazard Ranking System, Appendix A of the NCP (55
FR 51532, December 14, 1990)
xiv )
,(
• •
HRS Score Overall site score (S) calculated using the Hazard
Ranking System; ranges from Oto 100
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (55 FR 8666, March 8, 1990)
NPL
NPL-###
PA/SI
PRP
RCRA
RD/RA
RI/FS
ROD
SARA
National Priorities List, Appendix B of the NCP
Public comment index numbers as recorded in the
Superfund Docket in EPA Headquarters and Regional
offices
Preliminary assessment/site inspection
Potentially responsible party
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(U.S.C. 9601-6991, as amended)
Remedial design/remedial action
Remedial investigation/feasibility study
Record of decision explaining the CERCLA-funded
cleanup alternative(s) to be used at an NPL site.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986, Public Law No. 99-499, stat., 1613 et seq.
xv
National Priorities List
Final and Proposed Sites (by Region)
December 1994.
St Site Name Location
·*** Region 4 ***
AL Alabama Army Armunition Plant Chi l'dersburg
AL· Anniston Army Depot (SE Industrial Area) Anniston
AL _Ciba-Geigy Corp. (McIntosh Plant) McIntosh
AL Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO) Leeds
.. AL _·Monarch Tile ManUfacturing, tnC: Florence
: . AL _oun Corp. (McIntosh Plant) McIntosh·
AL Perdido Ground Weter Contamination Perdido
AL Redstone Arsenal (USARHY/NASA) ·Huntsville
AL Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) Saraland
AL Stauffer Chemical.Co. (Cold Creek Plant) Bucks
AL . Stauffer Chemical ·co. (LeMoyne .Plant) Axis . AL T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition (Montgomery, Montgomery
AL Triana/Tennessee_ River Limestone/Morgan
FL Agrico Chemical Co. Pensacola
FL Airco Plating Co. Miami
FL. Alpha Chemical Corp. ·Galloway
FL American Creosote Works (Pensacola Plt) Pensacola
FL Anaconda Al...ninun Co./Milgo Ele~tronics Miami
FL Anodyne, Inc. North Miami Beach
FL B&B Chemical Co., Inc.·. Hialeah
FL BMl·Textron Lake Park
FL Beulah' Landfill Pensacola
FL Broward COUJ'1ty--21st MBnor OLll'p · Fort Lal.Xlerdale
FL Brown Wood Preserving Live Oak
FL Cabot/Koppers Gainesville
FL ·Cecil Field Nevel Air Station Jacksonville
FL Chemform, Inc. _P001)8no ·aeech
FL Chevron Chemical Co. (Ortho.Division) · Orlando . . FL City fndustries, Inc. Orlando
FL ·Coleman-Evans Wood Preservin9 Co. Whitehouse
FL Davie Landfill · Davie
.fl · Dubose Oil_ Products Co. , Cantorment
FL Escenbie Wood -Pensacola Pensacol"a
FL Florida Steel Corp. Indiantown
FL Gold Coast Oil Corp.· Miami.
FL Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant) Palm· Bey .
FL Helena Chemical to. (Taffl)B Plant> ·' Tan-pa
FL . Hipps Road Landfill. Duvel County
FL Hollingsworth Solder less Terminal-Fort .L8ucterdal'e
FL . Homeste8d Air Force Base · Homestead
FL Jacksonville Nevel Air·stetion . Jacksonville
FL _Kassauf·Kimer_l ing Battery D_isposel TBl11)a
FL Madison County Sanitary_Lendfill Madison
FL Miami Drun Services Miami
FL Munisport Landfill North Miami
FL Northwest 58th Street Landfill · Hialeah
Fl Peek .Oil Co./Bey Drun Co •. Taffl)B
FL ·perisacola Naval Air Stat;on Pensacola
FL Pepper Steel & Alloys, Inc.· . Medley
FL _Petroleun Products CorP~ Perrtiroke Park
FL. Pickettville Road Landfill Jac_ksonvi _l le
FL, Piper Aircraft/Vero Beach Weter & Sewe_r, .Vero Beech
FL Plymouth Avenue Landfill Deland
FL · ~eeves Southeast Galvaniz_ing_ Corp Ta""°
FL Sapp Battery Salvage · Cottondale
-FL Schuylkill.Metals Corp. Plant City
FL-Sherwood Medical l_ndustrie& Deland
Date
-----------· ------. Propo~eda Final Notes b
10/84 07/87 F
10/84 D3/89 F
09/83 · 09/84
09/85 06/86
D5/93
09/83. · 09/84
12/82 09/83
06/93 05/94 F
06/88 02/90
09/83 .. · 09/84
09/83 · 09/84
06/88 08/90
12/82 09/83
06/88 10/89 . 06/88 D2/90
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
10/89 08/90
06/88 02/90
06/88 08/90
06/88 . 08/90
06/88 .· 02/90
07/91
12/82 . 09/83
,09/83 09/84
07/89 11/89 F·
06/88 10/89
01/94 · 05/94
·10184 . 10/89
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83 .. 10/84 06/86
08/94 12/94
12/82. 09/83
12/82 09/83
.04/85 . '·07/87
02/92 10/92
09/83 09/84
12/82 09/83
07/89 08/90 F
07/89 11/89 F
12/82 09/83
06/88 08/90
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83 .
10/84 06/86
07/89 11/89 F
09/83 · 09/84
04/85 07/87
'12/82 · 09/83
06/86 02/90
05/93
. · 12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
I 12/82 09/83
National Priorities List·
F_inal end Proposed Sites (by Region)
St. Site Name
FL ·sixty-Second Street Di..rp
FL Standard Auto ·el.ll1)er· Corp.
FL StaLl_ffer Chemic~l Co. (Tarrpa Plant)
Fl Stauffer Chemical .co. (Tarpon Springs) ,
FL Sydney Mine Sludge Ponds
FL Taylor Road Landfill.
FL ·Tower Chemical Co.
FL Whitehouse Ofl•Pits
FL_ Whiting Field.Naval Air-Station
• FL Wilsori Concepts of Florida, Inc.:
.FL .Wingate_·Road Municipal Incirleretor DLJll)
FL Woodbury Chemicet·co. (Princeton Plant)
· FL Yellow water Road .ollJ1)
· FL Zellwood Ground Water Con~amination
GA ~Cedartown lndustr1ies; Inc-.
GA Cedartown MunicipDl Landfill
GA Diamo_nd Shamrock Corp. Landfill
GA Fjr~stone Tire & Rubber Co(Albany Plant)
GA Her cu I es 009 Landt ii 1 . ·
· GA Marine Corps Logistics Base ·
GA Martone Inc./Chevron Chemical Co.
GA Math.is· Brothers Landfill
· GA ~Dr1Santo Corp. (Augusta Plant)
, GA Powersville Site
GA· Robins Air Force Base(Lf#4/Sludge lagoon·
GA T.H·. 'Agric'ulture & Nutrition (Albany)
. GA Woolfolk Chemical ~orks, Inc.
KY A.L. Taylor (Valley .of.Druns)
: KY Airco
ICY 8.F. Goodrich KY Bran'ttey LancHi.ll
KY Caldwell Lace Leather Co. 1 tn·c.
. ICY Distler Brickyard · ·
KY Distler farm · . . ,
· KY Fort Hartford Coal Co. ·stone Quarry
ICY' General Tire & Rubber(Mayfield Landfill)
·KY· ·Green River Disposal, Inc:
.-: KY Howe Valley Landfill
ICY Lee•s·Lane Landfill
· ICY Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal .
:IC·~. NBtionel ·electric Coil/Cooper lndustieS
·.n. National Southwire Alunirun Co.
KY Newport D-
ICY · Paducah Gaseous DifflJSion Plant CUSDOE)
KY Red Penn Sanitation Co. Landfill · ·n Smith's Farm
KY·· Tri-City Oispos8l Co.
MS Chemfax, Inc.
MS Flowooa Site
MS Newsom B·rothers/Old Reichhold Chemica·rs.
MS Potter Co. · ·
MS ~exes Eas~ern Kosciusko .COIJ1)r_essor Stri~.
~NC ABC One HOui Cleaners
· NC Aberdeen Pesticid.e D~s
_Deceirber 1994 ·
Location.
*** Region 4 • .,. --~
. / .
2
Taq:,a .
Hialeah
Ta~ .
Tarpon springs
Brandon
• Seffner
Clermont
Whitehouse
. Milton.
Ponpano _Beach
Fort Lauderdale
Princeton
Baldwin
. Zellwood
Cedartown
Cedartown
.Cedartown•.
. Albany
Brunswick
Albany
Tifton
·Kensington
Augusta
Peach County
Houston County
Albany .
Fort Va'l ley .
Brooks·
Calvert City
• Calvert City.
Island
Auburn
West Point
Jefferson Coun!Y-
Olaton
Mayf_ield
Maceo
Howe Valley
Louisville
Hil lsbor'o
Dayhoit
Hawesville
•. Newport
Paducah ·
Peewee-Valley
Brooks ·
,,Sheph~rdsvi l le
Gulfport
. Flowood
Coll.Jlbia
·. Wesson
Kosciusko
. Jacksonville
· Aberdeen
D8te
Proposed~ .final
12/82
06/88
. 02/92
02/92
06/86 ·
· 12/82
12/82.
12/82 ·
01/94
06/88
06/88
06/88
09/85
12/82
06/88
· 06/88
. 01/87
06/88.
09/83 .
07/89
06/88
01/87
09/83
09/83 10/84 .
06/88
06/88
12/82
12/82
12/82
06/88
· 06/88
· 12/82 . 12/82
06/88
06/88 .
· 06/88
'06/86
12/82 .
10/84
07/91
07/91
12/82.
05/93
·06/88
10/84
06/88
06/93
. 09/83 ·
10/84
05/93
08/94
06/88
01/87
09/83
10/89
05/94
10/89
09/83
09/83
09/83
05/94 .
03/89
10/89
08/90
06/86
09/83
02/90
03/89
08/90
10/89
09/84
_; .11/89
·10/89
03/89
09/84
09/84.
07/87
03/89
08/90
09/83
09/84°
09/83
02/90
08/90
09/83
09/83
08/90
02/90
·05190
07/87
09/83
. 06/86
10/92
05/94.
-09/83
05/94
· 03/89
06/86
. 03/89
09/84 .··
06/86
· 03/89.
03/89
-F
F
F
F·
s
• •
National Priorities·List
Final.end Proposed Sites (by Region)
Decenber 1994
St Site Name
NC Benfield Industries, Inc.
NC Bypass 601 G·round Water -Contamination
NC Ca~ Lejeune Military Res. (USNAVY)·
NC Cape Fear Wood Preserving ·
NC ·carolinb Transformer Co.
NC Celanese Corp~ (Shelby Fiber Operations)
NC Ch8rles Macon Lagoon & Drun StOrage ·
NC Chemtronics, Inc.
NC Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station
NC _·FcX, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
NC FCX, Inc. (Washington Plant) .
·NC Geigy Chemical ·corp. -(Aberdeen Plant)
NC 'G_ene·r:al Electric Co/Shepherd Farm
; ti!C JFD Electronics/Channel Master
NC Jedco·Hughes Fed l i"ty
NC Koppers Co. ·1nc. (Morrisville _Plant)
NC Martin-Mariette, Sodyeco, Inc.
NC NC State _Un_iversity(Lot 86,Farm Unit #1)
NC NatiOnal Starch & Chemical Corp.
NC ·-New Hanover Cnty Airport Burn Pit
NC Potter1s Septic Tan~ Service.Pits
SC Aqu'a-Tech Envirormen.tal Inc (Groce Labs)·
SC Beaunit Corp. (CirCular Knit & Dye)
SC cBrolawn, tnc. ·
SC ·Elmore Waste Disposal
SC Gelger cc & H_Oil)
SC Golden Strip Septic Tank SerVice
SC Helena Chemical Co. Landfill
SC tndependent Nail Co.
·_SC. Kalama Specialty Chemicals
SC Koppers Co., Irie. (Charleston-Plant)
SC Koppers Co., Inc. (Florence Plant)
SC Leonard Chemical Co., Inc.
SC Lexington cOunty Landfili Area
SC Hedley Farm Drl.l1l DLll'I)
SC Palmetto Recycling, Inc.
SC Palmetto Wood P,reserving
.SC Para-Chem.Southern, Inc.
SC Parris JSland Marine Corps Recruit Depot
SC Rochester Property ·
SC Rock Hill Chemical Co.
SC SCRDl Bluff.Road
SC SCRDI Dixiana
. SC Sang·amo Weston/Twelve-Mile/Hartwell_ PCB
SC Savamah River Site (USDOE):
SC· Townsend Sew Chain Co.
SC Wamchem, lnc.
•"TN American Creosote Works,· (Jackson Plant)
TN' Annicola DLll'I)
TN Arlington Blending & P8ckeging
TN,. Arnold Engineering DevelOp. Ctr. (USA_F)
TN Carrier Air Conditioning Co. TN Chemet Co. ..
TN Gallaway Pits.
· TN tCG Jselin RaHrOad Yard
TN Lewisburg D'-""
Location
*** ~egion 4 •••
3
Hazelwood
Concord
Onslow County
·Fayetteville
Fayetteville
Shelby
Cordova
Swannanoa
Havelock
Statesville
Washington
Aberdeen
East Flat Rock
Oxford
Belll'IOnt ·
· MorrisvHle
Char"lotte
Raleigh
Salisbury
-Wilmington'
Maco
Greer· ·
.· Fountain Inn
Fort Lawn
Greer
RantOules
Sirrpsonvi l le
.Fairfax ·
Beaufort
Beaufort
Charleston
Florence.
Rock Hill
Cayce
Gaffney
CollmJia
Dixiana ·
Sirrpsonvi l te·
Parris Island
· -Travelers Rest
Rock Hill
Colll!lbia
CayCe
Pickens
Aiken
Pontiac
. Burton
-~Jackson
~Chattanooga
Arlington
Tut lahoma/ri,ancheSter
Collierville
-Moscow
Gallaway
JeckS:on
Lewisburg
Date.
Propos~8
06/88
.10/84
06/88
06/86
01/87
10/84
·01/87
12/82
08/94
06/88
06/88
06/88
. 02/92
06/88
10/84
06/88
12/82
-10/84
04/85
06/88
· 06/88
08/94
06/88
12/82
06/88.
09/83
· 01/87
06/88
09/83
09/83
02/92 .
· 09/83
09/83
06/88
06/86
"09/83
09/83
'10/89
08/94
· 06/86
· 06/88
12/82
12/82
01/87
07/89
06/88
09/83
10/84
12/82
01/87
. 08/94
06/88.
01/94
· 12/82
05/93 ·
12/82
· 10/89 ·
06/86" .
. 10/89
07/87
07/87
06/86
07/87
09/83
12/94
02/90
03/89
10/89
· 12/94
10/89
06/86
03/89
09/83
06/86
10/89
03/89
03/89
12/94
02/90
09/83
03/89
09/84
07/87
02/90
· 09/84
09/84
12/9_4
09/84
09/84
10/89
03/89
09/84
·09/84
08/90 ·
12/94
10/89
·02190
09/83
09/83
02/90
·11/89
. 02i90
09/84
06/86
09/83
07/87
02/90
· 05/94
09/83
12/94
09/83
F
F
F
s
F
F
tr
National Priorities List
Final end_.Proposed. Sites (by Region)
St Site Name
TN Mallory Capacitor CO~·
TN Mertphis Defense Depot. COLA)
TN Milan Army A1T111Jnition Plant
TN Murray-Ohio Dlll'!l . ·
TN ·.Nm:th Hollywood Dlll'!l .
TN Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE)
. TN Terressee Products _. ·. · _ . .
• .TN Yelsicol Chemical Corp (Hardeman County)
.TN Wrigley Charcoal ·Plant
Decerrber 1994 ·
Location
··•••Region· 4 ***·
Waynesboro Meflllh is ..
Milan
Lawrenceburg
Meflllhis
· ·oak Ridge
· Chattanooga
Toone
·.Wrigley
157 Geheral Silperfund Sites + 19· Federal· Faci l !tY Sites = 176
Date
•· . Proposed Final
·01187 1D/89
.02/92 ' 10/92 · • F
10/84 07/87 F
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83 s
07/89 11/89 F
01/94 A
. 12/82 09/83
06/88 03/89
8Date.first eligible for
lriterim Prio_ritfes·List
Superfund action. Firs·t NPL propoSed 12/82. Some s·ites were announced earlier in the
(10/81) andExpanded Eligiblility List(7/82); most were included in the first proposed NPL.
b A =·bs_~ on issua~c~ of health edvi~o-ry by A.ge~cy fo~--ro~·ic s·~stences ~~ o;~eese Registry
( if. scored, HRS ·score need not be > 28.50).
F = F~ral facility site,. not .eligible for Superfund-financed response.
S ::: ~ate top priority ·(included among the 100 tOppriority ·sites regardless of score).
'4 -
·I ,.
. • /fl~-Frfll/3-0-JO
d~
National Priorities Lfot
Final and Proposed Sites (by Site Name) ·-.!-Oecetrt>er 1994
Date
------------------Site Name St Location Proposed" Final Notesb
10th Street Site NE Collm>US 10/89 · 08/90 29th & Nead Grcxrd Water Contamination KS Wichita 06/88 02/90 . 57th ·•nd North Broadway Streets Site KS Michita Heig~t• 02/92. 10/92 ·A & ·F :Material Reclaiming, Inc. IL Greenup 12/82 09/83 A. 0. Polymer NJ Sparta Township 12/82 09/83 A.I.W. Frank/Mfd·County Mustang PA Exton 06/88. 10/89 A.L. Taylor (Valley of Oruns) ICY Brooks 12/82 ·09/83 ABC One Hour Cleaners NC JacksonvH le . . 06/88 03/89 . ALCOA· (Point Comfort)/Lavaca Bay TX Point Comfort 06/93. · 02/94 ALCOA (Vancouver Smelter) WA Vancouver 06/88 02/90 AMP, Inc. (Glen Rock Faci l'ity) PA Glen Rock 06/88 10/89 ASARCO, Inc. (Globe Plant) co Denver 05/93 . AT & SF (Clovfl) NM Clovis ·12/82 09/83 . AT&SF (Albuquer,µ,) NM Albuquer"'9 10/92 12/94 Abe,:deen Pesticide DUll)S NC Aberdeen . 01/87 '03/89 Aberde·~ Proving Grotrd (Edgewood Af"ea) MD Edgewood 04/85 02/90 F Abei-deen _PrOvfng Growd(Nichaelsvf l le LF .. MD Aberdeen 04/85 10/89 F Abex Corp. VA PortSfflOUth 06/88 08/90 Acme Solvent Reclaimfng(Norrfstown Plant · IL Norristown "12/82 _09/83 Action Anodizing, Plating, & Pol fshfng NY. Copfague · 06/88 03/89 Adak Naval Afr Station AK Adak 10/92 05/94 F Adam 11 Plating Ml Lansing 06/88 03/89 Adams County Quincy Landf.il ls 2&3 IL Quincy . 06/88 08/90 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. CA S1.n1yvale 10/84 06/86 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. <Bldg. 915) CA Scmyvale 06/88 08/90 Aerojet General Corp. CA Rancho Cordova 12/82 09/83 Agate Lake Screpyard MN ·Fairview Township 10/84 06/86 Agrico Chemical Co. FL Pensacola '06/88 10/89 Agriculture Street Landfill LA New Orleans 08/94 12/94 Afr Force Plant #4 (General Dynamics) TX Fort Worth 10/84 08/90 F Afr force Plant 85 OH Collm>US 01/94 F Afr Forca Plant PJKS .co Waterton 07/89 11/89 F . Afrco . ICY Calvert Cft)'. 112/82 09/84 Airco Plating co. FL Miami 06/88 '02/90 . Alabama Anny Am!Ulition Plant AL Childersburg 10/84 07/87 F . Aladdin Plating PA Scott Township 01/87 07/87 ~leska Battery Enterp~fses AK Fairbanks NStar Boro 06/88 03/89 Albion-Sheridan Township Landfill Ml Albion 06/88 10/89 Algoma Municipal Landfill WI Algoma 06/86 07/87 Allegany Ball f sties Laboratory (USNAVY) . ·w Mineral 06/93 05/94 F Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke· OH Ironton 12/82 09/83 Allied Paper/Portage Ck/Kalamazoo River Ml ICalamazOO 05/89 08/90 Alpha Chemical Corp. FL .Galloway : 12/82 09/83 Al sco Anaconda OH Gnadenhutten 10/84 06/86 Ant>ler Asbestos Piles PA · Ant>ler 10/84 06/86 American Anodco, lnc.c Ml Ionia 06/86 03/89 ~rfcan Chenifcal Service, Inc. IN Griffith '09/83 09/84 American Creosote work■ (Pensacola Plt) FL ·Pensacola· 12/82 09/83 Amer f can Crctoaote · Works, ( Jackson Pl ant·) TN. ._Jackson 10/84 06/86 Ainer'tcan:·crlltOsote works, Inc (Wfmfield) LA Wfmfield 02/92 10/92 American Crossarm & Conduit Co. · WA Chehalis 06/88 10/89 · American Cyanamid Co •. NJ Bound Brook 12/82 .09/83 American Lake Gardens/McChord.AFB WA Tacoma· 09/83 _09/84 • F American Thermostat Co. .NY South Cairo · 12/82 09/83 Annicola D""' TN Chattanooga .12/82 09/83 Amoco Chemicals (Joliet Landfill) IL Joliet 06/88 02/90 Anaconda Alunfnun co./Mi lgo Electronics FL Miami 10/89 08/90 Anaconda Co. Smelter· MT Anaconda 12/82 09/83 Anchor Chemicals NY Hicksvll le 10/84 06/86 Andersen Afr Force eaSe GU Yigo 02/92 · .. 10/92 F
. 1
• • National Priorities list
Final and Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
Deceut>er 1994
Site Name
Anderson oeVelopment Co.
· ·Amie Creek Mine Tail fngs
Amiston Army Depot CSE Industrial Area)
Anodyne, Inc.
Apache Powder Co.
Applied Envirormental Services
Applied Materials
Aqua·Tech Envi ronnental Inc (Groce Labs)
Arcani.,n Iron & Metal
'-Arctic surplus·
Arkansas City 01.1!1)
Arkwood, Inc.
Arlington Blending & Packaging
Army Creek Landf ii l
Arnold Engineering Develop. Ctr. (USAF)
-.'Ari-owhead Associates/Scovill Corp.
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
· .. Ar'senfc Trioxide Sit~
· Asbestos DUil>
Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc.·
·Atlas Asbestos Mine
Atlas Tack Corp.
A<burn Road Landfil 1
Austin Avenue RadiatiOrl Site
.. AUto Jon Chemicals, Inc.
· .. Avco ~Yt:ani_ng (Williamsport Division)·
Avenue •en Grouid Water Contamination
Avtex Fibers, Inc.
B&B Chemical. Co., Inc.
B.F. Goodrich · ,
BF! Sanitary.Landfill(Rockingham)
BM I ·Textron
Bailey Waste Disposal
Baird &·McGuire
Bally Grouid Water Contamination
B8ngor Naval Submarine Base
Bangor Ornnce Disposal (USNAVY)
aBrteloneta Landfill
· Barkhamsted-Nev Hartford Landfill
Barrels,. Inc.
Barstow Marine Corps· Logistics Base
Batavia Landfill ·
Ba'xter/Union Pacific Tie Treating
Bayou Bonfouca·
Bayou Sorrel Site .
Baytown Township GrOWld Water Plune
Beacon Heights landfill" .
Bea111tt Corp. (Circular Knit & Dye)
Beclcman_Jnstn.nenta (Porterville Plant)
· Bee Cee Manufacturing Co.
.·Bell landfill
Beloit Corp.
Beltsville Agricultural Research (USDA)
Belvidere M'-'1iclpal Landfill
Bendix Corp./Allied Automotive
Bendix Flight Systems Division
·-Benfield Industrias, Inc.
-_Bennett Stone Quarry
. Bemlngton N'-'1icipal Sanitary Landfill
-Berkley Products Co. DUil>
St Loca_t ion
' NI Adrian
SD Lead
AL Amlston
Fl North Miami Beach
AZ St. -David
NY Glenwood Landing
CA Santa Clara
-SC Greer
OH Darke County'
AK · Fairbanks
KS Arkansas City
AR Omaha
TN Arlington.
DE New Castle County
TN Tul l'ahoma/Manchester
VA Montross
MN Hennantown
ND Southeastern ND
NJ Millington
' VA Portsmouth
CA Fresno Couity
MA Fairhaven
NH Londonderry
PA Delaware C01.r1ty
Ml Kalamazoo
PA ~ii l iamspott
Ml Traverse City
VA Front RoYa_l
FL Hialeah
KY Calvert City
VT Rockingham
FL Lake Park.
TX Bridge City
MA Holbrook
PA Bally Borough
11A Silverdale
\IA Bremerton
PR Florida Afuera
CT Barkhamsted
NI Lansing
CA Barstow
· NY Batavia
WY -Laramie
LA Slidell
LA Bayou Sorrel
MN . Baytown Township
CT 8eaCon Falls
SC F0111tafn Im
CA Porterville
NO Malden
PA Terry Township
IL Rockton
·ND .Beltsville
IL Belvidere
Ml · St. Joseph
PA Bridgewater Township
NC Hazel wood
IN Bloomington
VT Bemington
PA D_enver
Date
Proposed8
12/82
D7/91
1D/84
06/88
06/86
10/84
10/84
DS/94
12/82
10/89
12/82
. 09/85
01/87
. 12/82
D8/94
D6/88
D9/83
12/82
-12/82
D6/86·
D9/83
D6/88
12/82"
D2/92
12/82
01/87
10/84
10/84
06/88
12/82
D6/88
D6/88.
10/84
12/82
06/86
D7/89
1D/84
12/82
D6/88
01/87
D7/89
12/82
12/82
12/82 ..
12/82 .
10/92
12/82
D6/88
10/84
10/84
.D6/88
D6/88
05/93
12/82
D6/88
09/85
D6/88
D9/83
D6/88
D6/88
Final
09/83
Dl/89
02/9D
08/9D
D6/86 '
07/87
12/94
09/83
D8/9D
' D9/83
D3/89
D7/87
09/83
D2/90
D9/84
09/83
09/83
02/90
09/84
D2/90
09/83
10/92
D9/83
02/90
06/86 ·
06/86
08/90
D9/83
-10/89
D8/90
. D6/86
D9/83
D7/87
D8/90
D7/87
09/83
1D/89
10/89
11/89 . D9/83
D9/83
. 09/83
09/84
. 12/94
09/83
.02/90
06/86
06/86
10/89
D8/90
05/94
D9/83
D2/9D '
·' 07/87
1D/89
D9/84
Dl/89
D3/89 ·
. b Notes
F
s
F
s
A
F.
F
F
·• . • • .National Priorities List
.' •Final and Proposed .Sites (by Site N....,)
December 1994
•Date
------------------Site Name St Location Proposed' Final .Notesb
Berks landfll l PA . Spring Township D6/88 TD/89 . Berks Send P.I t PA Longsw-Township 09/83 09/84 Berl fn & Farro NI Swartz Creek 12/82 09/83 Better Brite Plating Chrome & Zinc Shops WI DePere 10/89 08/90 Beulah landfill · . Fl Pensacola · 06/88 · 02/90 Big D Caq,grOU'd OH Kingsville .12,s2 09/83 Big River Nine Tailings/St. Joa Minerals NO Desloge 02/92 10/92 Bio-Ecology Syatems1 Inc. Tx· Grand Prairie 12/82 09/83 Blackbird Nine . 10. Leoni c-ty 05/93 Blackburn & Union Privileges NA' Walpole 02/92 05/94 Bl osensk 1 ltndf il l PA West Caln Township 12/82 09/83 Boarheacf FaMIIS PA Bridgeton Township 06/88 03/89 .
Bofors Nobel, -I~. NI· Muskegon 06/88 03/89 Bog Creek Farm NJ Howell Township 12/82 09/83 Boise Cascade/Onan Corp./Medtronics,Inc. 'MN Fridley 09/83 09/84 Bor-nevflle Power Actnin Ross (USDOE) WA Vancouver·, 07/89 11/89 F Boansn<b/Airco ' .WA Vancouver 01/94 .. · s Bowers Landfill OH Cf rel evil le . 12,s2 09/83 Brantley landfill ICY .Island 06/88 02/90 . ·Brewster Well Field NY · Putnam CCU'lty. 12/82 09/83 Brl_ck Township landfill NJ Brick Township 12/82 09/83 Bridgeport Rental & Oil Services NJ Bridgeport 12/82 09/83 Brio Refining, Inc. TX Friendswood 10/84 03/89 Broderick Wood Procuc:ts co oenver 09/83 09/84 Brodhead Creek PA Stroudsburg 1Z/8Z 09/83 Brook Industrial Park NJ BOU'd Brook 06/88 10/89 Brookhaven National laboratory (USOOE) NY Upton 07/89 11/89 .F
·Broward County••21st Manor D1111> FL Fort Lauderdale 07/91 .Brown' & Bryant, Jnc.(Ar'vfn Plant) CA Arvfr\ 06/88 · 10/89 Brown Wood Preserving FL Live 0ak lZ/82 09/83 Brown's Battery Breaking PA Shoemakersvll le 10/84 06/86 ·Bruin Lagoon ·. PA Bruin Borough 10/81 09/83 8N10 Co•op Association/Associated Prop NE BN10 10/92 .. Br1.a1Swfck Naval Afr Station ME Bnmwlck· 10/84 07/87 F . ' Buckeye Reclamation OH St. Clairsville 12,s2 . 09/83 Buckingham County Landfl l l VA Buckingham 04/85 10/119 B161ker Hll l' Mining & Metal lurgicel ID Smel tervf l le 12/82 09/83 ~urgess Brothers Landfill VT Woodford 06/88 03/119 Burlington Northern (Brainerd/Baxter) MN Brainerd/Baxter 12/82 09/83 sUrlingtcin Northern Livingston Coaplex MT LiVineston 08/94.
· Burnt Fly Bog NJ Marlboro Township 12/82 09/83 ·Burrows Sanitation NI Hartford 09/83 09/84 Bush Va Hey Landt ll l MD Abingdon 06/88 03/119 Butler Nine Tunnel PA Pittston '06/86 07/!7 Butterworth #2 landfl u · Ml Grand. Rapids 12/BZ 09/83 Butz Landfll l PA Stroudsburg · 06/88 . 03/119
Bypass 601 GrOU'd Weter Contamination NC Concord .10/84 06/86 Byron Barrel & Dna NY ByrQn 10/84 06/86 Byron Salvage Ya~ · IL Byron 12/82 09i83 C ·& D Recycling . PA :·Foster Township 09/85 . 07/87 C & R Battery Co., Inc. vi. Chesterfield c-ty . 01/87 · 07/87 CPS/Madison lnciJstrles NJ Old Bridge Township .12/82 09/83 CTS PrlnteX, Inc. CA M-teln View . 06/88 OZ/90 Cabot/Koppers Fl Gainesville· 09/83 09/84 Cal West Metals (USSBA) NM Lemttar 06/88 . 03/89 F .. Caldwell Lace Leather. co.,· Inc_. ICY AlbJm 06/88 08/90 · .. Caldwell Trucking Co •. NJ Fairfield 12/82 -09/83 Cal lfomta Gulch co Leedvil le 12/BZ 09/83 c-LejNle Mil ftary Res. (USNAVY) NC Onslow c-ty 06/88 . 10/89 F C~ Pendle"ton Marine_ Corps Base CA sen DI ego c-ty 07/89 •11/89 F
3
National Priorities List
Final and Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
·. Decent>er .1994 ·
Site Name ·st L'ocatfOn
Ca!Ylelton Ird.Jstries, Inc. Ml Saulte Saint Marfa
Camon Engineering Corp. (CEC) MA Bridgewater
cape·Fear ijood Preserving NC --Fayetteville
Carolawn, Inc. ·sc Fort Lawn
Carolina Transformer Co. NC Fayetteville
. ~arrier Air Conditioning Co.· TN Collierville
_Carroll & Dt.Ei es Sewage Disposal ·NY Port Jervis
'carson River Mercury Site NV lyon/Churchil l Cnty
Carter Industrials, Inc. Ml Detroit
· Carter Lee Ll.lrber Co.· IN lndianapol ts
Castle Air Force Ba"se. CA Merced
Cecil Field Naval Air Station Fl Jacksonville
Cedartown Industries,· Inc. GA Cedartown
Cedartown M1.11icipal Landfil 1.· GA Cedartown
. Cel"Bnese Corp. (Shelby Fiber Operations) ,NC Shelby
.Celtor Chemical ijorks CA Hoops
Cemetery D""' Ml Rose Center
Central City-Clear Creek co Idaho Springs
.. C~tr~l Illinois PIJ:,lic Service Co. IL Taylorville
Central Landfill RI Johnston
Centralia Municipal Landfill • WA Centralia
Cent re COl.l"lty Kepone PA State College Borough
· Charles Macon Lagoon & DrLID Storage NC Cordova
Charles·George Aeclamati.on~ Landfill MA Tyngsborough
Chem Central Ml Wycxning·Township
Chem-Dyne OH Hamil ton
. Chem·Solv, Inc. DE Cheswold
.chemet Co. TN Moscow
Chemfax, ·Inc.· MS Gulfport
Chemform, Inc. .FL PClq)Bno Beach
Chemical Ccmnodities, Inc. KS Olathe
Chemical Control NJ Elizabeth
. Chemical Insecticide Corp. NJ Edison Township:
· Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, ·Inc. NJ Bridgeport
Chemical .Sales Co. co Denver
Chemsol, Inc. NJ Piscataway
Chemtron·ics, Inc. NC Swarnanoa
Cherokee C0111ty KS Cherokee COl.l"lty
_ Cher:ry Po_fnt Marine Corps Air Station NC Havelock
CheShire GrCKrd Water Contamination CT Cheshire
· Ch8Yron Chemical Co. (Ortho Di.vision) FL Orlando
Chisman Creek VA York COl.l"lty
Cibe-Gelgy Corp. ' NJ -Toms River
.Ciba-Geigy Corp. (McIntosh Plant) AL McIntosh
C~marron Mining Corp. .NM Carrizozo
.'Cimaminson GrOl.l'ld Water Contemin&tion NJ 1 Cimaminson Township
Ci rcuitron Corp. NY East Farmingdale
City Disposal Corp. Landfill · WI Dim
City Industries, ·Inc. · FL ·orlancto
Clare Water'S'4Jl)ly .Ml Clare
Claremont Polychelilical NY Old Bethpage
Cleburn Street ijell NE Grand Island
Cleve Reber · LA ·Sorrento
·Cleveland Mi (1 ··. NM Silver City:
Cliff/Dow 0-Ml Marquette
Clothier Disposal NY Town of Granby ·
. Coakley Landfill NH North Haq,ton
Coalinga Asbestos·Mfne CA Coal Inga
Coast Wood Preserving CA Ukiah
Coker•• sanitation Service Landff l'ls DE Kent C01.11ty
4
Date
Proposed"
06/88
12/82
06/86
12/82
D1/87
06/88 ·
06/88
10/89
06/88
06/88
10/84
07/89
06/88
06/88
10/84
12/82
12/82 .
12/82
06/88
10/84
06/88
. 12/82
01/87
12/82
12/82
12/82
01/87
01/94
06/93
06/88
01/94
12/82
10/89
09/83
06/88
12/82
12/82
. 12/82
08/94
.06/88
01/94
12/82
. 12/82
09/83
06/88
10/84 .06/88
· 09/83
10/84.
12/82
10/84
· 07/91
12/82
06/88
12/82
10/84
10/84
D9/83
12/82
04/8~
Final , b Notes
08/90
D9/83
07/87
09/83
07/87
02/90
02190
08/90 ·
.03/89
· 03/89
07/87 F
11/89 . F
02/90
03/89
06186.
D9/83
09/83
. 09/83
·08190 ·
06/86
D8/90
09/83
07/87
09/83
09/83
09/83 s
08/90
05/94
10/89
· 05/94
09/83
08/90
D9/84
08/90
09/83
09/83·
09/83
12/94 F
08/90
05/94 D9/83 .
09/83
09/84
10/89
. 06/86
03/89
09/84
10/89
09/84
06/86
.10/92.
D9/83
03/89
D9/83
06/86
06/86
D9/84
D9/83
·01187
• • National Priorities List
Final and Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
Oeceni>er 1994
Date
·--·--·-···-------., Site Neme St LOC:ation Proposed° Final Notesb
.Colbert Lerdfill WA · Colbert 12/82 09/83 Colernary·Evans.wood Preser-ving cO. FL Whitehouse 12/82 09/83 Colesville MLrlicipal Landfill NY Town of Colesvftte 10/84 06/86 Coluri>us Old Municipal Lardfill #1 .IN Coluri>us 09/85 _06/86 Carbe Fill North Lerdfill NJ Mo1.r1t Olive·rownshfp 12/82 09/83 Corile Fill South Lardfill . NJ Chester Township ·. 12/82 09/83
Coabustfon, Inc. LA · Oenh,.. Spr I ngs 06/86 08/90 Corrmencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide Flats WA Pierce ~ou,ty 12/82 09/83 . Cc:inmencemetit Bay; South Tacoma Chllmel WA Tacoma 12/82 09/83
conmodore SesniconctJctor GrCM4) PA Lower Providence Town ·01/87 10/89 Cco.,a_s_s· lrd.Jstries (Avery Drive) OK Tulsa '09/83 09/84 Concord Naval Weapons Stetfon CA Concord · 02/92 12/94 F Conlcl In OU1"5 NY Conkl In 06/86 '03/89 Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart) IN Elkhart 06/88 , 08/90 Conservation Chemical co. MO Kensa·s Cf ty 04/85 10/89 Continental Steel Corp. IN Kokomo 06/88 03/89,
Cooper Dr1.11 Co.• CA South Gate 02/92 Cornhusker Army Allllu'lition Plant NE Hal I County 10/84 . 07/87 .F Cortese Landfill NY Village of Narrowsbur 10/84 06/86 .. Cosden Chem! CB l Coat I ngs Corp. NJ Beverly 01/87 07/87 Coshocton Landf il l OH Franklin Township 12/82 09/83 Craig Farm Dr1.n1 . · PA Parker 12/82 09/83 C_rater Resources/Keystone Coke/Alan Wood · PA Upper Merion Township. 02/92 10/92 Cr~zy·Horse Sanitary Landfill CA Sal fnas 06/88 08/90 Cross Brothers Pail Recycling (Perrbroke) . IL Pen-broke Township 12/82 09/83 Crossley Fann PA Hereford T~wnshfp 07/91 10/92 Croydon TCE PA Croydon 09/85 06/86 CryOChem, Inc. -PA Worman 06/86 10/89 Crystal Chemical, Co. TX Houston 12/82 09/83 Crystal City Airport TX .Crystal Cl ty 10/84 · 06/86 Culpeper Wood Preservers, Inc. VA Culpeper 10/84 . 10/89 Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc~ NJ Saddle Brook Township 01/87 · 07/87 0•1-rio Pr-rty . NJ Hamilton Township 12/82 09/83 D.L. Mud, Jnc. LA Abbevll le 06/88 10/89 Dakhue Sanitary Lardflll MN Camon Falls 10/89 08/90 Darling Hill DIJII) vt Lyrdon .. 06/88. 10/89 Davie Lardfil l FL Davie. 12/82 -09/83 Davis (GSR) Landfill RI Glocester 04/85 06/86 Davia Li..,ld Yaste RI Smithfield . 12/82 09/83 Oavisville Naval Construction Batt Cent RI North Kingston 07/89 11/89 F . Dayco· Corp.fl .E Carpenter Co. NJ IJharton Borough 04/85 07/87 · De Rewal Chemical Co. NJ Kingwood Township · . 09/83 · ,09/84 Defense General S-ly Center (DLA) VA Cheste~field County. 10/84 07/87 F Del·-Facility CA Los ·Angeles 07/91
_Del Mon_te Corp. (0ahu Plantation) HI ·Honolulu C01.i1ty D5/93 12/94 Del Norte Pesticide Storage _, CA Crescent City ·09/83 09/84 Delavan Municipal. llel l 14 WI Delavan 09/83 09/84 Delaware City PVC Plant OE Delaware City 10/81 ·09/83 Delaware Sand & Gravel Landfill OE .New Castle c=ty 12/82 . . 09/83 Dal fish Road . NJ ·Egg Harbor Township 09/83 09/84 Delta Quarries & Disp./Stotler Landfill PA Antis/Logan Twps 06/86 03/89 Denver Radh.lD Site CO. Denver 12/82 09/83 Denzer & Schafer X·Ray Co. NJ Bayville 12/82 09/83 Des Moines TCE IA Des Moines 12/82 09/83 Oimnond Alkali Co. NJ ·Newark 09/83 '09/84 Oimnond Shmnrock Corp(Painesv;'Lte Works) OH Painesville 05/93 Diamond Shamrock Corp. Lardfill . GA . Cedartown 01/87 08/90 Distler Brickyard KY West-Polr'lt 12/82 09/83 Distler Ferm. ICY Jefferson C01.r1ty 12/82 09/83 Dixie taverns COW1ty Landfill VA Salem 01/87 10/89
5
' ;
National Priorities List
Final and.Proposed Sites (by Site N-)
Site Name
Dixie oll Processors, IrlC.
Doepke Disposal (Holliday)
·Dorney Road Landfill
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
-·Douglass Road/Unir·oyal, Inc., .. Landfill
Douglassville Disposal
DOver Afr FOrce Base
Dover Chemical Corp.
Dover Gas light Co.
Dover Muiicipel Landfill
'Dover Mu'licipel Mell 4
Drake Chemical
DuPage County Landfill/Blackwell Forest
. Dublin ·TcE Site
Dubose Dil Products Co.
. Duell & Gardner Landfill
Durham Meadows
DutchtOWI Treatment Plant
E,H, Schilling Landfill
E. I. ·ou. Pont de Nemours (County Rd X23)
E.I.Du Pont de Nemours (Newport Landfill
Eagle Nine ·
East Bethel Demolition.Landfill
East Helena Site
East Mouit Zion
East Nultncneh C01.1'1ty GrCM.Rt Wtr Contam.
East Tenth Street
Eastern Diversified Metals
· · Ellltem Michaud Flat& Contamination
.Eau Claire Municipal Well Field
Edwards Air Force Base
Eielson Air Force Base
El TOro Marine Corps Air.Station
Electro-Coatings, Inc.
Electrovoice ·
Elizabethtown Landfill
El l fa Property
Ellisville Site
Ellsworth Air Force Base
Elmendorf Afr Force Base
.-Elmore Waste Disposal
Endicott Village Well Field
· Envi rochem Corp.
~Escarrt,ia Wood• _Pensacola
Evor Phillips leasing
Ewan Property
F.E. Warren Air Farce Base
. FCX, Inc. (Statesvll le Plant)
Fcx,· Inc. (Washington Plant>
. FMC Corp. (DIA>lln Road Landfill)
.FMC Corp. (Fridley Plant)
FMC corp. (Yakllila Pit)
Facet Enterprises,· Inc.
Fadr..,.ki Drun Disposal
· Fal r--L,awn Well Field . . .
Fairchild Air.Force Base·(4 waste Areas)
Fairchild Semiconductor.Corp (Nt View)
Fairchild Semiconductor Corp (S San Jose
Fairfield.Coal Gasification Plant
. _Fariners• MutUBl Cooperative
Deceri>er 1994 ·
6
·st Location
TX Friendswood
KS Johnson County
PA Upper Mac1m9ie Townsh
OK Oklahoma City .
IN Mishawaka
.PA Douglassville
DE Dover
OH Dover
DE -Dover
llH Dover
NJ Dover Township
PA Lock Haven
IL lilarrenville
FA Oubl in Borough
. FL Cantorment
NJ Dal ton Township
CT Durham
LA Ascension Parish
OH . Hamil ton Township
IA Meat Point
DE . Newport
CO Minturn/Redcliff
MN East Bethel Township
: MT East Helena
_PA Springettsbury Townsh
'OR· Multnomah County
PA Marcus Hook
-PA Hometown
ID Pocatello
MI Eau Claire·
CA Kern County
AK' Fairbank.a NStar Bora
, CA El Toro
IA Cedar Rapids
·.NJ Buchanan
PA Elizabethtown
·NJ Evesham. Township
MO Hllsville ·
SD . Rapid City
AK Greater Anchorage Bor ·sc Greer ·
llY Village of Endicott
IN Zionsville
FL Pensacola
NJ Old Bridge T...,.hip
NJ Shamong T...,.hip ·
WY Cheyeme .
NC ·statesville
NC Washington
NY Town of Shelby
MN Fridley .
WA Yakima
NY Elmira
WI Frankl In
NJ .Fair Lawn
WA Spokane County
CA Mountain View
CA South· San Jose
IA Fairfield
IA Hospers
Date -· ----------------Proposect8
06/88
12/82
.09/83
06/88
06/86
12/82
10/84
05/93
01/87
12/82
12/82 ·
12/82
06/88
10/89
10/84
12/82
06/88
01/87
12/82
06/88
01/87
10/84
09/85
09/83
09/83
05/93.
01/94
06/86
05/89
09/83
07/89
07/89
06/88
06/88.
12/82
06/88
.12/82
12/82
10/89
07/89
06/88
10/84
12/82
08/94
12/82
09/83 ·
07/89
.06/88
06/88
10/84
12/82
12/82
12/82
.1D/84
12/82
06/88
10/84
.10/84
06(88
06/88
Final
10/89
09/83
09/84
03/89
D3/89
09/83
03/89
10/89
09/83
09/83
09/83
02/90
08/90
06/86
09/83
. 10/89
07/87
09/83
08/90
02/90
06/86
06/86
09/84
09/84
10/89
08/90
09/84
08/90
11/89
02/90
10/89
09/84
03/119
09/83
09/83
08/90.
08/90
03/119
06/86
09/83
12/94
09/83
09/84
02/90
02/90
D3/89
06/86
09/83 ·
09/83 ·
09/83
06/86 . 09/83
03/119
02/91
10/89
08/90
08/90
F
F
F
F
s
F
F
F
F .·
• • · National Priorft;es List
• Pinal and Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
Deceober 1994
Date
------------------Site Name St Location Proposed" Final Notesb
Federal Aviation Actnin. Tech. Center NJ Atlantic Cou,ty ·01189 08/90 F ~eed-Materials Production Center (USDOE) OH Fernald ·07/89 11/89 F ,. Fibers P\bl tc S-ly .Wei ls. PR Jobos 09/83 09/84
Fields Brook OK Ashtabula 12/82 09/83 _Fike Chemical, ·inc.· WV Nitro 12/82 . 09/83
..• Flrutone Tire & R<J>ber Co(Albany Plant) GA Albany. 06/88 10/89
. Firestone. Tlre&R<J>ber Co.(Salinas Plant) CA Sal fnas 10/84 07/87 First Pieanont Rock Quarry (Route 719) VA _Pittsylvanf8 C04.rlty 04/85 07/87 Ffacher & Porter·co.· PA Wa'1!'inster 12/82 09/83 · Fisher-Calo IN LaPorte , 12/82 09/83 Fletcher•s Paint Works & Storage NH Mil ford 06/88 03/89 Florence Land Recontourfng Landfill NJ Florence Township 09/83 09/84 Florida Steel Corp. ·• FL lrdiantown 12/82 09/83 Flowood Site MS Flowood 09/83 09/84 s Folkertsma Refuse Ml Grard Rapids 06/86· 03/89 Follansbee Site WV Follansbee ·12/82 09/83 Foote Mineral cO. PA. East Whiteland Townsh 02/92 10/92 Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision NY Niagara Fell_s· 08/89 11/89 A Forest Wastl! P·roctJcts Ml Otisville 12/82 09/83 Fort Devens MA Fort Devens 07/89 11/89 . F Fort Devens-Sudbury Training Amex MA Middlesex Couity 07/89 02/90 .F Fort Dix (Lardfil I Site) NJ Penmerton Township 10/84 07/87 F Fort Eustis (US Army) VA Newport News 01/94 12/94 F-Fort __ Nartford Coal Co. Stone Quarry KY Claton 06/88 · 08/90 Fort Lewis (Lardfill No. 5) WA Tacoma · 10/84 07/87 F Fort Lewis L_ogfstfcs Center. WA Ttl ltcun 07189 11/89 F Fort Ord CA Marina . 07/89 02/90 F · Fort Richardson (USARlffl AK Anct'lorage 06/93 05/94 F Fort Riley KS J...:tion City 07/89 08/90 F Fort Wai,..rlght AK Fafrbanks,N Star aOro 07/89 08/90 F
Fort Wayne Reduct I on D""' IN Fort Mayne 10/84 06/86
. Fourth Street Abardoned Refinery OK Oklahoma City .06/88 03/89
Freeway Sanitary Lordfill MN . Burnsville 09/85 06/86 Frerriont ·Nat. Forest Uranf1.111 Nines (USDA) OR Lake County 06/93 F French, Ltd. TX. Crosby · 12/82 09/83 Fresno Municipal Sanitary Lardfill . CA Fresno 06/88 1D/89
Fried lrd.Jstriu NJ East Brunswick Townsh 10/84 . 06/86 Frit lrd.Jstriu AR llalnut Ridge 12/82 09/83 · Frontera Creek PR Rio Abajo 12/82 09/83 Frontier Fertilizer CA ·Davia . · 01/94 05/94 · Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc; WA Vancouver '12/82 09/83 Fulbright Lardfill MO SpringHeld 12/82 ··09/83
Ful tan Terminals NY Fulton 12/82 .Q9/83 Fultz Lardf ii 1 OH Jackson Township 12/82 09/83 G&H Lardf ii 1 Ml Utica · 12182 09/83 · GBF, ·tnc., D~ CA Antioch 02/92 GCL Tie & Treating Inc. NY Village of .Sidney ·01194 05/94 · GE·Noreau NY South Glen Falls 12/82 09/83 . CE Wiring Devices PR Juana Diaz 12/82 · 09/83 GEMS Lerdf ii 1 NJ Gloucester_ Township 12/82 09/83. Galen Myers D""'/Dn,n Salvage IN Osceol'a 06/88 03/89 Galesburg/Ko-rs Co. IL Galesburg 12/82 09/83 · Galtaway Pits TN Gallaway 12/82 · 09/83 . Gall'-"' s Quarry CT Plainfield 06/88 10/89 Garden State Cleaners Co. NJ Minotola 06/88 03/89 . '
Geiger. (C & M Oil) sc· Rantoule9 09/83 09/84 Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen Plant) NC Aberdeen 06/88. . 10/89 . General Electric Co. (Spokane Shop) WA Spokane 06/88 "10/89 Gene~al ·Electric Co/Shepherd FBl'II ·NC East Flat Rock 02/92 12/94 General Mil ls/Kenkel Corp. MN Nh-neapol is 09/83 09/84
7
National Priorities LtSt
Final and Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
Oecenber 1994 ·
Date
------------------Site Name St Location Proposed" Final Notesb
·General Motors(Central FOlrldry Division) NY Massena 09/83 09/84
·General Tire & Rubber(Mayfield Landfill) KY· Mayfield 06/88 02/90
Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann Energy TX HoustOn 09/83 09/84
Genzale Plating Co. NY Frankl in Square 06/86 07/87
. George Air Force Base CA Victorville 07/89 02/90 F·
Glen Ridge Radiun Site NJ -Glen Ridge 10/84 02/85
Global Sanitary Landfill NJ Old Bridge Township . 06/88 03/89
Gold Coast Oil Corp. FL Miami 12/82 09/83
· Golden Strip Septic Tank Service . SC Sl~onvil la · 01/87 07/87
Goldisc Recordi.nss, Inc .• NY Holbrook 10/84 06/86
Goose Farm NJ Ph111stead Township 12/82 09/83
Gould, Inc. OR Portland 12/82 09/83
. Grand Traverse overall Supply Co. Ml Grellickvilla 12/82 09/83
Gratiot Cow,ty landfill Ml St. Louis 12/82 09/83 s
Green River Disposal, Inc.· KY· Maceo 06/88 08/90
Greenacres Landf i l l MA Spokane CO<l\ty 09/83 09/84
Greenwood Chemical Co. VA Newtown . 01/87 07/87
Grfffiss Air For~• Base NY Rome 10/84 07/87 F
Groveland Wells MA Groveland 12/82 . 09/83
Gulf . Coast Vaci.Mn Services LA Abbevll le 06/88 .. 03/89
Gurley Pit AR , Eanondson 12/82 09/83
H & H Inc., Bum Pit VA _.Farrington . 01/87 · 03/89
H. Brown Co., Inc. Ml Grand Rapids 04/85 06/86
H.O.O.· Landfill IL Antioch · 09/85 02/90
Hagen Fann ·Ml Stoughton 09/85 07/87
Halby Chemical Co. OE New Castle· 09/85 06/86
H ... ilton Island Londfill(USA/COE) ·MA North Bomevi l le 07/91 10/92 F
Hanford 100•Area (USOOE) MA ~enton CCK.rlty 06/88 10/89 F
. ·Hanford 1100·Area (USOOE) MA Benton County 06/88 10/89 F
·Hanford 200·Area (USOOE) MA Benton CO\.rlty 06/88 10/89 F
Hanford 300·Areo (USOOE) MA Benton COl.6\ty . · 06/88 10/89 F
. , Han5c0ffl Field/Hanscom Air ForC:e Base . MA Bedford 05/93 05/94 · F
Harbor Island (Leac:I) MA Seattle 12/82 09/83
· ·Hardage/Criner ·-01( Criner 12/82 -09/83
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay PlaOt) FL . Palm Bay 04/85 07/87
Hervey & Knott Drun, Inc. OE Kirkwood 12/82 09/83
Hassayerrpa Landfill AZ Hasseyanpa 06/86 07/87
Hastings Greu'ld Water Contamination NE Hastings 10/84 06/86
· Haverhill MLrlicipal Landfill MA· Haverhill 10/84 06/86
Havertown PCP PA Haverford 12/82 09/83
H·avi (and C~lex NY Town of Hyoe Pork · 10/84 06/86
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard PA Weisenberg Township 06/86 07/87
Hechimovi ch Sanitary Landfill WI Willi ams town 06/88 03/89
Hedbllll Industries Ml Oscoda .. 12/82 09/83
·Helen Kramer Landfill NJ Mantua Township .12182 09/83
Helena Chemical Co. (Taq,a Plant) .FL Taq,a 02/92 10/92
Helena Chemical Co. Landfill SC Fairfax . 06/88 . 02/90
Heleva Landfl ll PA North llhltehall Towns 12/82 -09/83
Hellertown Men.,facturing Co. PA HellertOWF\ 01/87 03/89
• Henderson Road PA· ·upper Merion Township 09/83 09/84
Hercules 009 Landfill GA BrLr1Swtck 09/83 09/84
Hercules, Inc. (Gibbstown Plant) NJ Gibbstown 12/82 09/83
Hertel Landfill NY Plattekill 10/84 06/86
Hewlett•Packard.(620·640 Page Mill .Road> CA-Palo Al to 06/88 02/90
Hi·Mill Manufacturing Co. -Ml Highland 06/88 02/90
Hidden Valley Landfill (Thun Field) WA Pierce COl.6\ty . 06/86 03/89
Higgins Disposal NJ Kingston 06/88 -08/90
Higgins Fann • NJ Franklin Township_ 06/88 03/89
.Highlands Acid Pit TX Highlands 12/82 09/83.
Hill Air force Base .. UT Ogden 10/84 . 07/87 F
8
•
•National Priorities Lfst
• • Final and Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
Deceot>er 1994 ·
Site Name St location
Himco D'""' IN Elkhart
Hipps Road Landfill. FL Ouval Cou,ty
Hocomonco Pond MA Westborough
Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal FL Fort Lauderdale
HomeStake Mining Co. NM Milan
Haneatead Air _force Base FL Homestead . :
Hooker (102nd Street) NY Niagara Falls
Hooker (Hyde Park)· NY Niagara Falla
Hooker (S Areal NY Niagara Falls Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer corp NY Hicksville
Hopkins Fann NJ Plunstead Township
Horseshoe Road NJ Sayrevf lle
Howe Valley Landfill ICY Howe Valley
Hranlca Landfill PA Buffalo Township
Hudson River PCBs NY . Hudson Rf ver Hl.l"lterstown Road PA Straban Township
Hunts Disposal Landfill WI Caledonia
ICG lselln Railroad Yard TN Jacks0n
Idaho National Engineering Lab (US1)0E)_. ID Idaho Fol ls
Idaho Pole Co. MT Bozeman
llada Energy co: IL. Ea_st Cape Gf_rardeau
!~rial Oil Co.,lnc./Ch~lon Chemicals NJ Morganville
Independent Nai I .Co. SC Beaufort Indian Bend Wash Area AZ Scottsdale/Tempe/Phoe
lndustrl ·Plex MA Woburn
Industrial Excess Landfill OH Uniontown
Industrial Lane PA Wilffams Township'
· Industrial Latex Corp~ NJ Wal I fngton Borough ·
Industrial Waste Control AR Fort Smith
l~trfal Waste _Processing CA Fresno
Intel Corp. (Mou,tain View-Plant) CA M01.11tain View
Intel Corp. (Sante Ciera Ill) CA Santa Clara Intel Magnetics CA Santa Clara lnterafl lnc./Siemens c_,..,ts CA c-rtino '
• lnteratate Lead Co. (ILCOl Al Leeds
Interstate Pollution-control, Inc .IL Rockford Ionia City Landfill' Ml -Ionia ·
Iowa Anny Annulft_fon Plant IA Middletown
J ron Horse Park MA Billerica
Iron NDW'ltain MiM CA Redding
Island Chemical Corp/V.I. Chemical Corp VI St. Croix
'Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill · NY Isl fp. · J & L Landfill Ml Rochester ·Hfl ls
J.H. Baxter & Co. CA Weed
JFD Electronics/Chamel Master · NC OxfOrd
JIS Landfill . NJ Jamesburg/$. B~nswck
Jacks Creek/Sftkin s,;..lting and Refinery PA Maitland·
Jackson Park Houafng C-l•x (USNAVYl WA Kitsap Ccu,ty
. Jackson Township landfill . NJ Jackson Township
. Jacksonville Munfcfpal Landfil I AR · Jacksonville
Jacksonville Naval Air Station FL Jacksonvfl le.
Jadco•Hughes Facility .. NC· Belmont".
Janesville Ash Beds WI · Janesvfl le ·
Janesville Old Landfill WI· Janesville
Jasco.Chemical Corp. . CA M0l61tain ViMf ,. Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA) . CA Pasadena
John Deere (Ott""'a works Landfills> IA Ottl.llMB ~ Johns·Nanville-Corp. IL Waukegan
. JohnstOI01 City landfill ·. NY Town of Johnstown Jol i8t Army Amruiitfon Plant (LAP Area) IL Joliet
9
Date
Proposed" Final
06/88 02/90
09/83 09/84
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
12/82 .09/83
. 07/89 08/.90 F
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
10/84. 06/86
09/83 09/84
05/93
06/86 · 07/87
12/82 09/83
09/83 09/84
10/84 06/86
. 06/86 07/87·
05/93 12/94
07/89 11/89 F
10/84 06/86
06/88 10/89
12/82 09/83
09/83 09/84
12/82 09/83
12/82 . 09/83
10/84 06/86
09/83 09/84
06/88 03/89
12/82 09/83
10/89 08/90
10/84 06/86
10/84 06/86
10/84 06/86
06/88 08/90
09/85 06/86
06/88 03/89
12/82 · 09/83
07/89 08/90 F
09/83. 09/84
12/82 . 09/83
01/94
01/87 · 03/89
06/86 03/89
10/84 10/89
06/88 10/89
12/82 09/83
06/88 10/89
06/93 05/94 F
12/82 09/83
01/87 07/87
07/89 11/89 ·F .
10/84 06/86
09/83 09/84
09/83 09/84
06/88 10/89
02/92 · 10/92 F
06/88 02/90
12/82. 09/83
10/84 06/86
04/85 03/89 . F
National Priorities List .
Final and Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
. Deceni>er 1994
Site Name
Joliet Anny Annuiition Plant (Mfg Area)
· Jones Chemicals, Inc.
Jones Sanitation
Joseph .Forest ProciJctS
Joslyn Monufacturing & S-ly Co.
Jcncoa Landf il l
IC&L Averue Landfll 1
-Kaiser Alunirua Nead lilorka
Kilama Specialty Chemicals
!Caine & Lanbard Street Druris
KaSsaUf-Kimerling Battery Disposal
: Ka"tonah tu'licipal Well
·Kauffman-& Minteer, lnc.
Kaydon Corp.
. Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.
·Kfffe Envirormental Services
Kellogg•Oeering well Field
Kem-Pest Laboratories
• Kemarlc Textile Corp.
Kennecott (North Zone)
; ·Kernecott (South Zone>
· · .,Kent City Mobile Home Parle
teeiituclcy Avenue Well Field
Kentwood Landfill
Kerr-~cGee (Kress Creek/W Branch-DuPage)•
· Kerr-McGee (Reed-Keppler Perle) · ·
·.·. Kerr-McGee (Residential Areas).
Kerr-McGee (Sewage Treatment Pl'ant)
Kerr-:..Nc:Gee Chemical Corp~(Soda Springs)
· Keystone Sanitation Landfill ·
~. ·Kiaberton Site
Kin·Buc Landfi II
-'.' King of Prussia
.. Koch Refining Co,/N·Ren .Corp.
Kohler Co. Landfill
Koppers Co lnc (Texarkana Plant)
Koppers Co. Inc. (Morrisville Plsnti
_ Koppers, Co.,· Jnc. (Charleston Plant)
Koppers Co., Inc. (Florence Plant)
Koppers Co., Inc. (Newport Plant)·
Koppers Co., Inc. (Oroville Plant) Koppers Coke · ·
K<mner sanitary Landfill.
Kurt·Nanufacturine Co.
Kysor Industrial ·corp.
L.A. Clarke & Son
LEHR/Old C1111""8 Landfill (USl>OE)
LeGrand Sanitary Landfill
LaSalle Electric Utilities
Lackawarna Refuse
Lake City Anny Amal. Plant (NW Lagoon)
Lake Sandy Jo CM&II Landfill)
·Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc.
Lakew-Site
Landfllt & Developnent Co. ,
Landfill & Resource Recovery, lnc.(L&RRI
Leng Property · . . ·
Langley Air Force Base/NASA Langley Cntr
Laskin/Poplar Oil ·co.
.".Louer I Sanitary Landfill
10
St Location
IL Joliet
NY Caledonia
NY· Hyde Park
OR Joseph
MN Brook I yn Center .
PR J'"1Cos
Ml OShtemo T-.ship.
WA Mead
SC Beaufort
MD Baltimore_.·
FL Taq,a
NY Town of Bedford.
NJ Jobstowt"I
MI Muskegon
NH Conway
NH Epping
CT Norwalk
:MO Cape Girardeau
NY Fanningdale
UT Magna
UT Copperton .
Ml . Kent City
NY Horseheads
Ml Kentwood
IL DuPage CO!l'ltY
IL West Chicago
. IL West Chicago/0\S>age C
: IL West Chicago
ID Soda Springs
PA Union Township
PA Klnt>erton Borough
NJ Edison Township
NJ Winslow T-.shlp
MN Pina.Bend
WI Kohler
TX Texarkana
NC Morrisville
SC Charleston
SC Florence
. DE Newport
CA ·Oroville
MN St. Paul
IOI Bemidji
IOI Fridley
, MI Cedi l lac
VA Spotsylvanle County
CA Davis ·
· MN LeGrand TONnShip
IL LaSalle
PA Dld Forge Bor.ough
MO I ndepet1det ice
IN · Gary
. IN --c1aypool
WA. Lak-
NJ MD\"1t Holly
RI North Smithfield
NJ · Peri>erton T-.shlp
VA H811l)ton
OH Jefferson Township
_WI Menon-onee:Fells
Date'
Proposed°
10/84
06/88
01/87
06/88
09/83
12/82
12/82
12/82
09/83
. 10/84
12/82
10/84 . 06/88
06/88
09/83
12/82.
09/83
01/87
10/84
. 01/94
01/94
09/85
12/82 ·
12/82
· 10/84
10/84
10/1!4
10/84
05/89
04/85
12/82
12/82
12/82
10/84
09/83 ·10/84 ...
06188
02/92
09/83
10/89
09/83
12/82
10/84
10/84
09/85
10/84
01/94
06/86
12/82
12/82
10/84
12/82
06/88
12/82
09/83
12/82
· 12/82
05/93
12/82
09/83
Final .
07/87
02/90
07/87
03/89
09/84
09/83
09/83
09/83
09/84
06/86
09/83
06/86
03/89
02/90
09/84
09/83
09/84
10/89
06186
07/87
09/83
. 09/83 . 02/91
08/90
08/90
08/90
10/89
07/87
09/83
09/83
09/83
· 06/86
09/84
06/86
03/89
12/94
· 09/84
·os190
09/84
09/83
06/86
06/86
.10/89
.06/86
05/94
07/87
09/83
09/83
. 07/87
09/83
03/89
09/83
.09/84
09/83
09/83.
05/94
09/83
09/84 ·
F
F
F
Final
Site NIIIIO
•
National PrforftfH List
and Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
Oecei:nt,er 1994 ·
·St· Location
Date
Proposed" Final ,. b Notes "·'-----------------,-------------,------------
Laurel Park, Inc.
Lawr~e Livermore Lab Site.300 (USOOE)
.Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (USDOE)
Lawrence Todtz Farm
. Lee Acres Landfill. (USOOI)
· Lee Chemical
Lee's L811" Landfill
. Leetown Pestfdde
Lehtlller/Mankato Site
Lent>erger Landfill, Inc:
Lenmerger Transport & Recycling
·Lemon Lane Landfill
Lenz 01 l Service, _Inc;
Li!onard Chemical Co., Inc •.
Letterkenny Army Depot (PDQ Area)
· · Letterkemy Army Depot: (SE Area)
Levi sburg D""'
Lexington C01.ity Landfill Area
Li Tungsten Corp.
Libby Grou,d Water Contamination ·
liberty Industrial Finishing
L fmestone Road
L fncoln Creos·ote
Lincoln Park
L indane DUil) .
Lindsay Marufacturing Co.
Lfnemaster Switch Corp.
.Lipari Landfill
· Uqufd Disposal, Inc.
Liquid Gold Oil Corp.
Litchfield.Airport Area
Lodi M.nicipal Well
Lona Pine Landfill.
Lone Star.Army Almllnition Plant
long Prairie Gro.nd Water Cont11nination
Longhom Army Amn.Jnition Plant
Lord-Shope Landfill
Lorentz Barrel & Drun Co.·
Loring Air Force Base ·
Louisiana Army Allllu1ition Plant
LOUisiana·Pacffic Corp.
Love Canal ·
Lower Ecorse Creek D~ ·
Lowry Landfil 1
Ludlow Sand & Gravel
LUke Afr Force Bau
· MGM Brakes . .
MIDCO I '
.MIDCO II
MIG/Dawane Landfill
MW Manufacturirig ·
MacGillfs & Gibbs/Bell Lult>er & Pole Co. Madison County Sanitary Landfill
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District
Main Street Well Field
•Mallory CapaCitor Co.
Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Malvern TCE · ·
Mannhei■ Avenue D1.111)
, Mar'!thon ·~aftery Corp.
11
CT ·Naugatuck Borough
CA L ive·rmore ·
CA Livennore
I A Caffi!!nche . ·
NM Farmington
MO Liberty', _
ICY Louisville
W Leetown
MN Lehillier/Mankato
WI Whitelaw
WI Franklin Township
IN .Bloanington .
IL Lemont
SC Rock Hfl 1
PA Frankl In C01.ity .
PA Chant>ersburg
TN Lewisburg
SC Cayce
NY Glen Cove
MT. Libby
. ,NY Farmingdale
. MD CU!berland
LA Bossier City
CO Canon City
• PA Harrison Township .
NE Lindsay
CT Woodstock
NJ Pitman
. Ml Utica
CA Richmond
AZ Goodyear/Avondale
. NJ Lodi
NJ FreehMd Township
TX Texarkana ·
MN Long Prairie
TX . Karnack -
PA .Girard Township
CA San Jose .
ME Limestone
LA· Doyline ,
CA Oroville
NY Niagara F8lts
Ml •Wyandotte.•
CO .Arapahoe County
NY Clayville ,
AZ Glendale
CA Cloverdale
IN Gary
IN Gary
IL· Belvidere
PA Valley Township
MN ·New Brighton
FL Madison
\II Blooming Grove
IN Elkhart·
TN \laynesboro
NY ·Malta
PA Malvl!rn ,
NJ Galloway Townsh.fp
NY Cold Springs
·12/82
.07/89
10/84
09/85
06/88
10/84
12/82 .
12/82
12/82
09/85·
09/83 .
·12182
06/88
09/83
04/85
10/84
12/82
06/88
. 07/91
12/82
10/84
12/82
01/94
09/83
12/82
10/84
06/88
12/82
· 12/82
12/82
12/82
10/84
12/82 . 10/84
10/84
07/89
12/82
10/84 -
07/89
10/84
.10/84
12/82 ·
01/94 .
. 09/83
12/82
. 07/89
12/82
· •12/82
. 10/84
10/89
10/84
09/83
06/88
· 06/88
. 12/82
01/87
06/86
12/82
12/82 ·
· 12/82
09/83
08/90
07/87
06/86
08/90.
06/86
09/83
09/83
09/83
06/86
09/84
09/83
·10189
09/84
03/89
07(87
09/83
·.10189
10/92
09/83
06/86
09/83
09/84
09/83
10/89
02/90
09/83
09/83
09/83
09/83
08/90
09/83
07/87
06/86
08/90
09/83
10/89
02/90
.03/89
06/86
. 09/83
05/94
09/84
09/83
08/90 .
09/83
09/83.
06/86 ·
08/90
06/86
. 09/84
08/90
02/90
09/83
10/89
07/87
09/83
09/83
09/83
F
F
F
F
F
A
F
National Priorities List
Final ard Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
Deceni:>er 1994
Site Name St Location
March Air Force Base · CA Uverside
Marine Corps Coni:>at Developnent Cannard YA_ Quantico
_MBriM" corps LogistiCs ~ase GA Albany.
Marion (Bragg) D1111> IN Marion
Marshall Lardfill co Boulder Courty
Martin•Marietta AlUt1inun Co. OR The-Dal Les
Martin·Marietta, Sodyeco, Inc. NC Charlotte
Marzone Jnc./Chevron Chemical Co~ GA Tifton
·Mason City Coal Gasification Plant:· IA Mason City
Mason·c0111ty Landfill Ml Pere Marquette Twp
.~aster Disposal Service Landfill WI Brof?kfield
Materials.Technology Laboratory CUSARMY) MA Watertown
· Mather Air Force Base CA Sacramento
Ma.this· Brothers Landfill. GA Kensington
Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc.-NY Glen Cove ~8Xey· Flats Nuclear Disposal . ICY Hillsboro
Maywood Chemlcel co. NJ Maywood/Rochel le Park
McAdoo Associates PA McAdoo Borough
· McChord Air Force Base (Wash Rack/Treat) 11A Tacoma
fi4C:Cl9ll&n Air Force Base (G\I Contam) CA Sacramento
NcCol l CA Fullerton .. McCormick & Baxter Creos. Co. (Portland) OR Portland
McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co. CA Stockton
McGraw Edison Corp. NI Albion
MclCin Co. ME Gray
Medley Farm Drun D"'1) SC Goffney
Nell'!)his Defense Depot COLA) TN Mell'!)his Mercury Refining, .Inc. NY Colonie Metal Banks PA Philadelphia Metaltec/Aerosystems NJ Franklin BorOU9h
Metamora Landfill NI Metamora Metropolitan Mirror and Glass PA Frackville
Niemi C01.a1ty lncinerBtor OH Troy· Miami Drun Services FL Miami
Mica Lardfill WA Mica
Michigan Oisposal(COrk Street Landfill) NI Kalamazoo
Mid-America Taming Co. IA Sergeant Bluff ..
· Mid-Atlantic Wood Prese.-vers, Inc , II) Hermans
Mid-South Wood Products AR Mena
M_id·State Disposal,-Inc. Lardf ill 1/1 . Cleveland Township
Middletown Air Field· PA Middletown
Nidlard Products AR Ola/Bl rta
Midvale Slag UT Midvale
Midway Landfill 11A Kent
Midwest Mar-.sfacturlng°JNorth Farm . IA Kellogg
. _ NHan Army Almulition Plant TN Nilan
. Nil I Creek 0"'1) PA Erie
Mi 11 tOW'I Reservoir Sedhnenta NT Nill town
Minlter/Stout/Romlne Creek . .. NO · 1..,.rial ..
Minot Lardfill ND · Minot
Missouri Elecfrfc works NO Cape Gf rar"deau
.·Modern Sanitation Lardfill PA Lower Windsor TOWr\Shi
· Modesto GrCM.rd Water Contamination ·. CA Modesto .
Moffett Naval Air Station CA · S'-"')'Va l e
Monarch Tile Marufacturfng, Inc. AL Florence
Monitor oevfces/lntefcircuita Jnc NJ :wall Township
Monolithic Memories CA S'-"')'Va le
Nonroe Auto Equipment (Paragould Pit) AR Paragould
.Mon5:anto Chemical .co. (Soda Sprl.ngs) . ID · Soda springs
Monsaryto Corp. (~1.19usta Plant> GA Augusta
· 12·
Date
Proposed"
07/89
05/93
07/89
12/82
12/82
10/84
12/82
06/88
01/94
12/82
09/83
06/93
10/84
01/87
06/88
10/84
12/82
12i82
10/84
10/84
12/82
06/93.
02/92
12/82
·12/82
06/86
02/92
12/82
12/82
12/82
09/83
02/92
. 09/83
12/82
10/84
10/84 .
· 06/88
10/84
12/82
09/83
10/84
10/84
06/86
·10/84
09/85
10/84 .
09/83
12/82 .
12/82
06/88
06/88
10/84
06/88
04/85
05/93
04/85
10/84
10/89
05/89
09/83
Final
11/89 F
05/94 F
11/89 F
09/83
09/83 s
06/86 ·
09/83
10/89
12/94 .
09/83
09/84
05/94 , F
07/87 F
03/89
03/89
. 06/86
09/83
09/83 s
07/87 F
07/87 F
09/83
05/94
10/92
09/83
09/83
03/89
10/92 F
09/83
09/83
09/83
09/84
10/92
09/84
09/83
06/86
02/90
03/89 . 06/86
09/83
·. 09/84
06/86
06/86 .
·02191
06/86
06/86 .
07/87 F
09/84
09/83
09/83
03/89
02/90
· 06/86
03/89 .
07/87 F
06/86
·.07)87
08/90
08/90
09/84
---~ --• •
Natfonel Prfor-ftfes· List:
Final and.Proposed Sites (by Site N8111e)
Decent>er 1994
Date·
. ------------------Site Neme St Location Proposect° Final . b Notes
Montana Pole and Treatf"9_ MT Butte ·.06/86 07/87 MOritclair/West Orange Radi1.n Site NJ Montclair/~ Orange 10/84 02/85 Montgomery Township Housing Development. NJ Montgomery Township 12/82 09/83
Monticello Nill Tailings (USDOE) UT Monticello 07/89 11/89 , F
Monticello Radioactive Contmnlnated Prop UT Monticello 10/84 06/86 MOOtrose Chemkal Corp. CA Torrance 10/84 10/89 Noses lake Well field Contmnination WA Mosts Lake 07/91 10/92 Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill 01( Oklahoma City 06/88 02/90 MOss-American(Kerr-McGee Oil Co.) Ill Milwaukee . 09/83 09/84 Motco, Inc .. TX La Marque 12/82 09/83 s Motor Wheel, Inc. Ml Lansing 10/84 06/86 Motorola, Jnc;(52nd Street Plant) AZ Phoenix ·10/84 10/89 Nottolo Pig Farm NH .Raymond 04/85 07/87 · Mouat Industries MT ColUJt,us 10/84 · 06/86 Mound Plant (USOOE) . OH Miamisburg 07/89 11/89 F MO\.l'\tain Hane Air Force Base 10 Mo1.r1tain Hane 07/89 08/90 F Moyers Landi ll l PA Eaglevl l le. 12/82 · 09/83 Munlsport Landfill FL North Miami 12/82 09/83 Murray Smelter UT Murray City 01/94 Murray-Ohio 0~ TN Lawrenceburg 12/82 09/83 Muskego Sanitary Landfill Ill Muskego · 09/83 09/84 Muskegon. Chemical· Co. · Ml Whitehall 06/88 02/90. Myers Property NJ Franklin Township 12/82 09/83 Mystery Bridge Rd/U.S. Highway 20 1/Y Evansville 06/88 08/90 N.W. Mauthe Co., Inc. Ill Appleton 06/88 03/89 s NC .. State Universfty(Lot 86,Farm Unit #1) NC Raleigh 10/84 06/86 NCR Corp. (Millsboro .Plant) OE Millsboro 04/85 07/87 NL Industries NJ Pedrick.town 12/82 09/83 NL l~tries/Taracorp Lead Smelter IL Granite City 10/84 06/86 NL lndustries/Taracorp/G.olden Auto MN St. lout a ·Park . · 12/82 09/83 Nascol ite Corp. NJ Nill ville 09/83. 09/84 Natfc~ Laboratory Anny Research,D&E Cntr NA · Natick 05/93 05/94 F .•. National Electric Coil/Cooper Jnca,sties ICY Oayhoit · 07/91 10/92 National Presto Industries, Inc. Ill · Eau Claire 10/84 06/86 Nadonaf SemlconciJctor Corp. CA Santa Clara 10/84. 07/87 National Southwire Alunlru11·Co. ICY Hawesvll le · · 07/91 05/94 · Nationaf Starch & Chemical Corp. NC Salisbury 04/85 10/89 National Zinc Corp. 01( Bartlesvll le 05/93 . Naval ~fr Development Center(B Areas) PA_ ~arminster Township . 06/86 10/99 F' . Naval Air En;ineerinsrcenter . NJ Lakehurst 09/85 07/87 F Naval Air Station, Whicl>ey Is (Seaplane) WA Whidbey Island 09/85 02/90 F llav·al Ai_r StatiDn, lJhfdbey Island (Ault) WA Whidbey Island 09/85 02/90 F .-_Naval ·c~ter &. TelecOlfflUlications Area HJ Oahu 01/94 05/94 F Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plmit MN Fridlex 07/89 11 /1!9 F Naval Security Group Activity PR Sabana Seca 06/88 10/89 F Naval Surface Warfare• Dahlgren VA Dahlgren . 02/92 10/92 F .. N8val UnderSea Marfare Station (4 Areas) WA Keyport · 06/86 10/89 F NaVal ·Meapons lrdatrfal Reserve Plant NA Bedford · _. 06/93 05/114 F N8v8l Weapons Station •-Yorktown· 'YA · Yorktown 02/92 10/92 F' . ·Na~al Weapons Station Earle (Site A) NJ Colts Neck '10/84 08/90 F Navy Ships Parts Control Center PA ~echanicsburg 01/94 05/94 F · .·.·Neal •s Durp (Spencer) ' IN Spencer. . 10/84 06/86· Nealis Landfill, (Bloanington). IN Bloomington. 12/82 09/83 Nea1e Chemical OH Salem 12/82 09/83 Nebraska Ordnance Plant (Former) NE Mead . 10/89· 08/90 -Nepera Chemical Co., Inc. NY -Maybrook 10/84 .06/86 New Bedford SI to . NA New Bedford · 12/82 09/83 s New Brighton/Arden Hills/TCAAP (USARMY) MN New Sri ghton 12/82 09/83 F New Castle Spill OE New Castle COW'lty· 12/82 09/83 .New Haq,shire Plating Co. NH -Merrimack 07/91 10/92
13
. Final
National Priorities List·
and Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
· Decenb!r 1994
·oate
------------------Site Name St Location Proposed° FhlBl -b Notes
New Hanover Cnty Airport Burn Ph-. NC IJi lmington 06/88 D3/89 New London ·submarine Base · CT New London 1D/89 D8/9D F ..
New Lyme landfill DH New Lyme 12/82 .09/83 Nelill'IBrk Ground Mate~ ContaminatfOf"I CA San Bernardino 06/88 03/89 Newport D111"1' ICY Newport '12/82 09/83
. -~ewport Na:val Education/Training Center RI Newport .07/89 11/89 F News0111 Brothers/Old Reichhold Chemicals MS Coll.lmia. · 10/84 06/86 NfaQara C0111ty Refuse NY lJheatfield 12/82 09/83 ·Nfigar"a Mohawk Power Co(Saratoga Spings) _ NY Saratoga Springs. 06/88 02/90 Nineteenth.Avenue Landfill AZ Phoenix 12/82 09/83 Ni nth Avenue 0~ , IN Gary 12/82 09/83 North Bronson Industrial Area Ml Bronson 10/84 06/86 North Cavalcade Street TX Houston 10/84 06/86
·North Hollywood D111"1' TN Men'jll,ls 12/82 ·09/83 s -North Market Street MA Spokane 06/88 08/90 North Pem -Area 1 PA· Souderton . 01/87 03/89
North Pem • Area· 12 PA \lorcester 01/87 · ,02/90 North Pem -Area 2 PA Hatfield 01/87 )0/89 North Pem -Area 5 PA Montgomery Township 01/87. 03/89 North Pem ·-Area 6 PA Lansdale 01/87 03/89 North PerYI -Area 7 PA North I.rates 01/87 03/89 • North Sanitary Landfill OH Dayton 06/93 05/94 North Sea Municipal Landfill NY North Sea 10/84 06/86 Northem Engraving Co. Ml Sparta 09/83 09/84 Norther-naire Plati"9 Ml Cadillac 12/82 -09/83 Northaide Landfill MA Spokane 10/84 06/86 Northside Sanitary LandfH (. Inc · IN Zionsville 09/83 09/84 Northwest 58th Street Landfill. Fl Hialeah . 12/82 . 09/83
Northwest Pipe & Casing Co. OR Clackamas· 02/92 . 10/92 Northwest Transformer MA Everson · 10/84 06/86 Noithwest_Transforffler(South Harkness.St) MA Everson 06/88 02/90 'Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. IA Mason City 06/88 08/90
[: Norton Afr FOrce Base CA San Bernardino · 10/84 · 07/87 F Norwood PCBs MA ·Norwood 10/84 06/86 Novaco Industries Ml T~rance 12/82 . 09/83
Novak Sanitary landfill PA South Wh i teha II Towns 01/87 10/89
Nutmeg.Valley Road CT Wolcott 01/87 03/89 : Nutting.Truck & Caster Co. MN Faribault 09/83 09/84 Nyanza ChemicBl Waste D..,..:,· MA Ashland 12/82 , 09/83 ·
-o•cornor co. ME Augusta 12182· 09/83 Oak Grove Sanitary landfill MN Oak Grove ,Township 10/84 06/86 · Oak Ridge Reservation (USOOE) TN Oak Ridge . 07/89 11/89 F
Oakdale 0111"1' MN Oakdale 12/82 09/83 Obee Road KS Hutchinson 01/87 07/87
Ot.cidental Chemical Corp./Firestone Tire.· PA Lower Pottsgrove ~own 06/88 10/89
·. Oconomowoc Electroplating Co. Inc ·Ml Ashippln 09/83 09/84
.. Odessa Chromhn t1 TX Odessa 10/84 . · 06/86·.
. Odessa Chromhn 12 (Andrews Highway) TX Odessa 10/84 06/86 · Ogallala GrOl..nd Wlter Contamination NE Ogallala · 10/92 12/~4
Ogden Defense Depot (DLA) UT Ogden 10/84 07/87 . F
Ohio River Park PA Nevil le Island 10/89 08/90
Oklahoma Refining CO. , OK. Cyril 06/88 .. 02/90 Old Bethpage Landfill ·NY Oyster Bay 12/82 .. 09/83 Old City of. York Lendflll. PA· ~even Valleys · 12/82 09/83
Old Inger 011 Refinery · LA Darrow · 12/82 09/83 s Old Inland Pit MA Spokane 06/86 02/90
Old Mil 1 OH -Rock Creek . .-·12182. 09/83
Old Navy D"'l'/Manch.ester Lab(USEPA/NOAA) MA . Manchester 01/94 05/94 F
Old Southington Landfill . CT Southington 09/83 09/84
Old Springfield Landfill VT Springfield 12/82 09/83 ·
14
.. :,
... Site Nome
Olean Well Ffald
Olin Corp. (McIntosh Plant)
Olmsted Cou,ty Sanitary lardffll
. Qnega Hills North lardflll
·0na1aska Munfcfpal·lardfill
0nondaga Lake
Operating Industries, Inc., lardffll
Ordnance Products, lnc.
Or~nce Works Disposal Areas
Ordot Lardf fl I -
Organic Chemicals,·1nc.
Ormet Corp. -·
Oronogo•Ouenweg Mining Belt
Osborne Lardf il l
.ossfneke GrOllld Water Contamination
Otis Afr National Guard (USAF)
Ott/Story/Cordova.Chemical Co.
Ottatf & Goss/Kingston Steel·orun
Otta'wa Radf at ion Areas
outboard Merine Corp.
PAS Oil & Chemical Service, Inc.
PJP lardf il I
PSC Resources
Pacific Car & Foundry co.
Pacific Coast Pipe lines
.Pacific Hide & Fur'Recyclfng Co.
·, Pacific Sound Resources
Packaging Corp. of AmerfCa
Final
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (USOOE)
Pagel•s Pit
Palmerton Zinc Pile·
· Palmetto Aecycl fng, Inc.
Pel.,.tto ~ood Preserving
Pantex Plant (USOOE). .
Paoli Rafi Yard
Para·Chem·southem, Inc.
. Parker·sanitary lardfill .
. Parris l_aland Marine Corps Recruit Depot
· Parsons Casket· Hardware Co.
. Parsons Chemical works, Inc. ·
·Pasco Sanitary Lardffll
.Pasley·Solvents ·, Chemicals, Inc.
PatUXent River Naval Air Station
Peak Oil Co./Bay Drun Co.
Pearl Harbor Navat·toq>lex
Pease Air Force·Bea•
_Peerless Plating CO.
·Pensacola Naval Afr Station
Peoples Natural Gal.Co.
Pepe Field .
P-r Staal & Alloys; Inc.
Perdfdo Ground Water Cont1111inatlon
Perhs Arsenic Site
Puses Chem! cal Co.
,, Pester Refinery Co •
. Peterson/Puritan, Inc.
Petoskey lulicipal Well Field
Petro·Chemtcal Systems, (Turtle Bayou)
'., Pe·tro·Pl"oceasor1 of Louisiana Inc
·, Petrochem Recycl Ing Corp./Ekotek Plant
National Priorities List
ard Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
Oecent>er 1994
15
St Location
NY Olean
AL McIntosh
MN Oronoco
WI Germantown
~I ona(aska
·NY Syracuse
CA Monterey Park
MO . Cec fl C0\.'1ty
W Morgantown
GU Guam
Ml Grardvfl le
OH Hannibal
MO Jasper Cou,ty
PA Grove City
Mt Ossineke.
MA Fall1'Juth
Ml . Dal ton Township
NH · Kingston
IL Ottawa
IL Waukegan
LA Abbevil I e
NJ Jersey City
MA Palmer
WA Renton
CA F fl 111'Jre
JO Pocatello
WA Seattle
Ml Filer Cf ty .
KY· •Paducah
IL. Rockford
. PA Palmerton
SC Colum,ie
SC Dixiana
TX Pantex Village
PA Pool i
SC Si"'5onville
VT Lyndon ·
.SC Parris Island
IL Belvidere
· Ml Grard Ledge
WA Pasco
NY Heni,stead
MD St. Mary•s COt.nty
Fl T-
HI Pearl Harbor
NH ·Portsmouth/Newington
Ml Muskegon
· FL Pensacola
IA. Olbuque
· NJ Boonton
· Fl -Medley
· . Al Perdido
MN Perham
TX Fort Worth
KS ·e I Dorado
Al Lincoln/Culi>erlard
Ml , Petoskey
TX Liberty County
LA. Scotlanctville
UT Salt lake City
Date
Proposed8 Final
12/82
09/83
10/84
09/83
·09/83
05/93
10/84
05/93
10/84
12/82
12/82
09/85
06/88
12/82
12/82
07/89
12/82
12/82
07/91
12/82
06/88
12/82
12/82
06/88
06/88
09/83
05/93
12/82
05/93
10/84
. 12/82
'09/83
09/83
. 07/91
01/87
10/89
06/88
· 08/94
01/87
06/88.
06/88
10/84
'01/94
10/84
07/91
07/89
06/88 -
07/89
06/88
12/82
09/83
12/82
· 09/83
10/84
06/88
12/82
. 12/82
. 10/84
09/83
07/91
09/83
09/84
06/86
09/84
09/84
12/94
06/86
06/86
09/83.
09/83
07/87
08/90
09/83
09/83
11/89
09/83.
09/83
.10/92
09/83
03/89
09/83
09/83
02/90
10/89
09/84
05/94
09/83
05/94
06/86
09/83
09/84
09/84
05/94
08/90
08/90
·02190
. 12/94
07/87
03/89
·02/90
06/86
05/94
06/86
10/92
02/90
08/90
11/89
08/90
09/83
09/84
09/83
09/84
06/86
03/89
. 09/83
09/83
.06/86 . 09/84
10/92
s
F
s
F
F
F
F
F
·F
F
National Priorities List
Final and Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
Decen'ber 1994
Site Name St Location
Petrole1.111'Products Corp. FL Penbroke Park
· Pfohl Brothers Landfill . NY Cheektowaga
PtCatimy Arsenal (USARMY) NJ Rockaway Township·
Pfeil lo Farm RI Coventry
Pickettville Road Landfill FL Jacksonville
' Pi Jak Fara, NJ Plunstead Township
.Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill . MH Dakota COl..nty Pine Street Canal VT Burlington Pinette•, Salvage Yl!lrd . ,. . ME Washbum Pfper Aircraft/Vero Bel!lch Water & Sewer FL VerO Beach Pl_Bttsburgh Air Force Base NY Plattsburgh
Plymouth Avenue Landfill FL : .Deland
Pohatcong Valley GrOU'ld Water Contaminat NJ Warrefl C01..r1ty p(lllutf0n Abatement Servkes, ·NY OSwego
Pomon& Oaks Re~idential Wells NJ Galloway Township Popi le, Jnc. AR El Dorado
Port Hadlock Detachinent (USNAVY) WA Indian Island ·Port Washington Landfill NY Port Washington ·
. Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 & 3) UT Salt Lake City
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard · ME Kittery
Potter Co.· MS Wesson•
Potter's Septic Tank Ser,ice Pits . NC , Maco
Powell Road Landfill· OH Dayton
Powersville Site GA Peach C01..r1ty
Precision PlBifns Corp. CT Vernon
Preferred Plating Corp. NY Farmingdale
Prestolfte·Battery Divfafon · IN Vincemes
Prewitt Abandoned"Reffnery . · ·NM Prewf tt · Price Landf il l NJ Pleasantvf l le Pristine,. Inc. OH Reading
Publicker Industries ll'IC. PA Phlladephie Puget SOI.rid Naval Shipyard Coq,lex WA Bremerton
Purity Oil Sales, Inc. CA Malaga Quality Plating MO Sikeston·
Queen City Fanas WA Mople Valley .
RCA Del Coribe PR Barceloneta
RSR Corp. TX Dal lea
Radiation Technology, Inc. NJ Rockaway Township
Radillll Chemical Co., Jnc. NY New York City,. Relph Grey Trucking Co. . CA \lestmfnster
RIWll8po Lendfll l NY RIWll8po RaSfflJ:Ssen' s D~ Ml ' Green Ook Township
Roymork PA Hl!ltboro Raymark Irdustrfes, Inc. CT StratfOrd Raytheon Corp. ·CA M01..r1tahi View Re·Solve, Jnc. . MA Dartmouth
Recticon/Allied StNI Corp. . PA Eost COY°".'try· Twp
Red.Dok City Lendffll IA Red Oak
Red. Penn Soni tot ion Co. Landfll l KY "PeeWee Vol l ey
'Redstone Arsenal (USARMY/NASA) AL Huntsville
.Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) AL Soroland
Reeves Southeost Galvonizfng Corp fl, TM1)1
Refuse Hi deowoy L.andf fl l , , WI Middleton
Ref ch Farms NJ Pleosont Plains
Reflly Tar & Chemical(Oover Plont) OH Dover
Reilly Tar & Chemicol(lndianopolis Plant IN Jndionapol is
Reilly Tar&Chem. (St. Louis Pork Plant) MN St. Lou! s Park Ref'IOra, Inc. . , · 'NJ Edison Township
Rentokfl, · Inc. (VA Wood Preserving DfY) VA Rfc~ Republ f c Steel Corp. Quarry OH Elyrfo
16
Date
------------------Proposed" Final Notesb
D4/85 07/87
· 05/93 12/94
07/89 02/90. F
12/82 09/83 s
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
10/84 06/86
12/82 09/83 s
12/82 09/83
06/86 02/90
07/89 11/89 F
· 05/93 .
06/88 03/89.
12/82 09/83 s
10/84 06/86
02/92 10/92
06/93 05/94 F
12/82 09/83
10/84 06/86
06/93 05/94 F
05/93
06/88 03/89
09/83 09/84
09/83 09/84
06/88 10/89
10/84 . 06/86
09/85 10/89
06/88 08/90
12/82 09/83 s
12/82 09/83
05/89 10/89
05/93 05/94 F
12/82 09/83
10/84 06/116
09/83 09/114
,12/82 09/113
05/93
09/83 09/114
'08/89 11/119 A
07/91 10/'IZ
12/82 09/113
12/82 09/53
06/88 10/119
01/94 A
10/84 06/116
12/82 09/113
06/88, , 10/119
06/86 03/89
06/88, 03/119
06/93 05/94 ' F
06/88, 02/90.
12/82 · 09/113
02/92 10/92
12/82 '09/113
06/88 08/90
09/83· 09/84
· ·12182 '09/83 s
12/82 09/83
01/87 03/89
10/84 06/86
'
• •
National Priorities Lfst
Final and Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
• Deceri>er 1994
Date
····--------------Sf te Name St Location Proposed° Final Notesb
Resin Disposal PA . Jefferson Borough 12/82 09/83 Revere Chemical Co. PA Nockamixon Township 09/85 07/87 Reynolds.Metals C-ny-Off Troutdale 08/94 12/94 Rhinehart Tire Ffre 0-VA Frederick C011>ty 10/84 06/86 Richardson Flat Tailings UT Surmi t Cot.r1ty 02/92 Richardson Hill Road Landfill/Pond NY Sidney Center 06/86 07/87
Ricker-backer Air National Guard (USAF) OH Lockbourne . 01/94 F Rfnchem Co.,··tnc. · NM A I buquerque 10/92 Ripon City Landfill . . WI Ripon 06/93 05/94 Ritari Post & Pole MN ·Sebeka 01/87 07/87
River Road Landfill/Waste Mngnnt, Inc. PA ·Hermitage 01/87 10/89
. : Riverbank Army .Almu>ition Plant·· CA Riverbank 06/88 02/90 F Robins Afr Force Base(Lf#4/Sludge. lagoon GA Houston County 10/84 07/87 F Robfntech, lnc./National Pipe Co. NY Town of Vestal · 10/84 06/86 Rochester Property SC Travelers Rest 06/86 -10189. •
Rock Hil I Chemical Co. SC Rock Hill 06/88 02/90 .Rockaway Borough Well Field NJ Rockaway Township 12/82 09/83 R~kaway Township Wells NJ RockaWay 12/82 09/83 Rockwell International Corp._ (Allegan) Ml Allegan 04/85 07/87 Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE) , co Golden 10/84 10/89 F
Rocky Kill Municipal Well NJ Rocky· Hill Borough 12/82 09/83
Rocky Mouitafn Arsenal (USARMY) co Adams County. 10/84 07/87 F Rodate·Manufacturing Co., Inc. PA Errmaus Borough 07/91 10/92 Roeblfng Steel Co. NJ Florence 12/82 · 09/83 Rogers Road M111icipal Landfill AR Jacksonville 01/87 07/87 Rose Disposal Pit MA Lanesboro .10/84' '06/86
Rose Hill Regional Landfill RI South Kingston 06/88 10/89 . Rose Park Sludge Pit. UT Salt Lake City 12/82 09/83 s Rose Township Durp .Ml Rose Township 12/82 09/83 Rosen Brothers Scrap Yerd/D1.111> NY Cortland 06/88 03/89 Rote-Finish Co., Inc. Ml Kalamazoo 10/84 06/86 Route 940 Drun 0-PA Pocono SUfflli t 09/85 07/87 Rowe Industries Gnd Water Contamination . NY . Noyack/Sag Harbor '· 06/86 07/87 SCA lndepeudent Landfill Ml · ·Muskegon Heights '12/82 09/83 SCRO! Bluff Road SC Coluit>ia 12/82, 09/83 s SCRO! Dixfana ' SC Cayce 12/82 · 09/83
SMS lnstrunents, Inc. NY Deer Park· 10/84 06/86 . Saco Municipal Landfill ME Saco 06/88 02/90 Saco Tamery ~aste Pits ME Saco 12/82 09/83 Sacr-..to Army Depot . CA Sacramento 10/84 07/87 F
Saegertown Industrial Area PA Saegertown 06/88 02/90 Salem Acre5 MA Selem 10/84 06/86
~altville Waste Disposel .Ponds VA Saltville .. , 12/82 · 09/83 San Fernando Valley (Area 1) CA Los Angeles 10/84 06/86
·sen Fernando Valley (Area 2) .CA Los Angeles/Glendale 10/84 06/86 -San Fer,-..ando Valley (Area 3) CA Glendale 10/84 06/86 San Fernando Valley (Area 4) CA Los Angeles ·. · 10/84 06/86 Sen Gabriel Valley (Area 1) CA El Monte .09/83 05/84 San Gabriel Valley (Area 2) CA Baldwin Park Area 09/83 · 05/84 San Gabriel Valley (Area 3) CA Alhani>ra 09/83 05/84 · Sen Gabriel Velley (Area 4) CA La Puente 09/83 05/84 .Sand Creek (nca,strfal co corrmerce·Cfty · 12/82 09/83 ~a_rd· Spi"ings Petr■ochemicel_ Caq:,lex 01( Sand Springs. 09/83 06/86 · ~and, Gravel & Stone MD. Elkton 12/82 09/83
Sangemo Electric/Crab Orchard NWR (USOOJ · IL Carter'ville 10/84 07/87 F 5eng'am0 W'eston/Twelve•Mi le/Hartwell PCB ·sc ·Pkkens 01/87 02/90 Sanitary Landfill• Co. (lnca,strial ·Waste) OH Deyton 10/84 06/86 Sapp Battery Salvage FL. Cottondale 12/82 09/83 Sarney Farm NY Amenia 10/84 06/86 Sauk C011>W Landt ii 1 . WI Excelsior 06/88 10/89
17
·National Priorities List
· Final and Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
· Decent>er 1994
Date .•••••............
SHe N&me· St Location . Proposed° Final Notesb
Saunders Supply Co. VA Chuckatuc:k 01/87 10/89 Savage Mtr1icipal Water Supply . NH Mil ford D9/83 D9/84 ·
Savanna Army-Depot ·Activity IL SavalYlB 10/84 03/89 F ·savarYl&h River Site _(USDOE) SC Aiken D7/89 11/89 F Sayreville Landfill NJ Sayreville 12/82 09/83 Schmalz o-WI Harrison 09/83 09/84 Schofield Barracks (USARMY) . HI Oahu 07/89 08/90 · 'f Sch·uylkil I Metals Corp. FL Plant City 12/82 09/83 Scientific ChemiCal Processing NJ Carlstadt 12/82 09/83 Scrap Processing Co., Inc. WI Medford 09/83 09/84 _Sealand Limited DE Mo1.r1t Pleasant 06/88 . 08/90
Seal and Restoration, · Inc. NY Lisbon 10/89 08/90 Seattle Municipal Landfill (Kent Hgh_lnds WA Kent 06/88 08/90 Selma Treating co. CA Selfflll 12/82 09/83 Seneea Army Depot NY Rawlus 07/89 08/90 F Seymour Recycl Ing Corp. · IN Seymour 12/82 09/83 s Sharkey Landfill NJ Parsippany/Troy Hl_s 12/82 09/83 Sharon Steel Corp.-(Midvale Tailings) UT Midvale 1D/84 08/90 Sharpe Anny Depot CA Lathrop 10/84 07/87 ·F Shaw Avenu& DLll'f) IA Charles_ City 09/85 07/87 Sheboygan Harbor & River WI Sheboygan 09/85' 06/86 Sheller-Globe Corp. Dfspoaal IA Keokuk 05/89 08/90 Shenardoah Stables ·MO Moscow Mills 12/82 09/83 Shertdan·Dtsposal Services TX .H-tead 06/86 03/89 Sherwood Medical co. NE Norfolk 07/91 10/92. Sherwood Medical lrd,strles .. FL Deland 12/82 09/83
Shiawassee River Ml Howell 12/82 ,• 09/83
Shieldalloy Corp. NJ Newfield Borough 09/83 09/84 ·· Sh pack Landt f ll MA Norton/Attleboro 10/84 06/86 Shriver•■ cor-ne~ PA Straban Township 10/84 06/86 Sidney Landfill NY Sidney 06/88 03/89 · Sikes Disposal Pits TX Crosby 12/82 09/83
Silf'esim Chemical Corp. MA Lowell . 12/82 09/83 · ·st lYer Bow Creek/Butte-Area MT Sil Bow/Deer Lodge 12/82 09/83 · Si lVer M0111tain Mine WA Loomis 10/84 06/86 Sinclair Refinery NY Wellsville 12/82 09/83 Sixty-Secord Street·o-FL :TII0"8 12/82 09/83 Skinner Landfill OH .West Chester 12/82 ·09/83 Smeltertown Site co Sal Ida 02/92
Smfth.•s Fam KY Brooks 10/84 06/86 . SnaJggler Mountain co Pitkin County 10/84 · 06/86 Sol Lyrn/lnca,strial Transfonaers TX Houston . 10/84 03/89
:sole Optical USA, Inc. CA, Petaluna 06/88 02/90 Solid State Cfrcuf~s, Inc. MO Republic 10/84 . 06/86
Solvent ·Savers· NY Lincklaen 12/82 09/83 Sol.vents Recovery Service New Engiand CT Southington 12/82 09/83 Somersworth Sanitary Landfill NH Somersworth · 12/82 09/83 South 8th Street Landfill AR West.Meni,hls 02/92. 10/92 South Andover S1te MN Andover 12/82 09/83 .
South·Bay Asbestos Area CA Alviso 10/84 .06/86 · South Brw,swick Landfill NJ South Brlrlswt i:k · · 12/82 09/83 South cavalcade Street TX Houston 10/84 06/86 South Jersey Clothing Co. NJ Minotola · 06/88 10/89 .South Macoao Disposal (Landfills 9 & 9A) .Ml Maconb Township 10/84 06/86 South Municipal.Water Supply Well NH Peterborough 09/83 09/84 South Point Plant OH South Point 09/83 09/84 South Valley NM Albuquerque 12/82 · 09/83 s South Weymouth Naval Air ·station MA Weymouth 06/93 · 05/94 F Southeast Rockford Gd Wtr Cont,..inatfon .. IL Rockford 06/88 03/89 ·_'Southam CBI ffornla Edison.Co. (Visa I fa) CA V.isal ia 01/87 03/89
18
. ... . . •
National Priorities List
final and Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
Decent>er 1994 ·
Date
Site Name St Location Proposed"_ final
· · Southem llaryland Wood Treating_. II) Hollywood 10/84 -06/86 · South_side Sanitary Landfill IN lndlanapol Is · . 06/86 -03/89 Southwest Ottawa County Landfill Ml Park T~hip 12/82 09/83 Sparta Landfill . -Ml Sparta Township _ 12/82 09/83 Spartan Chemical Co. Ml Wyoming. 12/82 09/83 _Spectra-Physics, I_nc. CA Mountain View 06/88 02/91 Spectron, Inc. MD Elkton· 10/92 05/94 Spence farm NJ · Plunstead Township 12/82 09/83 Spickler Landfill WI Spencer 01/87 07/87 Splegelberg Landfill· Ml Green Oak. Township 12/82 09/83 Spokane Junkyard/Associated Properties WA Spokane -10/92 05/94 _ Springfield Township Dllll' Ml Davisburg 12/82 09/83 St Louis Alrpor_t/HIS/Futura Coatings Co. MO St. Louis°COl.l'lty 05/89 10/89 St. Augusta Sanitary Landfill/Engen Dllll' MN St. Augusta Township 09/85 07/87 St. Louis River Site MN St. Louis County 09/83 09/84 St. Regis Paper Co. MN Cass -Lake 09/83 09/84 Stamina Nf l ls, Inc. RI North Smithfield 12/82 _ 09/83 Standard Auto s_.r Corp. FL Hialeah _06/88 10/89
Standard C~lorine_of Delaware,Jnc DE Delaware City 09/85 07/87 Standard Steel&Metals Salvage Tard(USOOT AK Anchorage 07/89 08/90 F Stanley Kessler -PA' King of Prussia 12/82 · 09/83
State Dlspoaal Landfill, Inc. Ml Grand Rapids 06/88 02/90 Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Plant) AL Bucks 09/83 Oi/84 Stauffer Chemical Co. (LeMoyne Plant) AL Axis 09/83 09/84 ·stauffer Chemical Co. (1811"8 Plant) FL Tan-pa 02/92 _Stouffer Chemical Co. <Torpon Springs) FL. Tarpon Spr i ngi 02/92 -05/94 Stevco, Inc. TX' Waskom 10/84 06/86 Stoker Company CA l""°rial -07/91 Stoughton City Landfill, WI Stoughton 10/84 06/86 Strasburg Landfill ' PA Newlin Township 06/88 03/89 Strlngfel low CA Glen Avon Height~ 12/82 09/83 s Strother Field lrdJstrial Pork KS Cowley County 10/84 06/86 Sturgis M\.W'licipal Wells Ml Sturgis 09/83 . 09/84 Suffolk City Landfill VA Suffolk 06/88 02/90 Sullivan's Ledge MA New Bedford _ 09/83 09/84 .Sulphur Bank. Mercury Mine CA Clear Lake . 06/88 08/90 Stmnit National _OH -Deerfield Township 12/82 09/83 Sunnitville Mine co Rio Grarde CO\.l"lty 05/93 05/94 Sussex County Landfill No, 5 OE Laurel 06/88 -10/89 s._ Oil &.Chemical Co. NJ Penns&uken 12/82 09/83 Sydney Mine Sludge Ponds fl Brandon 06/86 10/89 Sylvester · NH Nashua 12/82 09/83 s Syncon Resins NJ South Keamy 12/82 09/83 Synertek, Inc. (Building 1) CA Santa Clara 06/88 10/89 Syntex F~cility MO Verona 12/82 09/83 Syosset Landfill NT · Oyster Bey · 12/82 09/83 T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition (Albany) GA Albany -06/88 03/89 T:H·. A9riculture & Nutrition (Montgomery AL Montganery 06/88 08/90 T,H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. CA Fresno 10/84 06/86 TRW Microwave, Inc (Building 825) CA S<n\yvale· 06/88 02/90 TRY, Inc. (Minerva Plant) OH Minerva -06/86, 03/89 Tabernacle Dr\111 D~ NJ Tabernacle ~ownship 09/83 09/84 Tansitor Electronics, IN:. VT Bernington • 06/88 10/89 Tar Creek (Ottawa Cou,ty) 01( Ottawa Cou,ty 12/82 09/83 Tar Lake Ml Mance lone' Township 12/82 09/83 •Taylor Borough D1,,11p PA Taylor Borough 09/83 09/84 Taylor Road Londfill fl· Seffner 12/82 _ · 09/83 Teledyne SemfcordJctor . CA -M0161tafri View 10/84 07/87 Teledyne Wah Chong OR Albany 12/82 09/83 : Tennnaee ProciJcts TN Chattanooga. . 01/94
19 ,-
• National .Priorities· List
Final and Proposed Sites (by _Site Name)
Deceni>er 1994
Sita Name St Location
.Tenth Street D~/JLnkyard 01( Oklah011111 City
TeXarkana Wood Preserving Co. . TX Texarkana
.. Texas Eastern Kosciusko Coq:iressor Stn. MS Kosciusko
· Thermo-Chem, Inc. Ml Muskl!gon
Tibbets Road NH Barrington
Times Beach Site MO Times BeBch
Tinker Air Force(Soldier Cr/Bldg 300) 01( Oklah011111 City .
TI nkham Garage • NH Londonderry Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill, Inc IN Lafayette
Tobyhama Army Depot PA Tobyhanna
T011111h Armory WI Tomah Tomah Fairgroi.nds WI Tanoh
T011111h MLnicipal Sanitary Landfill· ·· WI T011111h
Tonol 11 Corp •. PA Ne~oning_
Tooele Army Depot (North Area) UT Tooele Torch Lake Ml Houghton County
Tower Chemkal Co. FL Clermont Town Garage/Radio Beacon NH Londonderry
.Townser-d Saw Chain Co. SC Pontiac
Tracy Defense Depot (USARMY l . CA Tracy
Travis Air FOrce Base CA Solano CO\.l'\ty
Treasure Island Naval Station-Hun Pt An CA .San Francisco
Tri •Cities Barrel Co., ·1nc~ NY Port. Crane
Trf·City·otsposal co: ICY Shepherdsvl lie
Tri-County Landfill/Waste Mgmt Illinois IL South Elgin
Tri-State Plating -IN Coluitus
Triana/Ternessee River AL Limestone/Morgan
Triangle Chemical Co. TX Bridge City
.. Tri~ Mine Tail lngs Piles ID Tri~ Tronic Plat_h,s, Co., Inc. NY Farmingdale
Tucson International Airport Area AZ Tucson Tulallp Landfill. WA Marysvi l la
Tutu Well field VI Tutu
Twin.Cities Afr Force Base(SAR Landf 111) .MN• Minneapol ls
Tybouts Corner Landfill DE ·New Cast le COLnty Tyler Refrigeration Pft OE Smyrna
Tysons D~ PA Upper Merion Twp
U.S. Aviex Ml Howard Township
·u.s. Radlun corp. . NJ Orange
U.S. Smelter & Lead Refinery Jnc. IN East Chicago
U.S. Tltaniun VA Piney River
UGI Columla Gas Plant PA Columla
IRatllla Army Depot (Lagoons) OR · Henniston
.Union Chemical Co., Inc •. ME South Hope
Union Pacific Railroad Co. JO Pocatello
Uniori Pacfftc Railroad Tie Treatment OR The Dalles · · ~· Unhed Chrome· PrOCU:ta, inc. OR CorVal lis United Creosoting Co. TX Conroe
United Heckathom co. CA ·Richmond
United Nuclear ·corp. NM Church Rock untted Scrap Lead Co., Inc. · OH Troy UniverSal Oil Products(Chemical Division NJ East Rutherford ·"IJnfversity Mimesota (ROSemocllt Res Cen) MN Rosemcuit
. _. Upjohn Faciil lty . . · · PR Saree lone ta
Upper_ Deerfield Township_-Sanit. Landffl~ . NJ Upper Deerfield Towns Urav8n Uraniun Project (Union Carbide) -co Uravan
Utah POWer & ·Light/~rfcan Barrel_ Co. UT Salt Lake City
• Valley Park TCE MO Val Ley Park Val Ley. WOOd Preserving, Inc. CA Turlock
Van Dale JLnkyard OH Marietta
20
Date
Proposed"
D1/87
. 04/85
08/94
10/84
04/85
03/83
04/85
12/82
06/88
07/89
01/87
01/87
06/86
06/88
10/84
·10/84
12/82
06/88
06/88
07/89
07/89
07/89
05/89
06/88
D6/86
09/85
12/82
12/82
· 05/93
10/84
12/82
07/91
02/92
01/87
12/82
06/86
09/83
-12/82
12/82
02/92
. 12/82
06/93
10/84
.04/85
09/83
10/89 ·
09/83
09/83
. 10/89
12/82
. 09/83
12/82
10/84
09/83
09/83
'10/84
05/89
04/85
06/88
10/84.
Final
07/87
06/86
06/86
D6/86
09/83
07/87 F
09/83
08/90
08/90 F
D7/87
07/87
03/89
10/89
08/90 . ·F
06/86
09/83
03/89
02/90
08/90 F
11/89 F
11/89 F
10/89
03/89
03/89
06/86
· 09/83
09/83
06/86
09/83
·07/87 F
09/83 , s
02/90
09/84.
09/83
·09/83
09/83
05/94
07/87 F
·10/89.
09/84
08/90
09/84
09/84
03/90
, 09/83
09/84
.09/83
06/86
09/84
09/84
06/86
10/89
06/86
,. 03/89
06/86 ·
National Priorities List
Final and Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
· Decent>er 1994 : ·
. Vancouver \later Station #1 Contamination
. V8ncOUYer Wate·r St8tion ·#4 Contamination
' Vega Al ta Public S-l y Wells
Yelsfcol Chefflical Corp (Hardeman Ccxa,ty)
· Velsicol Chemical Corp.(lllinoisl
: Velafcol Chemical Corp.(Michigan)
Ventron/Velsfcol
. Verona Well Field
Vertac. Inc .
. Vestal Water S-ly Well 1·1
Vestal Water S-ly1/ell 4·2
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.
· .Vineland State School
Vogel Paint & Wax Co.
Volney M1.niclpal Landfill
W.R. Grace & Co Inc (Acton Plant)
W.R. Gracetwayna Interim Storage (USDOl:l
Waite Park Wells '·
Waldfck Aerospace OeVices, Inc.
·Walsh Landfill
· Wamchem, Inc~
Warwick Landfill
Wasatch Chemical Co. (Lot 6)
Wash King Lal.ndry
Washington County Landfill
Waste Disposal Engh~ering
Waste Disposal, Inc •.
Waste.Management of Michigan (Holland)
. _Wl!llte N9A1t of WI (BrookHeld Sanh LF)
. Wasta, Inc., Landffl I
Waterloo Coal Gasification Plant
WatkfrlS·Johnson Co; (Stewart Division)
Mauconda Sand & Gr8vel ·
. Wlu.-!sau Gr~ wa·ter Contamination
· · Waverly Grcu,d Water Contamination
Wayna Waste Oil
Weldon Spring Former Army Orci'\ance Works
Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pitts(USDOE)
Wells G&H
West Kingston Town D-/URf Disposal
West Virginia Orchance (USARNY)
WHteri, Pacific Railroad-Co •.
We~tem Processina Co., inc.
Westem Sand &.Gravel
Westinghouse Elecetric Corp. (Sin,yvale)
.Westinghouse Electronic .(Sharon Plant)
Westinghouse Elevator co. Plant
Westlake Landfill
r Wheeler P;t
Wheel in; Disposal Service Co. Landfi 11
White Chemical Cor-p.
.. llhlta Fam Equlpnent Co. D-.
. ·Whitlford Sales & Sel'"Vice/NatfonaleBse
, "_ Whitehouse Oil Pits
, Whitewood Creek
. Mhiting Field Naval Afr Station
ll'litmoyer. Laboratories
Whittaker Corp. ·
· Wi ldcat. i.andf 111
Wil!l1111 Dick Lagoons
.21 .
. St Location
lilA Vancouver
WA Vancower·
PR Vega Alta
TN Toone
IL Marshall Ml St. ·Louis
NJ Wood Ridge Borough Ml Battle Creek .
· AR Jacksonville
NY Vestal
· NY Vestal
NJ Vineland
.NJ Vineland
IA Orange City
NY Town of Volney
MA Acton
NJ Wayna Township
. MN Waite Park
NJ Wall Township
PA Honeybrook Township
SC Burton
NY Warwick
UT Salt Lake City
Mt Pleasant Plains Twp
MN Lake El..,
MN Andover
CA Santa Fe Springs
Ml Ho! land .
WI Brookfield
IN Michigan Cfty
IA Waterloo
CA Scotts Valley
IL Wauconda
· IJI Wausau
NE Waverly
IN Columia City
MO St.Charles COU'lty
MO St. Chai-lea CCUtty
MA · Woburn
RI South Kingston
W Point Pleasant
CA _Oroville
WA • Kent
RI Burr ii I vii la
CA Sin,yvale
PA Sharon
PA Gettysbur9
MO Bridgeton
· .WJ La Prairie Township
MO Amazonia
NJ · Newark
IA Charles City•
· ·IN. South Bend
FL Whitehouse
·so Whitewood
Fi. ·Milton
PA Jackson Township··
MN Minneapolis
·oe Dover .
· P,A Wes_t Ca_ln Township
Date
Proposed"
06/93
07/91
09/83
·12182
12/82
12/82
09/83
12/82
· 12/82
12/82
12/82
· .09/83
12/82
10/84
10/84
12/82
09/83
· 09/85
10/84
09/83
. 09/83
09/85
01/87
12/82
09/83
12/82
06/86
10/84
06/88.
04/85
10/92
D1/87
12/82
04/85
1D/84
.12/82
07/89
10/84
12/82
07/91
.12/82
1D/89
12/82
.12/82
'10/84
06/88
.10/84
. 10/89
09/83
·01/87
05/91
. 06/88
.06/88
.12/82
12/82
. D1/94
1D/84
09/83
12/82
01/87 ·
Final
· 05/94
10/92
09/84
09/83.
. 09/83
·09/83
09/84
09/83
09/83
09/83
09/83
D9/84
D9/83
06/86
06/86
09/83
.09/84
06/86
06/86
09/84
D9/84
03/89
. OZ/91
. 09/83
09/84
D9/83
D7/87
D6/86
08/90
D7/87
08/90
09/83
06/86
06/86
D9/83
DZ/90
07/87
09/83
10/92
09/83
08/90
09/83
D9/83
06/86
08/90
06/86
08/90
09/84
10/89
09/91
·08190
08/90
09/83
09/83
05/94
06/86
. 09/84
D9/83
· D7/87
. b Notes
F
F.
F
F ,S
s
F
• • 'National Priorftiea.lfst
Final ard Proposed Sites (by Site Name)
Oecenmer 1994
St. Locat.ion ..
. Williams Air Force Base AZ Chardler
Williams Pipe line Co. ~isposal Pit SD Sioux Felts WilliBIIIS Property NJ $wafnton
l,Hllow Grove Naval Afr g· Air Res. Stn. PA Wfl low Grove
Wilson Concepts.-of F.lorida, Inc. FL POIT!)8no Beech
Wilson Fann NJ Plunstead Township
Wirdom 0-MN Wirdom
Wingate Road MI.Wlicipal Jncfnerator·otJll>. FL Fort Lauderdale Winthrop Lerdfitt. ME Winthrop . Witco Chemical Corp.(Oaklard Pit) NJ Oaklard
· _Woodbury Chemical Co. (Princeton Plaflt) FL Princeton .. Wood lard Route 532 0-NJ Woodlard. Township
Woodlard Route n o-NJ Woodlard Township
Woodlawn County Lardf ii I MD Woodlawn
Woodstock M...;icipal Landfill IL Woodstock
Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc. GA Fort Valley ·
Wrfght-~~tterSon Air Force Base OH Dayton
Wrigl"ey Charcoal Plent .TN Wrigley
· Wurtsmi th Air Force Base_ Ml l OSCO Couity
Wyckoff Co./Eagte .Harbor WA Bainbridge lslard
Yaworskf Waste Lagoon CT Canterbury
.Yellow Water Road o-FL Baldwin
Yeoman Creek Lardfit t .. IL Waukegan
York Cou,ty Solid Waste/Refuse Landfill -PA . Hopewe 11 Township
York Oil Co. NY Moira
Tuna Marine Corps Air St8t_fon AZ Yuna
Zanesville Well Field OH Zaresvi l le
Zellwood GrCM.n:I Water Contamination · FL Zel I wood
1128 General Superfund Sites+ 160 Federal Fac_H fty Sftes·a 1288
Date
07/89
· 10/89
12/82 08/94.
06/88
09/83
10/84
06/88
12/82
06/88
06/88
09/83
09/83 · ·011e1
06/88
06/88
06/88 -
06/88
01/94
09/85
12/82
09/85
06/88
04/85
. 12/82
-06/88
12/82
12/82
11/89
08/90
09/83
03/89
09/84
06/86
10/89
. 09/83
10/89
08/90
09/84
09/84
07/87
10/89
08/90
10/89
03/89
07/87
09/83
06/86
03/89
07/87
09/83
02/90
09/83
09/83
F
F
F
F
."oate,firat eligible.for Superfund action •. First NPL proposed 12/82. Some sites were ernounc:ed.earlier in the
Interim Priorities Lfst (10/Bl)·ard Expanded Eligiblflity Lfst (7/82); most were included in the first proposed NPL.
b :·· . . . . ·.. . ·. .-. . -.
. A a Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for To~fc St.bstances and Disease Registi-y
. _(if scored, HRS score need not be·• 28.50). .
F .• Federal-facility site, not el igib_le for Superfl.rd·ffnanc:ed response.
· S a·state _top prioi-ity ··cinc:luded among the 100 top priority sites regardlesS of .score).
22
r
St
CA
NC
. SC
.. YA
Site Name
Concord Naval Weapons Station
Cherry Point· Narine. Corps Afr Station
National Priorities .List ·
federal Facilities sei:tfon, Final Rule
· ·.Decen,er 1994
Location
C<lncord
Havelock
·Perris Jslard Narine corps Recru_ft. Depot. Parrfs Island
_Fort Eustis (US Anny) · N._rt_.-News
Nuiber.of Sites Being PrOIILllgated to the federal Facilities Section: 4
,GW SIi
NS 1DD.DD .
1DD.DD 1DD.00
NS 100.00
NS · 100.00 .
II . . . -. . . . . .
A •. Based on faauance of heal th advisory by Agency for Toxic Sl.aotancea end Disease Registry ·_ (ff :SCOred,···HRS accire need not be > 28.50). , .-. · · · · ,. . · ·
· .s •· State -top'prforfty (Included 11111on11 the 100 top priority altos regardless of score). -
NS • Pathway Not scored
. SE 'Afr Total Notes8
NS NS 50.00
NS NS 70.71
NS NS 50.00 ·
NS NS 50;00
National Prlorltln lht ·
General 5-rfund Section, Final Rule
Deceom>er 1994
Route Scores
St Site Name . i.'~etlan GIi SW
fl Escarrbfa Wood • Pensacola Pensacola 100.00 NS
HI Del Monte corp. (Oahu Plantation) . · . Honolulu C:OU,ty 100.00 NS
IA Nason City Coal Gasification Plant Nason City 100.00 96.06
. lA Agriculture Street landfill New Orleans NS NS
MN Baytown T-lp Grouid.Water_Plune Baytown _T""'!""iP . 71.24 NS
NC General Electric CO/Sh.epherd Fann . Eut Flat Roclt 100.00 NS
NE· Ogallala Greu>d Water Cont .. lnatlon Ogallala. 100.00 NS
NM AT&SF (Albuque ...... ) .. Albuquerque . 100.00 NS
NY Onondaga lake .. .. .Syracuse ·NS 100.00
NY Pfoh I B~othe_rs lardfl II Cheektowaga NS 100,00
OR Reynolds Metals COl!pllny Troutdale 100.00 100.00
SC Aqua-Tech Envlronnental -Inc (Groce labs) ·. Greer ils 100.00
SC KOflPOrS Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) Charleston NS 100.00
TN ICG lselin Reilroad Yard • Jackson 100;00 NS
Nl.nt,er of Sites ~eing Pr0n1Jlgated to the General 5-rfurd Section: . 14
8 . . . . ,· . -. -
A II Based on .issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
. · (if ·scored, HRS ·score need not be > 28.50). -
: 'S " State top priority (included mnong the 100 top priority sites revardless of score).
· NS • Pathway Not Scored
•
S'E
NS
NS
NS
100.00
'NS
100.00
NS
NS
NS
6.71
NS
. NS
NS
NS
Air Total Notes1
• NS 50.00
NS. 50.00
NS 69.33
NS 50.00 ,
NS 35.62
NS 70.71
NS 50.00
NS 50.00
NS 50.00
NS 50. 11
NS 70.71
NS 50.00
NS 50.00
NS 50.00
l ' '
... United States
---•----•r•
•-i,-
Office of
• N fL-FRL.113 -l, -3
.. , "Environmental Protection
Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Publication 9320.7-071 December 1994 ,
.· .,._.
oEPA. Descriptions of 18 Final
Sites Added to the ·National·
. .
· Priorities List in December 1994 ··
Office of Emergency and Remedial Resgonse . Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (52 4G)
. .
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 4, Number 4
This rloo1roent consists of descriptions of the 18 final sites added to the National Priorities Lisi (NPL)'in December
1994 .. The size ofth~ ·site.is generally indicated, b~ on infonnation availabie at the time the site was scored using the
Haun! Ranking System. The · size inay · change as addition.al information is gathered on the sources and extenJ of
mniaroioati<Jn. Sites are arranged alphabetically by site name.
· CLEANING UP UNDER SUPERFUND
The Superfund program is managed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is·
authorized by 'the Comprehensive Environmental
. Ilesponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
enacted on December 11, 1980, a• amended by the
Superfund Amendments . and Reautbori7.ation Act
(SARA),' enacted on October 17; 1986. In October
. 1990, SARA was extended to September 30, 1994. An
appropriation by . Congress for Fiscal Year 1995
authorized Superfund to continue to operate. The
. Hazardous Sulistance Response Trust Fund set up by
CERCLA a• amenderl pays the costs 'noi .assumed by
· responsible parties· for cleaning up baz.anlous waste sites
· or emergencies' ·that threalen public health, welfare, or
the enviroruneni; ,. Superfund also pays for overseeing .
responsible parties c:ooducting cleanup.
Two types of responses may be taken when a
hai.ardous substance· is released (or threatens to be.
releaserl) into the environment_:
• Removal actiom -,-emergency-type responses .
· · to Imminent threats. SARA limits these actions
to 1 year ·and/or. $2 roillion, with a waiver
possible if the actions are consistent with remedial
responses. Removal actions can be undenaken by
· ihe private parties responsible for the releases or
. by the Federal government using the Superfund .
• Remedlal responses -actions _Intended to
. provide permanent solutions at uncontrolled
. hazardous waste sites. Remedial responses are
· generally longer:terro and more expensive than ·
'removals. A· Superfund-financed remedial
response can be taken only if a site is on the
NPL. El' A published the first NPL in September
1983. The list roust be updated at least annuaily.
· EPA's goals for the Superfund program are to:
• Ensure that polluters pay to clean up the problems
they created; and
• Won: first on the worm problems at the worst
sites, by ll)aking sites safe, roaldng sites clean,
and bringing new technology _to _bear on the
. :problem.
I ,
REMEDIAL RESPONSES
'. · The money ror·~1cring a remedial response at
a hazardous·waste site (and a removal action, as well)
can come from several sources:
• .. The individuals or companies responsible for the
problems· can clean up voluntarily with EPA or
State supervision, ·or they can be forced to clean
up by Federal or Stati: legal action, •
• A . state or local government can choose to '
assume the responsibility to clean up without · · ·
Federal dollars,
• Superfund can pay for the cleanup, then seek to.
recover the costs from the responsible patty or
panies,
.
A remedial response, as defined by the National
.· Contingency Plan (the Ft;deral regulation by which ·
Superfutid is impiemented), is an orderly process that
' · generally involves the following steps:·
• Take any measures needed to stabilize conditions,
which inight involve, for example, fencing the · .
site or removing above-ground drutns or bulk .
. tanks,
• .Ul!dertake initial planning activities to scope out
a strategy for collecting information and analyzing
altemaiive cleanup approaches,
• . Conduct a remedial investigation to .characterize.
· . the type and extent of mntamination at the site ·
· and ·· to assess the • risks posed by that ' ·
amtamimitfon.
• Conduct a feasibility study to analyu various ;
cleanup alternatives, The feasibility study is often
conducted concurrently · with the remedial .
investigation a, one project Typically, ihe two
together ta1cc from 18 to 24 months to complete · arid cost approximately $1.3 million, ·· ·
• Select the cleanup alternative that:
. I
-Protects human health and the environment; ·
Complies . with• Federal ·. and · State .
requirements that are applicable or relevant
and appropriate;
2
-Uses permanent · solutions and alternative
· .treatment technologies· or resource recovery
technology to the maximum extent
practicable;
-'Considers views of the State and public; and
-.. Is "cost effective" -ihat is, affords results .
proportional to the costs of the remedy,
• Design the remedy, Typically, the design phase
takes 6 to 12 months to complete and costs
approximately $1.5 million,
, • Implement the remedy, which ntight involve, for
· : . example, constructing facilities to treat ground
water or removing c,mtamioaots to a safe disposal
. . area away froJ? the si~. ·
· EPA expects the implementation (remedial action)
. phase to average out at about $25 million (plus any costs
· to operate ·an,1 maintain the action) per site, and some
· remedial actions may take several years to complete.
The State government can panicipate in a ·
remedial response under Superfund in ?ne of two ways:
• The State 'can take the lead rol~ under a
cooperative agreement, which is much like a
grain in that Federal dollars are transferred to the
· State, The ·state then develops a workplan,
schedule, 'and budget, contracts for any services
. it needs, and is responsible for making sure that
. all the conditions in the cooperative agreement are
. , met. In contrast to a grant, EPA continues to be
; substantially involved and monitors the State's
progress throughout the project.
• . EPA. can take the lead under a Superfund State.
. Contract, with the State's role outlined, EPA,
generally using contractor support, manages work
··. early in the planning process. In the later design
and impleineniation phases, · contractors do the
· work under· the supervision of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Under both arrangements,
the State must share in the cost of the
implementation phase of cleanup,·
· CERC::lA requires that EPA select the remedy.
•
National Priorities List Final Rule #13
· Site Summaries .. ·
Table of Contents ·
Site Name and Location . ·
4 ............... Agriculture Street Lan:lfill, New Orleam, LA
5 ............ : .. Aqua~Tech Fllvironmemal Inc. (Groce Ulboratories), Spartanburg Co., SC
6 ... , ... , ....... Atchison, Topeka am SaDla Fe Tie Treatment Plant (AT&SF), Albuquerque, NM
? ........... ; ... Baytown Townslup Groum Water Plume, Baytown Township, MN
8 ............ : .. Cheny PoiDI Marin! Corps Air Station, Havelock, NC
. 9 ............... Con:ord Naval Weapons Station, Con:ord, CA
10 ........... :._ .. Del Monte Corp. (Oalru Plantation), Honolulu County, m.
Jl.: ............. &cambia Wood -Pemacola, Esotrobia Co., FL
· 12 ......... ~ ..... Fort Eustis (US Army), Newport News, VA .
:~ 13.; ............. General Electric Co./Shepard Fann, &st Flat Rock, NC < . .
1· · 14 .............. .ICG lselin Railroad Yard, Jackson, TN · .
15 ............... Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant), Charleston, SC
· · 16 ...... , ... :: ... Mason City Coal Gasification.Plant, Mason City,'IA .
)? .............. ,Ogallala Groum Water Omtamination., Ogallala, NE ..
. 18 ............... 0ooooaga Lake, Syracuse, NY .·
19 ............... Partis Islam Mmfue Corps Recruit Depot, Beaufort, SC
20 ... : ........... Pfol Brothers Lan:lfill, Cheektowaga; NY
. , 21.. ............. Reymlds Meials! Troutditle, OR
3
• . &EPA.•· UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
OERR Hazan:lous Si1e Evaluation Division
1n.c.1.1st◄dJ:1fel:ltii:L-lii§M!iiilP!
Washington. DC 20460 · · , · Deoemberl 994
AGRICULTURE STREET LANDFILL
New Orleans, Louisiana
Conditions at Proposal (August 23, 1994): The Agriculture StreetLandfill site is located in New Orleans, Orleans
Parish; Louisiana; approximately 3 miles south of Lalce Ponic~. The site is bounded on the north by Higgins
Boulevard, on the east by.Piety Street,· o~ tb.e'south by Florida Avenue, ~don the west by Almonaster Avenue .
. The Agriculture Street Landfill site was used as a municipal landfill as euly as 1910. There is little information
available regarding what was deposit;;.f in .the. landfill d{iring this time period. Review of available file maierial
suggests thsi the landfill received both solid and liquid wastes. This practice continued until 1950, when the advent
of incinerators for ultimate disposal of these wastes was instittited. After the commissioning of the Florida Sireet
Incineration Faci)ity, ':"mbusti~l~ waste ~ incine!Bted and the ~hes were .disposed in the landfill. In
• approxjmately 1958, the ~ion at _the landfill was inte,:rupted; in. 1965; the landfill reopened after Hurricane
.. Betsy hit the City of New Orleans. Debris from destroyed buildings and furnishings were reportedly deposited at · a rate of up to ·300 ~k loads per day. The debris was burned in. the open dump; the area was covered with ashes
: from the city incinerators arid compacted with bulldo.1,ers. .
. Residential and commercial development of the.area began in the mid-1970s and continued until 1987. Low income
. housing was constructed within the original t,;,undaries of the landfill, including approximately 250 residences and
· :·the Gordon Plaza Apartments: The majority of the residents are minorities.
A Site Inspection (SI) was conducted by EPA Region 6 on May 20 and 21, 1986. During the inspection, a total
of 45 soil samples were collected. on site .. Results from the SI indicated that lead, zinc, mercury, cadmium, and .
arsenic were elevated in some samples .. Concentrations in 12 of the 45 total samples exceeded 1,000 ppm lead, with u,;.;.; sampl~ having lesd coilcentratio~ greater than 4,000 ppm .• Thebighest lead concentrations were found in
an undeveloped area along tb.ewestem imd south~m site boundaries; however, elevated lead levels were also found
in other residential sample locations. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs) were detected.in almost every
;: soil sample. · · ··
EPA Region 6 completed an Expanded.Site Inspection in September 1993 at this site. EPA collected 133 surface
. soil samples and five. subsurface so·il samples from the site, residential yards, and school yards surrounding the sii,;.
. Soil ·contamination is of c<inceni due 10· observed contamination within residential yards. Chemical analyses of
· surface soil samples collecied from 24 residential yards reveaied the presence of arsenic and benzo(a)pyrene.
Statu,; (December 1994): A Remedial Inv~tigati~n (RI) was completed in November 1994.. The Feasibility Study
is expected to lie completed in early 1995 ·arid will be released for public comments on possible remedies for the
site.
{The description of tM site (release) is based on. informa1ion available a1 the time the site was scored. The
description may t:hange as additional infomuulon is ga1hered on the sources and extenl of comamilllllion. See 56 . FR 5(JIJ(), February 11, 1991, or subsequem. FR Mtices.J. · ·
. &lporllnl tmardoul Wllll91118 load 11111ar 1lltl Ccmp,ohwlve EtMnnnen1al R-. Ccmp1n11111ot, ~ LJablity Act (CERCU) u amended. @
Revised
&EPA•· • UNITED ST A TES
. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
OERR Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
• Htdii·l~MS§;i!•hiiii½i•@Ff MR• Washingtcn, pc 20460 · · Deeember1994
. AQUA-TECH ENVIRONMENTAL INC. (GROCE LABORATORIES).
, . · .. Spartanburg, South Carolina
· Conditiom at Propcmil (August 23, 1994): Aqua-Tech .Environmmlal Inc. (Groce Laboratories) is located on
. Highway 290 at R.;i,inson Road in Greer, Spartanburg _County, South Carolina. The site is a closed RCRA
• treatnient, storage, and disj,osal facility (TSDF) .which receatly completed emergency response and removal '
. 'activities under an EPA Unilateral Adminisirative Order (UAO); UP9n closing Aqua-Tech, South Carolina
· Department of Health and. Environmental Control (SCT>HEC) and EPA emergency response personnel discovered
.. approximately 7,000 drums and lab packs, 97 above-ground tanks, 1,200 &iis cylinders (some containing phosgene
and other toxic gaseii); unexploded ordnance material, and lllllllll amounts of low-level radioactive malerial and
. • biohmnl material iii iiie site. Many of the drums, tanks, and cylinders ·were deteriorated, leakiiig, and improperly
• atored. Con~ and debtjs w~ located throughout the 35-acre facility .. Over 41,000,000 pounds of hazardous
· waste have been sent to ilie Aqua-Tech (Groce Labs) sire; as_ documented by .RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifests. •
From appn;ximately 1940 until 1968, the property was used as a municipal solid waste landfill. The City of Greer
purchased the property in 1968, · then sold it to Groce Labonitories in 1974 .. Groce Laboratories operated a
haz.ardous waste treatment, storage, and reclamation facility over .the former landfill site. Aqua-Tech
Envirimmental, Inc. purchiised the openiti~ in' April 1987 and conliJJ,ued to accept, store, and treat most hazardous
wastes as well as-. variety of other solid wastes. Most 'wastes were . accepted in drum containers; however,. bulk
wastes; gas cylinders, and lab packs were ~ accepted. Both G~ Laboratories and Aqua-Tech Environmental,
·. Inc. operated under RCRA lnlerim status •.
On September ·4, 1991, after several complaints, RCRA inspecti_on violations, and on-site accidents, Aqua-Tech
.• .. Enviroiunental,.Inc, WU. ordered closed by SCDHEC due kl_ the large volume of improperly stored haz.ardous ~aste
· and the imminent threat to public health .. Several days biter, Aqua-Tech's RCRA TSDF Part B application was
. officially cienied. From September 1991 to January 1992, SCDHEC conducted emergency stabilization activities .
. , In January 1992, EPA~ emergency response and stabilliation activities. EPA issued UAOs to more than .
90 potentially responsible parties to continue emergency response activities. Site stabilization and removal/treatment
· of'c:oritaine~'wastes were conducted from Sep~mber 1991 to January 1994. · .
Four sources of hazardous materials were considered in the evaluation of this site. These include drums, above-
. ·. growid lanka, co,,taniin•ted soil, and manifested wastes. ·
.. Sampling investigations have :i,.;.,,,_ conducted by EPi S9)HEC, and Aqua-Tech (Groce Labs). These
investigations indicate' significant cont•rnin•timi throughout the site including soils, drainage pathways, surface
·water, and ground water.. Primary contarninants ·mclwle >ii:.etaJ., volatile organic compounds, and other
. coDtarnin•nts. · All of the Suiface waiei runoff from the property dniins' south into Maple Creek; a perennial water bQdy which borders the slie .. Contarniu•n•s found in both this 'creek and the sources include cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, lead, mercury; nickel, and zinc. Maple Creek flows eastward until it drains into the South Tyger River,
which is used for fishing, llid may also be used as a municipal drinking water source in the future. ·
•. Stattn (Deamber 1994): Negotiations are· underway with PRPs to conduct an early enforcement lead Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Siudy (RI/FS). · Negotiations are also underway to deiermine d-. minjmis settlement
with appropriate PRPs. . . . -
~
~ dacrlption of the ~ite (release) u based on information av,uW,/e at. the time the site was scored. The •..
· description may change as ilddiiional informa1ion l.r gaiherrd on the sources·and e:rtenz of contamination. See 56
FR 5600, February 11, 1991, onubsequent FR notices.]
. . . ..
. . , 'superfund lman!oua wutB 11111 1118d '"1dar lhe Ccmpwt,enoiv~ Effitronmamal ~-Com1)enaallan: and lJablHty Ad. (CEIICLA) u amended . . .· .
@
Revised
• &EPA· UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
OERR Herf!TQ•Js Site Evaluation Division ithii!·HMS?;lt•l;/iii¾i•Mifiisi#• Washing1Dn. DC 20460 ' December1994
ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE TIE TREATMENT PLANT (AT&SF)
. : Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico
Conditions at Proposal (October 14, 1992): The Atchison. Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) tie treatment plant is
an abandoned .wood-preserving facility. loca!ed ai 3.300 Second Street SW in the South Valley area of Albuquerque,
Bernalillo County, New Mexico. ·Theplant is in a commerciafarea of an Albuquerque suburb. The plant, owned
by.the AT&SF Railway Co., tr~ted yario4S wood products (railroad ties, bridge timbers, fence posts, etc.) with
a solution· of creosote and oil from 1908. until _1972: Washdown waters, spills, and leakage were disposed of in an
· unlined impoundment: The facility, except for a waste water impoundment and a sump, was dismantled in 1972.
· Toe impoundment and sump cover approximately 3.4 acres. · · ·
Stodge from .the impoundment contains hazardous substances, including arsenic, barium, lead,· and creosote
. constituents (3,4-benzofluorantliene, be117.0(a)pyrene, and naphthalene), according to a 1990 report of the New
Mexico Environmental Improvement Division (NMEID). : No sludge is present in the sump, but analyses of soil
; from tl!e s~p ~ detected li~ous ~bstances, inchiding barium, ~hthylene; anthracene, fluoranthene, and
. beni.o(a)pyrene, accordinlf to a 1990 report of an AT&SF contractor. The report indicates that fluorene, 2-
: methylnaphthalenc; . naphthalene, · phenanthrene, pyrene, acenaphtliene, anthracene, benzene, dibell7.0furan,
ethylbenzene, fluoranthene, ·aod xylenes were detected iifon-site monitoring wells. The Valley, or Basin Fill,
Aquifer is the principal aquifer in the Albuquerque ma. There are 15 City of _Albuquerque and 3 Kirtland Air
. Force Base wells within 4 miles of the site, ·
Run-off from the site enters an irrigation ditch south of the site. From this point, the drainage water ~vels through
a series of canals until it. enters the Rio Grande River 7. miles· doW11Stream from the site. No drinking water intakes
are· 1oca1ed along the canals and river. . However, they are used as recreational areas and fisheries stocked by the
State. Portions of the downstreatn segment along the Rio Grande are also ·considered wetlands according to Federal
. and State inventories_. Nr.i1fa::, sampling conducted in ian~ 1987 indicates that creosote constituents may have
·_,. migrated from the site to surface water, Further documentation is required to establish that surface water is indeed
contatninated. ·
.~i-: . ..
•. Stat.us (December 1994): SiJ\ce the site was proposed to the NPL in 1992, AT&SF lias ·entered into an
Administrative _Order on Consent (AOC) .. with the U.S. EPA R_egion 6 to conduct and finance a Remedial
Investigation' and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the site .. The purpose oftbe RI/FS is to determine the nature and
e,;tent of coniamination and any threat to the public health, ·welfare or the .environment caused by the release or
threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, ·or co~taminanr. at or from the site, and to evaluate remedial
altematfv~ to address the contatnination. Sampling activities began in December 1993.
fl'h• dtscription of tht silt (release) is based on information available at the time the silt was scored. The .
description may drangt as additio11/Jl information is gathered on the sources and txtent of contamination. See 56
FR 5600; February il, 1991 or subsequent FR notices.]
j
@
Revised
~ EA•A UNITEDSTATES -o_....,.._n __ ._.· --=!~::~:,:~:-;C,:'~-M--E.,.NT_A..,L:,,P,-R-::OTE--:-c_no,..·_N::::-,-,-~,--,-:--,ISJ,C, ,.i ~,., e J:I 1.l:I 1, I t4 I I§ iiii s j ij •
OERR Hazardous Sile Evaluation Division Washington DC 20460· · · · · December1994
BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP GROUND WATER PLUME
· Baytown Township, Minnesota
Conditions at Proposal (October 14,' 1992): The Baytown Township Ground Water Plume site is defined by 34
con~ted weils (31 of whicli provide drinking water) in Bayio~ Township, Washington County, Minnesota.
The couilty is one of the seven-<:ounty 'metropolilan area surrounding the Twin Cities. . . . .
In June 1987, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) sampled wells _in the area surrounding the Baytown
Dump a,s part of a State-wide prognun to determine water quality near solid waste facilities. The results indicated
• pri".ate wells were contaminated with.volatile organic compounds silch as 1,1,2-~chloroethene (TCE), 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethene (PCE); and cis-1,2-dichli>roetliene. MDH then issued a well advisory for the Baytown Township
area.
· The MDH data indicate a plume of TCE-:eontaminated ground water e",tends for 3 miles from the main hangar
· complex at the Lake E1/"° Airport. Tlie majority of the plume continues through Baytown Township, involving
a LS-mile-wide strip extending from Manning Avenue on the 'west to the St. Croix River. An estimated 10,450
liv~ iri the area, which is primarily agricultural and rural-residential. · . . -. -· ·
The highest concentrations of TCE were detected in the vicinity of the main hangar complex at the airport, . TCE
• may hsve been ~ in parts cleanin.g activities in this area ... Aiso, _the cn~taminated wells at the airport hsve
· .. chlorinated solvent concentrations U:p to an order of magnitude higher than the majority of the contaminated wells
l~ied eilst of the airport, ~rding to tests· conducted during 1987-91 by State agencies and the Metropolitan
Airports Cmiunission (MAC), which owns and operates the Lake Elmo Airport. The location of the ground water
pi~ suggests that at le'ast a portion of the TCE may be attributable to a source on or near the airport property.
Althoughscime .of the TCE contamination may be attributable to past activities at the 'airport, other sources of TCE
_, and other chlorinated solvents· may also exist in the area. · ·
. An estimated 26;000 people obtain drinking.water from public and private wells within 4 miles of the site. . . . . ' . . . :t•
,;',Status (December·1994): The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) aind MAC hsve continued rrow,d
. , water monitoring at the site .. The Agency for ToxicSubs1anceg and Disease Registry (ATSDR) reportedly
: compieted a health assessment oftlie site. MPCA hss also been conducting a limited Remedial Investigation (RI)
on their own. · ·
. [1he dat:riptiim of the site (release) is based on informa1ion available at the time the site was scoml. _ The
· description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and e,ctenl of con1amination. S« 56
FR 5600. February 11. 1991 or subsequenl FR notices.]·
Suporfund hazardaul wasta lita 11181:1 Lllder lh~ Canprahalllve EIMranmarual Rasponae. Canpensallan, and lJablBty AD. (CEIICI.Aj as amended @
Revised
. . ••••
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY . ISr!\ll,hMl3:lt,i:lui!.-li&EJMSl:ll
OERR Hazardous 5118 Evaluation Division Washington. pc 20460 ·. Deatmber1994
CHERRY POINT MARINE CORPS AIR STATION
Havelock, North Carolina
Coiulitiom at Proposal (August 23, 1994): Cherry Point Marine Co,ps Air Station is located ·within Havelock,
Craven County; North Carolina .. The air station covers 11,485 acres and is located on a peninsula between the
Neuse River to the north and Core and.Bogue Sounds to the south. ·
Th~ air station waa commissioned in 1942 and a massive aircraft ..;..,mbly and repair facility; which later became
the Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP), w°as added in i943. The NADEP Flight Line and Maintenance and Support
Sq~ are ihe primary gerieratrini of waste .. Hazardous wasie;. generated by the au-station include plating wastes
whiclt contain heavy metals and ~yanides; organic 119lvents, paint re;,,,;vers and cleaners; waste petroleum, oil and
. . lubricants; arid polycblorinated_ biphenyl (PCB) _wastes .. Prior toj982, most hazardous wastes were disposed on
.. site. Presently; hazardous wa.stes are placed in drums and sent to the Defense ReutilizJltion and Marketing Office
hazardous YillSte stoiage facility.for disposal off-site. ()ther ~rdous ~d non-hazardous wastes are piped to_the
industrial wasiewater . treatment plant at the air station. Discharge of treated wastewater to Slocum Creek is
· permitted unde~ the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. .
'.· The. air station submitted a RCRA.Part A application-on November 18, 1980, for the storage and treatment of
. hazardous wastes. The .Part A app)ication.was modified ·and resubmitted on.May 28, 1981. The air station
. · submitted the first version ·of the.Part B application.on Noyember 4, 1984 and submitted revisions in 1986, 1987,
and i988. 'Available file.material does nolindicate whether the Pait B permit application has been approved .
. The hydrogeologic units whic_h underli_e th~ air station include a surficial aquifer, an upper confining unit, the
Yorktown °i1quifer, a lower.confining unit; and the Castle Hayne aquifer. A discontinuity occurs in the confining
u.,rits in the southen1 ·part of the air station. The air station is supplied by 24 wells located on site which draw from
the Castle Hayne aquifer. Sampling in 1986, conducted by the US Geological Survey, indicated elevated
. ,, concentrations of ben7.ene, arsenic, lead, ·and nickel in air station drinking water wells'. .
· .. ,•·Surface water ·runoff from source areas travels to Slocum Creek or its small tributaries, Turkey Gut and .
· · Schoolhouse Creek, which all drain into the Neuse River estwuy. Toe Neuse River is a recreational and
co~ial fishery. Sediment samples coµecied ,from Slocum Creek, in 1987 and 1990, have documented PCB
and arsenic contamination. Slocum Creek is a recreational fishery and a state-designated inland primary nursery
area.
Status (December 1994): Remedial action is underway to remove PCB contaminated soil at siies 1-5 and I-17.
A Base-wide sampling plan has been prepared to i_dt;ntify areas in iieed of remediation. This sampling effort will
lead to a Remedial lnvesiigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and_ Record of Decision (ROD) for some areas. :
.[The_ de.scriptjon of the site (release) is based. on irifonnation available a1 ·,he· #me the site was scored~ The
description may change as addilional infonnation is ~mhered on the sources and extenl of coniamination. See 56
FR 5600, February 11, 1991, orsubsequen1 FR.notices.] · · '
&,porfund hazardous ,..;.,_ lite ._ in« Iha Comprnnolve Envlronmenlal Reoponae. eari,pa,oa11on, and Ualilty Act (CEIICLA) u amended @
Revised.
• ·&EPA•-UNITED ST A TES · · -
!:~MENTAL PROTECTION IUN.foiSJl\fflJ:lfel:l11i§L4ijl§M@£1ij•
OERR Hazardous Site Evalualion Division WashinglDn DC 20460 · Oecember1994
CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION
Concord,· California
Conditions at Proposal (February_ 7, 1992): Concord N_aval Weapons Station is located in the north-central ponion .
of Contra Costa County, California. Approximately 30 iniles northeast of San Francisco, it is bordered to the north
. by Suisun Bay and to the souih and west by the City of Concord. The facility encompasses over 12,800 acres in
.• three separate holdings: the Inland Area (6,150 acres), the Tidal f.rea, (6,650 acres), and a radiography facility in ·
Pittsburg, California. On-site activities also include administratiye and suppon work. Transshipment operations
are centered on the wetlands bordering Suisun Bay (Tidal Area). Wastes generated on site from base operations
have been disposed ofin the Tidal Area since base operations began in 1942. · · . . . . . . .
The Navy's substmtial -investigations of the stati~n have identified 19 sites to be investigated under th~ Installation
-Restonrtion (IR) p~~gram, of which Sa~ located in the Tidal Area. In addition, 24 SoHd Waste Management Units -
-(SWMUs) will be investigated, pursuant to RCRA, 4 of which are l_ocated in the Tidal Area._
The Tidal Area Landfill, R-Area Dispo~ -Site, 'and the Woo<i'Hogge; Site are wetlands in. the western ponion of
• th~ Tidal Area CO!ltaminated frcil!l on-base waste disposal. The 20 acre site was a major disposal area froin 1944
__ to _1979 and received a,n estimated 33,000 tons of waste. Materials and waste generated during the segregation of
. conventional munitions ·were discarded in the R-Area Disposal Site. At the Wood Hogger Site, wood contaminated
.. with peniachlorophenol (PCP) was chipJ'ied and pl_aced in an adjacent wetland. Another potential wetland area of
-concerzj_ is the Froid and Taylor Roail s_iie:· Chemical analytical data identified hazardous substances including zinc,.
··copper, cadmium, lead, arsenic, naphthalene; and methylene chloride, in soil, sediment, or surface water. . . . ' . . . ' . . . . .
The Kiln Site and th~ K-2 Area are wetlands in the eastern ponion ~f the Tidal Area. They were con~ated as ·a ~ult of private secuir industrial activities, and ioere subsequently purchased by the Navy to create a "buffer zone"
for base operations. Soil sampling in th_ese areas'·in 1986 detected zinc, copper, lead, cadmium, and arsenic. High
<ililes inundated the sources, carrying coniarniriants to Suisun Bay. Elevated levels of copper, zinc, lead, and arsenic
were detected_ in surface and composite soil samples in the K-2 Area .
.:'The contaminated areas are critical habitats for the salt ~h harvest mouse, a Federally endangered species. The ·
· 'black California rail; a candidate Federally endangered species, and the. California clapper rail, a Federally
. endangered species, inhabit adjacent wetlands. Suisun Bay suppons extensive commercial _and recreational fishing
and is a habitat for the Winter~run Chinook Salmon, also a Federally endangered species._
S_tatus (December 1994): · Workplans for the Tidal and Inland Areas have been completed and approved. _Field
sampling ciccurred in the Tidal Area iri 1994 and_is planned for the Inland Area in the spring of 1995. RCRA solid -
.-waste inanagement units will also be sampled in i995. Those requiring clean up will lie folded into the CERCLA
remediation.
The Navy condlicted a removal of sediments in the Litigation Area in 1994, A posi removal ecological assessment
. is also planned for 1995; ·
[The description ofrhe :rite (release) is based· 011 information available at rhe time the site was scored. The
description niay change as additional informarion is gathered on rhe sources and extenJ of con1aminatio11. See 56 _ FR 5600, February 11, 1991 or subsequenJ FR rwrices.] . ' . '
.· &,perl1Jnd hazaRloul -ta alta i-under!ho Campn,honalvo Envtrcnmontai Response, Cam~ and Ualiity Aa (CEJICU) as tllll8flded @
Revised
&EPA. • ,UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
. AGENCY
OERR Hazardous Site Evaluation Division Washington DC 20460
. . . . .
December1994
DEL MONTE CORP. (OAHU PLANTATION) . .
Honolulu County, Hawaii
Conditions at Proposal (May_ 10, 1993): Del Monte Corp. 's .Oah1' Plantation occupies 6,000 _acres in Honolulu
, County, Hswaii, near tile~ vilfage ~f~unia mi the .coasllil plain ofthe ,uland of Oahu. The area swrounding
the planlation is used inostly for agricultural and military purposes. · Del Monte has cultivated pineapple on the
plantation mnce. the 1940s. In pineapple agriculture, fumigants '~ use(i' to control ;,.P.IDBtodes that infest the
pineappie root. The dominant fumigant used at the plantation from the 1940s until 1983 waa ethylene dibromide
(EDB). . . .
During the spring of 1980, the Hswaii Departmen,t of Health (HD_OH) began a program designed to determine
whe\her'.the funiiJBDtaused in pineapple agriculture bad_cimtarnin•too "rinkina water wells on Oahu. As part of
this 'program, the Def Monte Kilnia .w.ell wu sampled, 'The well is iocaied on the Oahu Plantation and provided
drinking water for the appro:tirnately 700 residents of Kuiria .. Analyses deiected two fumigants; EDB and 1,2-
.. dibromo-3:..:hloropropane (DBCP). · On April 25, 1980, HDOH ordered the Del Monte Kilnia well removed from
. service.' Water'from the conlllllinsted well'is ~rinkl;,.i_onto non-crop fields.
, Following the discovery of contamination, inv'estigati~ns .. by Del Monte; HDOH, and the Hawaii Department of
. Agricultilre mealed.two sources of contamination: an'area used 1o·siore drums of fumigant from the 1940s until
197S, mid an area~ the well where 495 gallons of EDD spill'ed in 1977. Soils and ground water benesth these
sources contained high concentrations of EDB ~ DBCP, accordinfto over 400 analyses conducted between 1981
and 1991. ·
Since the discovery of contamination at the Kilnia well, Del Monte engaged in remedial activities at the site,
including the removal of 18,000 tons of soil, which waa spread on a nearny field. . ··
Despite these actions, _the Kilnia well contsins concentrations of EDB and DBCP that are greater than the Cancer . ·
Risk Screening l_evels for these two_co11taminan1s. · · · ·
;:;: .
. Status (December: 1994): Effective September 6, 1994; Del Monte voluntarily disconnected the Kilnia Well from ·
. •• the non::crop irrigation system;, Def Monte is worlcing with EPA to develop and irnpl~rnent alternative treatment
technologies and a ground water monitoring program. • ·
EPA is beginning the Remedial Investigation (RI) process to determine the ex~t of cimtaminati.:.0 at the site and
will evaluate aJ1 existing site data to determine the need for a baseline risk. 9 C RTVDI ,
[The tlacriptl~n of the site (n/ease) Lr based on Information availabk at the titM the site was scored. ~
· tkscription may du:mge as additional ieformation is gathered on ihe sources and e:ctenl of con1amination. Su 56
FR J(j()(), Febriuiry 11, 1991, or subsequen1 FR notices.] · ·
SUperlund --• iatod under Iha Conpr9hanalve EnvilOMl8ffllll Rasponao, Co11r,o-., ond Lia!iity Ao. (CEACU) a amended . . .
@
Rsviaed
• • ..
UNITED STATES &EPA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY. .
OERR Hazardous Sile Evaluation Division WashinglDn. DC 20460
NATIONAL!iFlR~ORITIE~ LIST ,~~PL
December1994
. ESCAMBIA WOOD-PENSACOLA
Escambia County, Florida
.Conditions at Proposal (August 23, 1994): Escambia Wood-Pensacola is locaied at 3910 North Palafox Street,.
·... . in a primarily fow-income, minority &tea <if Pensacola; Escambia County, Florida. The facility is an abandoned
wood preserving plant which o~rated from 19.42 until 1982 .. During iis opemtional period the facility treated wood
.. products with creosote and pe,,tacblorophenol. · Three open surface impmmdrnents remained at the facility after its · closure: Another backfilled Slrlace impo~dment was located in the northeast portion of the facility. . ·
In N,oyember 1980, Eacambia W'ood:Pe11S&CO!a filed a _RCRA Part A application, but there is no reconl of a RCRA
. Part B application for the facility. In_ 1986 the Florida~ of Environmental Regulation (FDER) determined "that the backfilled surface impoundment iws an tinpermitted disposal area not regubited under RCRA. In 1990, a
RCRA Facility A srneri• was conducted at the faciiiiy, but the' facility is iio longer classified under RC:RA.
'·. Sampling investlgations were conduc~ at the facility by EPA in April 1982, FDER in September 1987, EPA in
' 'April I.i.d June 1991, and by EPA in. May 1992 .. During· the various investigations, pe.ntachlorophenol and numerous
. other creosote constituents ,.;ere detecb:d at ~l;viited concenb'ali.;,.. in ground water samples. In addition,
pentachlorophenol and several other organic and inorganic analytes were detected in numerous surface soil,
subsurface aoil; and sludge samples collected during the investigations. '
.· In 1985, Escarnbia Wood-Pensacola conducted.a partial removal action that removed sludg~ from the three surface
... ·• imrou~drnent• .. A subsequent r_emoval conducied iii 1988 removed ~-co,,iaiuiiiated wooden side walle of the two
.· sina11 impoundments .. D'iuing both of these removal actions, the waste was taken off-site for proper disposal. In
addition, approx,_iD:JB!ely 220,000 cubic yards _of coiitamineted soil have been excavated from two pits and stored in
C: · piles iit the facili!Y; The presence of an observed release to ground water at the facility indicates that hazardous
{ . substances were released 'prior to the initiation of removal activities at the site .
. t The primary source of ground water in Escambia .Couiity is the Sand-and-Gravel aquifer, which l~ys beneath the .
I: facility; Approximately 20 public water supply and numerous private wells located :within 4 miles of the Escambia
·:; W~~Pensacoia facility"!C completed -0ihin the Sand-and-Oravei ~uifer·and serve approximately 129,330people.
/ The nearest public 1111pply well _is located 1 mile northeast of the site. .
Status {December 1994): EPA has started a fund-lead Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (Rl/FS) at the
site .. To mbanc:e community involyement during thelU/FS process, l;PA has established a Community Working
Group for the Site .. Membere will liave an opportunity to comme.nlon EPA documents and will serve as a conduit
foi: disseminating information to the community at larlle .. ·
. [IM ducriptloit of the site (rekase) Is based cin i,ifo,.,;;,,lo~ available at the time the site wa.r scored. 1he
·. . . description may dtange a.r. additional infomuuioil is gaihered on the sourca and eitenl. of conlaminat/on. See 56
. FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequen1 FR notica.J · ·
@
-Supsf\nl _,. was~ Blbt 1--~ lho Compr9honolvo Envlronmen1111 Raoponse, Com~ IJabllty /lo. (CEACI.Aj ~ ama~. · Revised
. . . • • &EPA· UNITED STATES
!:~MENTALPROTECTJ9N 1shc.t.1sm1a:11.1:a,1:t-11Mams,:11
-----~=,,.,,.;--.,..--=--=--:-c:---:::',-:---,,,,~--OE RB Hezfl!'"Oya Site Evaluation Division WBShington, PC 20460 ·· December1994
FORT EUSTIS (US ARMY)
Newport News, Virginia
.. Conditiom at Proposal (January 18, 1994): Fort Eustis; owned and operated by the U.S: ~t of the
Army, occupies appro~te!y 8,300 acres}n, southeastem'\'irginia, within the City of Newport News. The site
is located on the western side of_a low-lying peninsula foqiied by the York.River and the James River estuaries,
·. approximately· 30 miles upsireai,, of the confluence of the James River and the Chesapeake Bay. The facility is
bounded cm the west arid south by the J111I1es River and to the 'east by the Warwick River, a large tributary of the .
. James River. The James River is a major commercial fishing and recreational resource ·area.
The site beg~ operations in 1918 ~ a training center kno~ as Camp Abraham Eustis .. In 1923, it became a
permanent military installation renamed Fort Eustis. From 1931 to .the early 1940s, Fort Eustis was opc;rated by
, several D<imnilitary Federal. agenci~ for various uses. During'World War II, it resumed military operations and
was used for intensive antiaircraft trainin~. · ~ .1946, Fort Eustis became the Transportation Corps Training Center,
providing training in rail; .marine, and amphibian operations and other modes of transportation. Currently, Fort
Eustis. is the. U.S. Army" Transporiaifon Training .Center. Approximately· 17,500 military personnel, their
_.dependents, and· civilians live or work at the installation.· · ·
. lnl988, th.. U '.s. Mf!!Y Toxi~ and Ha7.ardous Materi~s Agency identified 34 potential waste sources at Fort Eustis.
The sources include. unlined landfills; pesticide storage areas, firefighting training areas, maintenance shops, range
and impact art>IS, and _numerous other areas that were .creaied as .a result of operations. Sanitary landfills at Fort
Eustis are currently undergoing closure .. ,EPAinitially evaluated seven sources based on documented releases of
haz.ardous subsiaiices to surface w~ter. Two of the sources are adjacent to Bailey's Creek, a 160-acre, low-lying
· . wetland area used for fishing. . Thirteen of ihe 34 · identified sources are presently ·undergoing a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study. Sampling conducied in 1987 and 1990 indicated contamination of sediments from .
Bailey's Creek. . Th~ .·contamination · included PCBs, chlordane, dichlo~phenyidichloroethane (DDD),
dichlorodiphenyldichloroetliylene (DDE), DDT, and lead. Fish
0
collected from Baiiey's Creek contained PCBa.
0,A sanitary landfiil that received hazardous waste is loca~ at the h~aters of Bailey's Creek_-In addition; the
· ,',Central Heating Fuel Spill ·Area, where.waste oils were stored, is ~n a bluff overlooking the creek.
"' Brown's _Lake once was .used as a drainage lagoon for the adjacent Helicopter Maintenance Area (HMA) and Ibo
. · up gradient Locomotive Area .. · The Jake was used for. recreation but was closed io water sports and fishina in lhe
late 1970s liy ihe F.ort Eus,tis Preventive Medicine Group. A i990 surv~y of Brown's Lake indicated that filb bad
• lesions, ecioparasites, and skeletal. deformities. . Cot,tamioent• detected in. the lake in 1987 included PCBa,
. pesticides; and polym-oinatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Sediriitmt sampling'-in 1990 revealed contamination by PCIII.
· and. heavy .metals in the lake arid ri tributary io the iake below · the Locomotive Area. · Surface drainage from
Brown's Lake· flows south through a sanitary '1andfiU that is adjacent to the HMA and enters wetlands aloa, the
· Warwick River and Milstead Island Creek drainage way. Both the Warwick River and Milstead Creek are uaed
_for fislimg. In 1988, sampling in Milsie,;.i island Creek found sediments contamina~ with PAHs and pesticides.
The site ~eludes ~ the sources identified in die package and areas where contamination bas come to be localed.
In addition, the site· inay include other sources and suspect areas later determined by EPA after NPL listing of Ibo
initiai sow-ces; conversely, if an area is. iater determined io be' imcoritammaied, it will not be included. in the NPL
site.
Statu, (December 1994): EPA is currently considering various alternatives for the site.
[The description o] the site (release) is based on infomuuion available at the tiine the site was scor~ The
description may change ·as additional infonnation is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. Stt 56
FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequeni FR notices.} · ·
· 6ul)lrVllhazadcu_,.ilta_i.rmrlhaCanpwwi-en,b1n1•11B1Aoep,nae:~.andUabllltyAa(CEIICU)aa.....-, . -. . . .
@
Revised
• ·&EPA UNITED STATES .
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
OERB Hg,f!T?Us Site Evaluation Qlvision
1s,sn.1sMma.n.1.1, •. a.1,aMs!P•
Washing10n DC 20460 · · · Deoember1994
GENEffAL ELECTRI.C CO./SHEPHERD FARM
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Conditions at Proposal (February 7, 1992): The General Electric Co./Shepherd Fann site is in East Flat Rock,
.. Henderson County, North .Carolina. Sin~ 195S, General Electric'.• Lighting System Division has msnufactured
various types of luminaire systems on a SO-acre property bounded by Tabor Road, Spartanburg Highway (U.S.
. 176), and Bat Fork Creek. · On the GE property are a manufacturing plant, a warehouse, plots . used for
. landspresding of wastes; two ilnlined waste treatment ponds, a sludge impoundment, landfills, and a recreation
center.
From 1957 to 1970; wastes from the General Electri~ (GE) facility were also disposed of approximately 2,500 feet
io the southwest in an old dry pond or ravine known as Sh;,pherd .Fami. Wastes were brought to this 3-acre area ·
ancl dej,osited,)wne,f. _then bulldozed .. A trail~r park is now located on a portion of the old dump site. Samples
. ·, ·collected in May 19!l0 by EPA indicate primarily the same waste _types and co,,tarninant• are present on Shepherd
. Farm and the GE property. GEwasies were also deposited o;,_ the Seldon Clark property located across Tabor Road .
from. GE. GE wastes may also have been deposiied in other neSiby areas. • ·
. '. Sll!dies conducted by EPA, the State, !'Dd GE between 1976 and 1989. revealed that several inorganic compo~
. ·:; and volatile organic compoll!'ds (VOCs) had C<>niaminated ground water _and surface water sediments on and off both ..
''. the GE property and die fiiim: A d_rainline that carried wastewater from the msnufacturing plant to the treatment
. ponds had apparently ruptured. VOCs also contamiiiated 19 nearby private wells .. Municipal water lines have been
extended to_.these liomes. The wastewater treatment.ponds and sludge impoundinent on site were found to be
cootarnin•ted with PCBs and heavy metals.
/1 · Among the compounds identified in on-site and off-site wells are tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, 1,2-. ·· l "dicbioi-oethene, cobalt, chromium, ~pper, 1~. nickel, zinc, and mangruiese. An estimated 4,400 people formerly.
~ ·obtained drinking water from private wells within 4 miles of the site, the nearest 0.04 mile from the site.
. .
· Soils in the trailer park coniain PCBs, according to a 1991 EPA ri:port.
Status (December 1994): In 11:'lle 1_994, EPA Region 4 began a fund-lead Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS). GE refused to sign jhe Adritinistrative Order by ¢onsent. Ground water, surface wster, sediment
and tioil sainples !Jave been taken to determine the extent of containinaiion 'on ihe GE facility, the Shepherd Fann
p~perty anil the Seldon Clark' property~ EPA plaris to propose a clean-up alternative in late 1995.
[The description of the_ site (release) . is based on information avai/abk al the time the site war scored. The
. description may change ar additional information is gtUhered on the sources and atenl of conlaminalion. Su 56
FR 5600, February 11, IWI or subsequenz.FR notices.] · ·
SUperflnl ---llllil,._ ..-.def !he Cornprahenalvo Effi!"'"'"""1111 Responu. Canpo,mada, and Llalii,y All. (CEIICU) aa amended
@
Revised
• &EPA-UNITED STATES ,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
OERR Hazardous Sil& Evaluation Division
·ip:c,1,1~M~§dt·ld••i+4•@Ps1:1 1
Washington pc 20460 Deoember1994
• .;;.,?, ~ ••• -----------------------. . -
ICG ISELIN RAILROAD YARD -
Jackson. Tennessee
_ Conditions at Proposal (May 10, 1993): The !CG Iselin Railroad Yard (!CG Iselin) is located in Jackson, Madison
·county, Tennessee. The 80-acre site is situated at the intersec!ion of Eastern Street and Magnolia Street in a
predominately suburban area. _ ·
· · From 1906 to 1940, the property was owned and operated by_ Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co. "(M&O). According
to a i926 tax map for the City, the facility at one time Included a round house, a steam locomotive fueling station,
a coal-fired power plant, and ihe loco~(Jtive majntenance b,;ildirig. _·In 1940, M&O was sold to Gulf Mobile & Ohio
Railroad Co.,. whicli'reorganized in 1972 as the lliinois Ceniral Gulf Railroad Co. (!CG). From 1972 to 1986 !CG
'~ the :site ·as a loi:omotive maintenance facility. The Williams Steel Co. purchased panial acreage in 1986, and
used it as a steel fabrication facility witil 1989 .. In that year, the property was transferred to its present owner Iselin
Properties, Inc. through Campbell & Associate~,. The re~g acreage is owned by Norfolk Southern Railway
Co .. The !CG lselin site includes amain W3!Chouse; numerous railroad tracks; storage tanks; a pollution abatement
·system· that "includes. a lye-vat, a neutralization tank, several drainage ditches, a concrete tank, and a surface
. iinpoundment; a batiery waste disposal pile; and a fueling platform under_ an open-air shed:
. Disposal practices at the site prior to 1972 are ·unknown. In 1973, !CG Iselin was issued a temporary Naiional
. ·Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for discharge into river mile 0.5 of Jones Creek, pending
the construction and approval of a poilution abatement facility. In 1975 and in 1980, the facility reponed that it
·exceeded its NPDES permit parameters for chromium. '
A 1990 investigation by the Tennessee Dep.anment _9f Health and Environment identified organi~ and inorganic
constituents in surface soils. In 1991, the EPA conducted funher sampling. _Both investigations showed elevated
levels of chromium, copper, and .lead in surface soils. The 1991 investigation also identified vinyl chloride,
· chlotoethane, tetrachloroethene, 1, 1-dichloroethane, benzene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes in on-site sediments . . · . ' .
' The Jackson Utility Division supplies drinking waterto approximately 31,000 people from 10 wells ,;_,ithin 4 miles .
,. of the facility. · ·
· Status (December 1994): The State of Tennessee has taken the role of lead.agency for Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) activities. On June 6, 1994, the Siate_issued a Commissioner's Order requiring the PRPs
to perfonn a RI/F~ for the site. Thc:Potentially Responsible Panics (PRPs) are currently performing the RI/FS
under State oversigbi. · ·
[The ·description of-the site (release) is based on information available atthe time the site was scored. The
description may_CM11ge as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent ofcontamination: See 56_
-FR 56()1), February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR noiices.J · ·
' .
SUporflnl hazwdauo _,. ;.,.· ._ _....,.; ChoCcm~e Erwironmonllll Response, Ccmponsa!lon, and L.lalllUcy AD. (CERCI..A) u amended _ @
Revised
• • -UNITED STATES · &EPA !~~~MENTALPROTECTK>N ltbiil·UMSQ;ii•hhii½i!@M❖ ~•P•
OERR Hazardous Sig, Evalualion Division WashinglDn pc 20460 · ·" December1994
· KOPPERS CO., INC. (CHARLESTON PLANT)
., Charleston, South Carolina
Con_diti_ons at Proposal (February 7, 1992): A milling, wood-pre.serving, and pole storage facility operated in
. the Charleston Heights District of Charlesion, Charleston County, So11th Carolina, between 1925-78. Koppers, Inc.
operated the facility between 1945 and 1978.'' The 102-acre site is in a mixed industrial/residential_ area. It is
bordered on the west by Ashley River, and on the north and south by industrial facilities.· Approximately 94,000
· people live within 4 miles of the site. .
SoUJi:es of hazardous substan~ on the· site. include a pit where timbers .were soaked in creosote wood preservative, ,
the "drip pad area" where the timbers were stored, and a bermed area thafreceived contaminated sediment from
. ' canal dredging on the site. 'Southern Dredging Co.' !easel part of t,b.e site in' i978 after wood-preserving operations
. : had'stopped. in 1984, the company dredged.a canal from the Ashley River, intersecting a waste disposal area .
. • Dredged 'materials were placed in the bermed area.
· EPA tests conducted~ 1988_detected nuIDerOus polynuclear aromatic hyd~ns (l>AHs), which are constituents
of creosote, in soil in all three sources .. · R1111offfrom all three sources enteis the Ashley River. The 1988 tests
found PAHs, chromium, copper, ~d zinc '(metals typically used:in wood preservatives) in sediment samples from
· the canal and the Ashley River; · · ·
Wetlands are adjacent to the site, and wetlands lo the west and southwest are a State wildlife sanctuary. The Ashley
,River _and Charleston Harbor support iccreaifonal and commercial fishing, and serve as important breeding and .
. · nimery habitats for.a variety of marine finfish and shellfish.
•··;",. Status (December 1994): Beazer East, Inc., formerly Koppers Co., entered into an Administrative Order by
. i: Consent with EPA Region 4 on January 14, 1993 for the performance of an_Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
; Study· (RI/FS) at the Site. The results of the.RI are schedciled io be released to the public in early 1995. Interim . . Measures will also be proposed to the public at this time lo mitigate off-site migration of the site contaminants from
• th~ former treabnent area to.~ waters and subsequently the sensitive Northern marsh areas.
[IM description of tlu! siu (re/eas;) is based on information ami/able a1 tlu! time tlu!_site was smred. 1he
·· dacription may change as addilional information _is gmhered on tlu! sourcu and extenJ of conlamination. See 56
FR 5(i()(), February 11, 1991 or subsequenl FR notices.]
·suparllnl l'mardouo waa10 li1a illld inlor lhe Ccrn..-,.in Envlrcnmon1111 Reaponae, Ccrnpenaallcn, ard Ualil!y /¼a (CEIICLAI aa amended @
-Revised
• • &EPA UNITED ST A TES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY jSl,Cii·UM 9 §;I [eJ:11 .,a...; IM ma S i:JI
OERR Hazardous Si1& Evaluation Division Washingtcn. DC 20460 · December1994
MASON CITY COAL GASIFICATION PLANT
Mason City, Iowa
Conditions at Proposal (January 18, 1994): Mason City Coal G_asification Plant ~vers approximately 2.3 acres
in central Mason City, _a north:ce,,tral Iowa community with a.population of approximately 29,000 people. The
· plant cipe,ated from 1900 lo 19S1 apd ~-demolished in i9S2. An electrical substation and small storage building
curreiitly occilpy the southwest comer of the siti:,' :Toe 'remainder of.ihe ·si)e is idle. Land use in the immooiate
vicinity consists of commercial and residentisl areas .. Th_e si~ is bounded lo 'the ~ by South Pennsylvania Aven'!C,
. lo the south by Sth Street Southeast; lo the west by South Delaware Avenue, and lo the north by a retaining wsll
·. slong Willow Creek. · · ·
During excavation activities for _installation of a sewer line in. 1984, oily sludges were encountered in subsurface
soils:at die site. Subsequent_investigations conducted by the site ~er, Interstate Power Co. (IPW), revesled the
. presence of ~ underground storage structures bontsining oiiy sludge. The three structures and their contents
were excavated; aiong with cont,amina~ soil fro1n around the structures. The excavated _materisl was stockpiled
directly onto tlie'ground'near the southeast.comer ofthe'site,.and i~ covered 141th a membrane cap. This waste pile
. is one of two sowces of hazardous substances al the· site. Contsminsted soil is slso present in the north-<:entrsl .
portion of die site. Soil ssmpies. collected . from soil borings indica~ that contaminated soil is present to depths
· to 13.S feet. The area of contaminated soil is the second source of hazardous substances.
The site is situated on fill materisl consisting of sand_, gravel, and construction rubble and debris, and is in direct
contact with bedrock .. Although the water table level fluctuates with piecil'itation, the water table in the fill materisl
is typically preseol at depths ranging from 8 to 10 feet belo\v land surface. . A portion of the sballow ground water
moving through.the fiUmsteriai and the upper porti~n ~f the ~rock discharges to Willow Creek. Well logs for
the eight Mason. C::ity-~cips] drinking water wells,:which rue wlthin 2 miles of the site, indicate that six of the'
wells ~ _uncased through portions of the Cedar Valley aquifer. 'Toe Cedar Yslley aquifer yields water to the
Dlllliicips] wells. Approximately 98 percent of the population of Mason City is supplied by the mwiicipsl drinking ,;water supply. -. .
·.:·The most significant cont•rnin•ti<m identified by a seriea ~f investigations ;,.,.,ducted at the site between 1986 and
' 198~ by IPW, is tiie presen~ of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contamination in the on-site waste pile,
. on-siie soil, beclrock and ground .Wliter beneath the. site and Willow Creek, and in Willow Creek sediments. High
· concentrations of P AHs have tieen' detected in samples of ground water collected from the uppermost aquifer, and_
in samples of Willow Creel< seniment downstream:.frorn tlie site. Site characterlstics indicated the potentisl for
PAH-eontaminated ground water in the uppermost aquifer to_discharge to the surface water .. Willow Creek is used
· for public recreations! fishing.
The site owner is conducting a Remooial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) al the site under EPA oversight.
Field activities within the Rl/FS include the installation of additions! ground water monitoring wells, and the
~llection and analysis of soil, sediment, surface water, and ground water samples ..
Stam,_ (December 1994): The FS is expected to be comple~ d~g the first quarter of fiscs1 year 199S. The
Draft Engineering. Evsluation/Cost _Anslysis (EE/CA) is under review at EPA in lieu of a Record of Decision
(ROD). This is for the purpose of selecting a rernoval action. The planned completion date for the EE/CA is
January 1, 199S.
, [1he description of the sit~ (nlease) is based on information avtnlable at the t~ ;he sites was scored. ~ ..
. ,description may change as additional infonnatlon is gathered on the sources and e:xtent of contamination. See 56
FR 5(i()(), February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.] ·
SUpa1lnl -.deus.;.... 111a ._ ..-tho CClmprahenalve Envlrcrwnemai Rosponaa, ~ • .;:., UablBty ,a (CERCLA) aa amerded @
Revisad
&EPA· . UN~ST··
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY .
OERR liazardous Si1e Evaluation Division
·· OGALLALA GROUND.WATER CONTAMINATION
Ogallala, Nebraska
.. Conditions at Proposal (October 14, 1992): The OgaUala Ground Water c;ntamination ~ite is in the weatern part
ofOgallala, Keith County; Nebraska, aiong the South p~~ Rh:er: Land in the area is primarily used for industrial,
. commercial, and residential purposes. In 1987, the Nebraska pepartment of Health (NDH) detected various
chlorinated organic compounds in five of the nine municipal wells serving Ogallala. Subsequent investigations
id.;,,tified ten companies as possible soun:es of the ground water plume and more have been suggested. Two
companies have been studied in some detait , .
Since 1987, American Shizuki Corp. has manufactured electrical compo~ents on an approximately 1S0acre property
. , at :io1 West O Street .. TR\V, Inc., owned and operated the facility from tl\e !'S'ly 1960s through 1986. Operations
.· involved various organic solvents, including"trichloroethene (fCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (fCA). . . . . .
Since the: early 1960s, Ogall~a El.ectronics has manufactured electronics components · on two parcels · of land ·
covering about 1 acre at 6M West 1st Street, Its operations also involve TCE and TCA.
A J.une 1990 Nebraska Department of Environmental Control (NDEC) soil-gas survey in Ogallala detected
· .. significant concentrations of TCE, TC:A, imlf ·.0th.er chlorinated organic compounds on the properties of both
.complinies. In niid-1991, NDEC detected similar compounds in moniioring wells in and around both properties,·
: and in ~o Ogallala municipal wells. Earlier (1990), NDEC had detected similsr compounds in six private wells.
\An estimated S,100 people obtain drinking water from· public and private w~lls within 4 miles of the site. Wells
' are also used for imgation. · · · · · ·
.~: ' .
,·, · The 1990 soil-gas ~ey had identified additional potential sources of the cor,taminatinn of Ogallala'• wells. They
.,, · will be investigated in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study that typically follows listing,
;{ 'Status {Dtrimber 1994): The Remedial Investigation (RI) was started during the fourth quarter of 1994,
search for Potentially 'Responsible Parties (PRPs) is underway. .
The
[TM description ofthe site (release) is based on informOlion.availab/e at the.time the site was scored. 11,e
. ·. deicrip(ion may change as addiJionaJ informOlion is gathered on the sources and extelll of COlllamination. $« 56
FR 5600,. February 11, 1991 or subsequelll FR notices) . .
&uporfund hazardcua _,. e1ta •.-..-111, ~ Effitnmien1lll Responsa, canponiation, and llali1ty Aa (CEIICLA) u amended @
Revised
&EPA UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
OERR HP?er19Ye Site §vaJuadon Diviston
• . ISl,C.t,iSfflii3:11,i:lilii-llkl&iJ Si:li -----------------... . ... : __ _
Washing10n. DC 20460 December1994
ONONDAGA LAKE
Syracuse, New York
. .
Conditions at Proposal (May 10, .1993):. The Onondaga Lake site is located in' the City of Syracuse and in the
Towns of Salina; Geddes, and Cainillus, Onondaga County, New York. Onondaga Lake is approximately 4.S miles
!orig and averages I mile in width. Seven !DlljOr tributaries flow into ihe lake; water ixits the ,lake via a barge canal
at its noithwest end and flows into the Seneca River.· .The lanil immediately adjacent to the lake consists primarily
of i.ridustrial properties: arid county pllrks. The site is co~sed of the lake itself, its tributari~ and the. upland
hazardous waste sites which have contributed cir are contributing contaminstion to the lake (sub-sites). ·
· A ban was placed on public fishing from the lake in 1970 due to high concentratio~ of mercury in several species
of fish. The lake was re'<>~ to fishing in 1986 on a cali:h and re.lease basis only. Population and industrial
growth in the 'areas surrounding Onondaga ~~ has resulted in extensive bioiogical, chemical, and physical
degra\lation of its waters. 1n &ddition to mercury contaminstion .in the lake; anal_yses of sediment samples detected
bariu~,' cadrnlum, chromium, cobalt, lead, benzene, chlcirobenzene, total xylenes, various polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, pesticides, and PCBs. . .
Historical information indicates that the lake rei,eived surface water discharges froni various industrial processes . . and municiplli waste, water treaiment plants. Initially' the Envirorunci,tal Pro_tection Agency (EPA) has evaluated
onl:foperations of Allied Signal, Inc. (AS) and/or its pred~rs, and Lhlden Chemicals and Plastics, Inc. (LCP),.
now owned by the Hanlin Group. EPA is attempting to identify additional potentially responsible parties. ·
The AS facilities ~ufactured numerous organic ·and inorganic chemicals. AS's Willis Avenue plant and LCP's
Bridge S~ plant (located wesi ~(th.ii Main Piani complex), used a me~ury cell procesa to produce chlorine,
sodium hydroxide, and potassium hydroxide. Each plant discharged aqueous waste streams containing mercury as
part of. normal operations. Qt&er.wiiste oo~ include AS's. Solvay :W~ Beds containing by-products generated .
from soda ash production and Semel Residue Ponds containing wastes generated from aci.d. v,ashing of light oil.
1. ' ' . ,
Several consent orders have been signed in .recent years between AS and the New York State Department of
. Env~nmental Conservation (NYSDEC) related to the Solvay Waste Beds, the Semel Residue Ponds and ground-
watei ~~tamioatinn at ihe location ~f the. Willis Avenue Plant.· 1n·ear1y 1992; AS and the NYSDEC signed a
consent deciee to perform a Remedial Investigationifeasibility Study (RI/FS) to determine the type and extent of
·:cor,tarninatimi at Ononchiga Lake and'to identify.alternatives for remedial action. . .
NYSDEC has also filed an action against the Hanlin Group under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recov.;,,: Act (RCRA). The Hanlin Grouj, COllllOOlced bankruptcy proceedings on July 10, 1991. . .
Status (December 199<1): Presently, AS is performing the Ono~daga Lake RI/FS and RI/FSs for the Solvay Waste
Beds; Semel R~due Ponds, and Willis Avenue Plant. EPA has entered .into a cooperative agreemeilt with
· NYSDEC to provide furids so that l'l'YSDEC i:an coordinate, manage, and oversee the ongoing work at the subsites · ·
and prepare a comprehensive RI/FS for the Onondaga Lake NPt site, NYSDEC, togethe~ with EPA, has started
·· mailing infonnation 'request letters to companies located in the Onondaga Lake watershed in an attempt to identify
other potentially responsible parties. · · ·
. ;[IM dacription of tM site (rdease) is based on infonna1ion avai/JJble OJ tM time IM site was scored. The
dacription may change a.r tulditional infoim01ion is g01hered on tM sources and exunl of con1amin0Jion. See 56.
FR 56()(), Feb,.,,,,,:j 11, 1991; or subsequenl FR notices.] · ·
· .. , · SUparllnj hazanbm _,. lllal limd inler lhe ~ En,ironmon1BI Raspanaa, Componoallon, and tki,i11y Aa (~ as amended
ft EA-" UNITEDST.. • 0 M. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IUAll.iHJl!§J:lt•i:lhi:l-lit§-J .. j,,.\1:ll ______ ,,AG:;E;;;N:,;C;;,Y---,-...,,,:-:--,--.--=:..,..,.-'"'°"".,.,..-_.,..,.~ •·
OERRH@zardous Sita Evaluation Division Washingtcn. pc 20460 December1994
PARRIS ISLAND MARINE CORPS RECRUIT DEPOT
Bea11fort, South Carolina
Conditions at Proposal (August 23, 1994): The USMC Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) is located on Parris
Island and several smaller islands located approxiniately 4 miles smith oJ the City of Beaufort, South Carolina. The
primary activity at MCRD is the training of Marine Corps recruits; · The facility covers more than 8,000 acres,
· including more than 4,000 acres of salt marsh and tidal streams. . · · · . . .
. . Numeroua potentially huardous wute sites have been identified at the faciliiy. The Incinerator Landfill and the
)k>rro~ Pit 1..andfill are located on Horse l~liild, The wifuied_ Caiiseway r.,;,.dfill was constructed across Ribbon
. , Creek,. a tidal stream arid marsh between Parris Island and Horse Island. Wastes known to be disposed in landfills
at MCRD include empty pestici~e containers, oil contaminated with polychltirinated biphenyls (PCBs), and mercury
.;;.;;.igam. In addition, froni i950 untii 1978, rinsewaters fro~ pesticide applicatio,:i containers and equipment were
· disposed in a dirt or grassy area (Pesticide Rinsate Disposal Area) located between Quonset huts N282 and N277. · . . .
MCRD conducted an Initial Assessment Study (IAS) in 1986 .. Of the· 16 areas evaluated during the IAS, 6 were
. recommended for further confirmation studies. .
1n February and .March 1988, MCRD ·conducted. sampling activities at the facility as part of the Remedial
jii.vestigation Verification Step. Mercury, lead, ·and other inorganic analytes were detected in surface water and
twliment samples c:ollected from the streams ·..;d marshland located adjacent to the Causeway Landfill.
I11 1991, EPA conducted m Ex~ Site Inspection at the Causeway Landfill. Numerous org.,;;~ analytes,
· · il\cluding PCB-i:254, were detected in tissue samples froin oysters collected from the tidal waters located adjacent
, , ·_: lo the Causeway Landfill. The average concentratio.ns of severaJ organic analytes in oyster tissue samples collected
. : 1:Wre higher for samples from an· impoundment on the northeast side of the Causeway Landfill than for samples
· .. collected from the southwest side.
} A rel~ .was dncn;,_led hased on: evidence u,,;t hazardous substances were deposited directly into Ribbon Creek
' 'and adjacent tidal marshes .. The pre8C!!ce of hazardous constituents in surface water, sediment, and tissue samples
. collected from Ribbon Creek, adjacenfto .the Causeway Landfill, demonstrate adverse effects associated with the
release to surface water. Surface waier runoff from MCRD enters salt ;,..;.hes and streams which surround Parris
Island .. Several bodies of wirter locaied .within 15 miles dow/isiream of MCRD, including ihe Causeway Landfill
. impoundment and the Broad River, are .used forfishing. Extensive estuarine weilands and nesting areas for the
loggerhead turtle are present within 15 miies d6wnstresin of MCRD: All residenta within 4 miles of the source
aieas nnrnially obtain drinking water from the Beaufort-Jasper Water and Sewer Authority (BJWSA). BJWSA
obtairis water from a surface water intake located on· the Savannah River which is not affected by runoff from the
facility. . .
Status (December 1994): Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) Negotiation start is planned for the third quarter of
fiscal year 1995. EPA, SC-DHEC, the Marine Corps, and the Navy are in the process of forming an Installation
Restoration Team and ·have initiated scopiilg the Remedial Investigation, developing a Site Management Plan, and
initializing funding niquesta froUI the Defense Environmental Resto~tion Account (DERA) for anticipated
environmental clean up work. . A Restoration Advisory Board Implementation plan is being developed to get
community involvement early in the ·superfund process ·at MCRD Parris Island. A Preliminary Natural Resource ·
. Survey Study has
0
been icitiated to assist in scoping environmental concerns for the Remedial Investigation. .
• . {'Ihe·discription of IM site (release) is .based on information available at ·tM t~ the site was scored .. 11ie·
.description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamilllllion. See 56
FR 5600, February II, 1991, or subsequenJ FR notices.] ·
&lperfund hazardaus waalB 111B •-inlar lhe Comprehensive Efflll.,;,,,,_ Reapcnoe, Compenaation, and Llabllty Aa (CERCLA) as emended .J .
@
Revised
•·
·h " " • &EPA 1sr.c.t.iSMifJ:lf.i:lul!.-IIMWJSl:ll UNITED STAlcS
. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY '
QERP HS"""'us Site Evaluation Division Washington. DC 20460 · December1994
PFOHL BROTHERS LANDFILL
Cheektowaga, New York
Conditions at Proposal (May 10, 1993): .. Pfohl Brothers Landfill, a privaiely owned and operated landfill,
· deposited municipal iind industriai wastes between 1932 and 1971 at a 166.S-acre property in Cheektowaga, Erie
·,County,N~York. The northe~ secti~~ of the lfuidfill has been graded ..;,_J is now occupied by a trucking firm.
The'area is residential and commercial., Buffalo International Airport is approximately O.S mile west of the site.
. . . . .
. Chemical wastes in liquid, aolid, and sludge form were either buried at the· site in drums or placed into cells
·. excavated in the ground.-~ The \V8Sles deposited,iilcluded cyanidOcS and plating sludge, waste paint and paint sludge,
lithognphic inks, pigments, organic solvents, liquid'and solid PCB:.COntaminated wastes, sludge from distillation
. 'processes, petroleum wastes; and 100 to 125 tons of pb~nol tar.containing chlorinated benzenes and dioxins. ' .
Since 1980, the Erie County Heal~ Department; EPA, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC), and die owner have investigated the site. A reinedial investigation was conducted in
1988-89 by NYSDEC.
The investigations indicated that. surface wale; both_ on an_d off the_ site is contaminated by organic chemicals,
including benz.ene, phenol, ch!orobenzene, and'ilichlorobenze!le. Nearby surface water consists of Ellicott Creek,
. an adjaceni ditch that leads. into the creek, and Aero ·Lake, which lies'.just north of the ditch. The lake.and creek
. are used for recreational fishing: A wetland formerly existed in "what is DOW the central section of the property.
· Oiher ·wetlanda border the creek_ and ditch.
On-site and off-site &>ii is contaminated with PCBs; bari~, manganese, and mercury; according to the remed_ial
investigation. Most of the site is fenced; buidrainage ditches co~taminated with leachate from the landfill lie
outside the fencing and are accessible to the public. Ten homes are within 200 feet of an area of contaminated soil.
·_ Status (December 1994): Currently, the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) are preparing the design for the
landfill cap, even though a Consent Order has not been officially signed with DEC. EPA will be reviewing all
· ... design documents. Additionally, the Ag~cy fot Toxic S'!bstan~ and J)isease Registry (ATSDR) has announced
· that it will be collecting attic dust samples from homes adjacent to the landfill, .as well as some further away to be
used-for control purposes. ATSDR is currently preparing the sampling protocol, which will be reviewed by EPA
. and DEC_-The sampling is expected to take place in early 1995. . '
_ [IM dat:ription o/tM site. (reklue) is. based on infonna1i~n available al tM lime IM site. was scored. The
· dacripllon may change, izs additional lnfomiation is gaJhered on tM sources and exlent of contamination. See 56
FR 5600, February ·11, 1991, orsubsequent FR notices.] ·
Sllpoffllld l'azanloua..;.. lb -undor lhe Canp-;_.,• Cmhoio1'""1al ~ Cornponaation, and Llallllty Aa. (CERCLA) u ame-@
Revised
UNnioST. &EPA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
OERB Hetardouu Site EvaJuation Division
,stc.i.isut1s:11.1:1,.11-1,mwt•P•
Washington. DC 20460 . Oecember1994
REYNOLDS METALS
Troutdale .• Oregon
Conditi!'ns at Proposal (Augw;t 23, 1994).:. The Reynolds facility is a primary aluminum reduction plant where
. alumina _from balix,ite is reduced lo aluminu111. The facility is approximately 1.25 miles north of. the City of
Troutdale, Oregon. The Columbia _River forms its northern border and the Sandy River forms its eastern border.
· A dilce iurrounds the plant on the northern and eastern sides, and protects the plant from floods. Site areas north
and east of the dike are within the 100-year flood plain. ·
.. The. plant was completed in 1941 for l)ie United States gove~nt war-time operatil:>ns. Reynolds first leased the
· · · plant'from the ·government in June 1946, and purchased it in June 194.9. Currently, Reynolds owns the 80.25-acre
' plant area apd_ approximately 500' surrounding acres: The aluminum reduction plant has been shut down ~ce
. November .1991 for economic ~ns.· Currently, ~ere are·appn,ximately lOOworkers for maintenance, security,
· . administration, and casting ingots from molten aluminum transported to the plant from the Reynolds reduction plant
·in Longview, Washington. ·
Large quantities of wastes were produced at the Reynolds plant during the production of aluminum. Twenty-one
separate waste streanis were identified by Reynolds in. ":"P"nse lo an EPA information request letter. Major
' luwirdous substances of concern iilclude polyaromatic hydrocarbons (P AHs), aluminum and other metals associated
with bauxite, cyanide, fluoride; and polychlorinaied bipheoyls_ (PCBs) from electrical equipment .
.In May 1993, an EPA ,;ootraclor collected samples al the Reynolds site. On-site sampling included surface and
subsurface SC?il, sediment, surface. water, ground· water and an unknown waste pile. Elevated concentrations· of
cyanide, P Alis, ·inimy metals, and fluoride were detected in various sources on site. Elevated levels of cyanide and
.. fluoride.were detected in seveial on-site drinking water wells. Signifi~tconcentrations of aluminum, barium,
, manganese, cyanide, and fluoride were detected in the surface water samples. Concentrations of copper and cyanide
in .in <lll~site drainage dit1:h which flows' lo an 'on-site' lake and .llieii the Columbia Ri~er exceeded the freshwater · ,
quality criteria promulgated under the Clean Water Act .. Elevalcii concentrations of fluoride, metals, and extremely
.high concentrations of PAHs were detected in sediment samples taken from the ditch and lake. The same.
coritaminants were also detected in on-site wetlands. ' .
The Columbia and Sandy Rivers are used for recreation and fishing, people reach the rivers through the Reynolds
property. Anadromous fish are found in tx:ith rivers as well as· numerous sensitive environinents.
Jbe Reynolds Metals Company (RMC) has ~pressed an interest in in~estigating and. conducting early actions under
the EPA Remo_val Program. · RMC has initiated an integrated assesmient. under EPA oversight. The scheduled ·
seven week assessment is the first ph!l58. of investigations and is a cooperative effort between RMC and EPA. On-.
site ground water C(>ntemioalinii lllid newly discovered dump sites are being characterized and evaluated. for
expedited response actions. · -
Status (December 1994): RMC conq,leted field work in summer of 1994 which will help determine time<ritical
. actions, non-time-critical actions, and further investigations lo be conducted at the site. . . .
[1M description of thi site (~lease) is based on informarion ~~ilable al the time the. sile was scored. The
description may change as addiiional infonnarion is garhered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56
FR 5600, February ·11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.] ·· ·
. Superfund ,-,,-waala Illa Bad underlho Ccmpnnsjve Erwinnnental ~~ and lJabllty Aa. (CEACLA) as amended @
Revised
United States
· . Environmental Protection
Agency
. . For hJrttier information, call the Superfund Hodine, toll-free
1·800•424'.9346 or [phone] in Washington, DC
metropolitan areior lhe U.S. EPA Superfund Regional Offices
listed below.•
For publications, con1acl
EPA Superfund Docket, 5201
401 M Street, SW .
Washingtoo, DC 20460
[phone]
· 0lflce of Emergency and Remedial Response, 5204G
· ·· Uriited ~tales Environmental Protection ~
· . 401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
. [phone]
... ,,
Realon 1
Cannectlcut New Hampshire
Maine Rhode Island
Massichusetts Vermont .. •· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .· . . . . .
. ·. Waste Management Division, HAA-CAN-1 I. . · John F; Kennedy Federal Building
... . : Boston, MA 02203-2211
., ' .. •. [phone] ·
Realon 2
NewJersey Puerto Rk:o
New York Virgin Islands . . . . . . ·-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
'
F.mergency and Remedial Response Division . 26 Federal Plaza . .
~: NewYork,NY 10278
1212l 264-8672 ·
Realon 3
Delawn Pennsyfvlria .
District of Columbia . . Virginia
Maryland . · : . West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • ... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , Site Assessment Section, 3HW73
. 841. Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
[phone]
Realon 4
Alabmna Mississippi Florlcla North Clrollna . Georgia . Sou1hClrollna Kentu!)ky · . . · • · Ter.nnaee · . . . . . . . 'w. 'Maruig' •. bi ', ......... ·. aste ement VISlOll .
· . . . ' 345· Courtland Street NE . . , ·
Atlanta, GA 30365 .
14041347-5065
Realon 5
DDnols \ ■,n"""""'
Indiana ; Ohio
: • M.lc!1i98!1 >. . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~ . . . . . .
Waste Management Division
· 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 6th Floor
. . ' Oticago, IL 60<i04
131218116-7570
.
.
Renlon 6
Arkansas -· Oklahoma · Louisiana Texas New Mexico . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 6H-M
.· 1445 Ross Avenue .. Dal!mri' J~<f402733
Renlon 7 -· Missouri Kansas Nebraska .. ... . . . . . . . ' . . . -. . . . . . . . . ....
,
Waste Management Division
. · · .726 Minnesota Avenue
·" Kansas City, KS 66101
· [phone] or 551-7595
Realon 8
l;OIOlaao liOUffl 11811018
Montana Utah
. -~.D!lk~ ............ YfY9f!lll!II •••.••
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 8HWM-SR
. -. 999 18th Street, Suite 500
..
Denver, CO 80202-2466 ·
· 1303\ 294. 7630 ·
.... Realon 9
,.,. .. oa lill8III Northern Marianas Arizona HawaD Trust Territories · Callfomla ~~ . . . . .. .. . ' ... . . . .. . ..
Waste Management Division, H-1 -. · . 75 Hawthorne Street -
. · , San Francisco, CA -94105
. .... [phone]
Realon 10
AIIISKII Oregon .
Idaho . ~!-9!'~~ . . . ... . .. . . . .. . . .
Hazardous Waste Division, HW-113 . . 1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(._., 553-1677 ·
* AB EPA ielepbooe and ~unkatlom systems may be
accmed via the Federal Telecommunlcations System (FfS) •.
l
. '
•
. '
•
United States Environmental Protection · · Agency · ·
Office of Solid Waste and
"'L. -Fe.u 13 -h -2...
Publication 9320. 7-051 December 1994 · Emergency Response
~EPA Supplementary Materia_ls:
National Priorities list,
. Final Rule
Office of Emergency and Remedial Resgonse · · Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (52 4G) . .Intermittent Bulletin Volume 4,.Number 4
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the
· Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
. 1986 (SARA). In October 1990,. CERCLA was
·. extended_ to September 30, 1994. An appropriation
The National Priorities List (NPL) informs the .
public of . uncontrolled hazardous . waste ·sites that
warrant funher investigation to determine if they pose .
· rjsks" io hunian health ·or the environment. Such. sites are eligible for long-term "remedial action• financed
under tlie Trust Fund established· by the Comprehen-
: . sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
by· Congress · for Fiscal Year 1995 authorized
Superfund to continue to ·operate. , The U.S.
'Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)_ has the
primary· responsibility for managing. the Superfund
program.
(·
f.:
-T~,
Table of Contents
How Sites Are Placed on the NPL •..••......... · .•.•......••••... ·. . . . . 2
Statutory Requirements and Listing Polic.ies ....••...•..•......... ·. . . . . . 3
NPL Status {December 1994) •.....•..• · •.••.....•..••... : . . . . . . . . . . . 4
How Sites Are Deleted From th~ NPL .........•...••.... : ••.... ; . . . . . . . 5
Key Dates In Superfund ....•••.....•....•... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Removing Proposed Sites ••.............••••. · •.. ; .... -~ . . . . . • . . . . . . 7
Lists and Data Summaries ....• : ... : ....•.•. : ......•.•...•. : ..... : .. a
Federal Facilities Section {by State) .. ,. ·; ...•..... ·. : : ....•...... , . . . . . 9
Proposed Sites {by State) •••......... · .......•..••...... : . . • . . . . . 14
Proposed Sites Removed From Consideration for NPL ....•..........••... : 1 7
NPL Sites Per Staterrerritory {by New Final Sites) .•• ; . . • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . 22
. '
. _NPL Sites Per EPA Region ............• · •......... '. .•....... : . "'· . 23
Federal Register Notices ..................................... •. 25
'·
••
Ho·w SITES ARE PLACED '
ON THE NPL '"··
EPA ~ informal rulemaking to place sites on•
.. the NPL. Sites are first proposed to the NPL in the
.:Federal Register. EPA then accepts public comments
, · on the sites (o/Jlically for 60 days), responds to the•
· .conimcnts, and finally places on the NPL those sites
, that continue to meet the requirements for listing.
Section 300.425(c) of the National Oil' and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Continge~cy Plan.
(NCI'), the Federal r~gulation by which CERCLA is .
iniP,lemented (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990), provides
. dlree mechaui~ms for placing sites on the NPL. The
primary mechanism is EPA' s Hazard Ranking System
·. (HRS). , The original. HRS, developed in 1982,
evalWlted the relative threat a site posed to human
health or the environment over ·five. "pathways·,· or ·
routes of exposure. Toe HRS score was based on the ·
evaluation of three pathways through which .
cofltamiuauts · can migrate: . · ground water, surface
water, and air. The other two pathways, direct
contact . and fire/explosion, were evaluated to' ·
·determine• the need for immediate removal
(emergency) action.' .HRS scores ranged from O to·
. 100. An HRS score of 28.50 was selected as the · ' • .
cutoff point for the first proposed NPL to identify at
least 400 sites, the minimum suggested by CERCLA.
On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA
.. revised the HRS, as required by SARA .. Toe revised • ·
.HRS.became effective on March 14, 1991. It is a·
more comprehensive and. accurate scoring system
· than the original HRS and may add new types of sites
to the NPL.
The revised HRS retains the same cutoff score
and basic approach as the original HRS, while
incorporating SARA reqilirements as well as
: improvements identified as necessary by EPA and the
.· :public. The revised HRS retains the ground water,
surface water; and .air pathways, drops the direct
):ontact and , fire/explosion pathways, ·and adds a
,.fourth pathway, soil exposure. All four can· be used -
. to calculate the site score.
'I'lie second mechanism for placing sites on-the
, N.PL allows States or Territories to designate one top~
· -priority site regardless of score. Of the 57 States and
· Territories, 39 ha~e designated top-priority sites. Six .
2
· of these sites. have been deleted from the. NPL
because no further response was necessary.
Toe. third mechanism allows listing a site. if it
meets all three of .these requirements: '
•
•
.•
Toe Agency for. Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S.
Public Health Service has issued a health
advisory that recommends removing people
from the site. .. ·
EPA determines the site poses a significant
threat to public health.
EPA anticipates it will 'be more cost-
. effective to use its remedial authority
(available only. ·at NPL sites) than to use its
emergency removal authority to respond to
the site. ·
Nine sit.es have been proposed io the NPL on the
basis of ATSDR advisories: .
, • Two ·are ·proposed to· the NPL:
Tennessee Products, Chattanooga,
TN; and Raymark,industries, Inc.,
Stratford, CT. . .
• Five are on the NPL: Forest Glen Mobile
Home Subdivision, Niagara Falls, NY, and
Radium Chemical Co., Inc:, New York
City, NY (54 FR 48184, November 21,
1989); .White Chemical Corp., Newark NJ
(56 FR 48438, September 25, 1991); Austin
Avenue Radiation Site, Delaware County,
. .· PA (57 .FR 47181, October 14, 1992); and
Lower Ecorse· Creek Dump, Wyandotte, MI
(59 FR 27989, May 31, 1994).
• One, Lansdowne Radiation Site, Lansdowne, ·
. PA has been deleted because all appropriate
. response has been completed (56 FR 46121,
September 10, 1991).
· • . ·.One, Quail Run Mobile Manor, Gray
Summit; MO (48 FR 40674, September 8,
1983) · was dropped . from further
consideration on February 11, 1991 (56 FR
. 5598). Because of an EPA removal action,
ATSDR had rescinded its health advisory ..
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
AND' LISTING POLICIES
CERCLA restricts EPA' s authority to respond to
cenain sites by expressly excluding some
substances· ,. petroleum, for .example -from the
definition of •.release.· . In addition, as a matter of
policy, EPA may choose not to use CERCLA
because the Federal government can · undenake ot '
enforce cleanup under other laws, thus p'reserving ·
, .CERCLA funds for sites not covered by other laws.
!· EPA has chosen not to use CERCLA for' cenain
types of si.tes regulated by Subtitle C of the R~ource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). However,
if .EPA later. determines that sites not listed as a
matter of policy are not being properly responded to,
it may consider placing them on the NPL
RCRA-Related Sites
When the first final NPL was promulgated in
September 1983, EPA announced cenain listing
policies relating to sites that migbt qualify for the
NPL:One.ofthese policies involved facilities subject
to RCRA Subtitle C. EPA's policy was generally not
to place on the . NPL, RCRA 'regulated units, (for
;,, example,. land disposal units that received hazardous ,J waste after the effective date of the RCRA land
· .{ disposal regul.ations) because EPA can require the
' . owner/operator· to clean up under RCRA. The
· RCRA. cleanup process and standards arc similar to
those under ,CERCLA, ensuring that all actions taken
will protect human health and the environment.
In November 1984; the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA were enacted
expand,ing EPA's authority to require: correctiv;,
measures under Subtitle C. .As a result of this
.brnadened RCRA authority, EPA revised its policy
for placing non-Federal RCRA-regulated sites on the
NPL, and on June 10, 1986 (54 FR 21057)
. announced that facilities subject to RCRA Subtitle C
. corrective action· authorities would be placed on the
NPL if one or more of these conditions exists: ·
• The facilities are owned by persons. who ·
have ,demonstrated an inability to finance
· appropriate corrective. action by invoking
bankruptcy laws. ·
3
' .
•
•
The facilities have lost authorization to
operate (also known as the Loss of Interim
. Status, or LOIS provision), and there are
additional indications that the owner or
operator is unwilling to undenake
corrective action.
The faciliiies have not lost authorization to
operate but have . a . clear history of
unwillingness to undenake corrective action.
These situations are determined on a case-.
by-case basis. ·
On June 24, 1988 (53 FR 23978) and October 9,
.· 1989 (54 FR 41000), EPA announced additional
components of the NPL/RCRA policy. · As a matter
of policy, EPA will list four additional categories of
RCRA-related sites: · · . · · . ·
• · Facilities that were treating, storing,' or
disposing of Subtitle C hazardous waste after
November 19, 1980, but that did not file a
'Pan A,• · the initial pan of the. permit
•
. application, by that date as . required and
have. little or no history of compliance with:
RCRA. EPA believes that these non-or laJl
filers, althougb they arc technically subject
."to RCRA, arc not likely to be cleaned up
expeditiously under RCRA and so should be cm· the NPL However, if such facilities
have complied with RCRA;-EPA may
consider whether ,listing is necessary.
Facilities with permits for the treatment,
storage, or disposal of hazardous waste
. issued before enactment · of HSW A and
whose owners/operators will not volW:tarily
. modify .the permi1 .. Pre-HSWA perminus
are not required to take corrective action for
releases. . Under RCRA Section 3004(u),
. EPA does not have the authority. to modify
a pre-HSW A permit for corrective action
.until the permit is reissued .
_NPl Status (December 1994)
Sites on final NPL
• General S~perfu~d Sectio~
• Federal Facilities Secticiri
Sites remaining on proposed NPL.
• General Superfund Section
• Federal Facilities Section
Construction Completion List
Sites dropped-from proposed NPL
• Policy issues (e.g., RCRA)
• HRS score below 28.50.
0AII but 2 in General Superfund Section ·
• . Facilities that filed a Pan A permit application
for treatment, siorage, or disposal of Subtitle C
hazardous. waste :as a precautionary measure
·only. : Such facilities . -for example,
generators, . · transponers, or · recyclers ·of ·
hazardous waste -are not subject to Subtitle C
corrective action _authorities. . These are
· · · referred to as protective filers.
• Facilities that at· one time ,treated or stored
Subtitle C hazardous waste but have·. since
convened to generator-only . status (i.e.,
facilities that now store hazardous waste for 90
days. or less) or any either hazardous waste
activity not requiring Interim Status. These
faciiities, whose Pan A pennit applications
have been withdrawn with EPA · oL State
approval, are referred to as conveners. EPA
believes it has · the authority under RCRA
Section 3008(u) to compel corrective action at ·
such facilities. However, RCRA's corrective
. action progrl!lll currently focuses primarily on ·
· : treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (due ·
· t<i pennining deadlines in RCRA) .. Therefore, ·
this category should be on the NPL to ensure
expeditious cleanup .. However/ if a consent
order requiring remedial action is in effect, a
convener need not be listed. · ·
· Federal Facility Sites
4
(1,088)
(154)
(40)
(6)
(43).
(33)
1,288
CERCLA Section 120(a) requires that Federal
facilities be subject to and comply with CERCLA in
· the same ·inanner as any nongovernmental entity.
CERCLA -Section lll(e)(3), however, generally
prohibits. use of the Trust Fund for remedial actions
at F_ederally owned facilities. Thus, Federal agencies
must use iheir own funds for.cleanup. Federal sites
. are listed in a separate section of Appendix B, rather .
than in the General Superfund Section.
Because most. _Federal facilities have RCRA;
·. regulated units w_ithin their boundaries, EPA
deiermined that a separate NPURCRA policy should
· :be. ~opted for Federal facilities.· As a result, on
March 13, 1989 (54 FR 10520), EPA announced it
wo\lld place on the NPL those sites located on
federally owned or operated facilities that meet the
_NPL eligibility requirements -e.g., HRS scores of .
28 .50 or greater -even if the Federal facility also is
. subject to th~ corrective action authorities of RCRA
. Subtitle C. · Cleanup, . if· appropriate, could then
proceed at those sites under either CERCLA or
RCRA:. · The . policy is based · on several
-considerations:
• Congress clearly intended that Federal facility
sites should be on the NPL.
•
• Strict application of the non-Federal
NPURCRA policy would exclude virtually all
Federal facility: sites from the NPL becaus~ they would not likely -~t any of the criteria
necessary for listing (inability to pay as .
· evidenced by invocation of bankruptcy laws or
· demonstrated unwillingness to comply with
RCRA).
• Placing RCRA-regu]ated Federal sites on the
. NPL serves. the primary purpose. of listing
Federal facility sites to advise ·the public of the status of Federal government. cleanup effons.: ·
• Listing these sites helps Federal agencies . set
priorities and focus cleanup effons on those ·
sites that present the most serious problem ..
· Radioactive Release Sites
CERCLA Section 101(22) excludes several types
of releases of radioactive materials from the statutory
. · definition of "release." These releases are therefore
not eligible. for CERCLA response actions. or the
NPJ.,. The exclusions apply to (I) releases of source, .
by-product, or special nuclear material from a nuclear . ·
. incident if these releases are subject to financial ·
· protection .requirements under Section 170 of the ·
Atomic Energy Act and (2) any reieases of source, ·
· . by-product, · or special nuclear material from any
processing site designated under the Uranium Mill .
Tailings. Radiation Control Act of 1978.
Accordingly, such radioactive releases have not been
considered eligible for the NPL. ·
As a policy nwter, EPA has also chosen not to
list releases of source, by-product, or special nuciear
material from any facility with a current license
• issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ·
(NRC), on the grounds that NRC has full authority to
require cleanup of releases from such facilities. EPA
will, however, list releases from facilities that hold a
current ··license iuued by a State pursuant to an
. agreement between. the State and the NRC under.
Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act. Facilities
· whose licenses are no .longer in effect are also
·· considered for listing. · ·
HOW SITES ARE DELETED
FROM THE NPL
5
" • ..
EPA may delete a final NPL site if it determines
that no further response is required to protect human
· . h~th·or the environment. Under Section 300.425(e)
of the NCP• (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990,) a site may
be. deleted where no further response is appropriate if
EPA determines that one of the following criteria has
•been met: · ·
• EPA, in conjunction with the State, has
determined that responsible or other panics
have . implemented all appropriate response
action required.
• EPA, in consultation with the State, has
determined that · all appropriate Superfund-
·_financed .. response under CERCLA has been
u.nplemented;. and that no further response by
responsible panics is appropriate.
• . A remedial investigation has shown that the
release poses no significant threat to public
health · or the environment,· and, therefore
remedial measures are not appropriate .
• since I 986, EPA has followed these procedures
for deleting a site from the NPL:
• The Regional Administrator approves a "close-
out' · repon" which esiablishes that all
appropriate response action has been taken or
that no action is required. . ·
·• · The Regional Office obtains State concurrence.
• EPA publishes 'a notice of intent to delete in
the Federal Register and in a major newspaper
near the co.mmunity, involved. A public
comment period is provided.
• EPA responds to the comments and, if the site
continues to warrant deletion, publishes a ·
deledon notice in the Federal Register.
Sites that have been deleted from the NPL remain ·
eligible for further Superfund-tinanced remedial
· action in the unlikely event that conditions in the
future warrant such action.
. As of.December 1994, 67 sites have been deleted
from the NPL, all but two in the General Superfund
Section: · · ·
Key Dates in Superfund
Legislation
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) enacted December. 11, 1980; Trust Fund of $1.6 billion authorized over 5 years
• CERCLA amended' by Superfurid Amendments and Rea~thorization Act . (SARA) enacted October 17, 1986; Trust Fund of $8.5 billion authorized over 5~ra ·
• CERCLA extended to September. 30, 1994; an additional $5.1 billion · authorized
Federal regul<!tioi"! implementing Superfund: National Oil and Hazardous . Substances Pollution Contirigehcy Plan (NCP)
• . Revised July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180) to incorporate CEHCLA requirements
• Revised March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666) in response to CERCLA Section -105,. amended by SARA . .
-.
Hazard Ranking System
• Promulgated July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180) as Appendix A of the NCP
• Revised Decemb~r 14, 1990 (!i5 FR !51532) in response to CERCLA Section · 105(c), added by SARA; effective date March 14, 1991
National Priorities List
• Promulgated September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) as Appendix B of the NCP I . . . . . . .
• Must be updated at least annually
• Last sites proposed under original HRS promulgated February 11, 1991 (56 .FR 5598); ,Construction Completion category activated (56 FR 5634)
• Firat sites proposed under revised HRS Joly 29, 1991 (56 FR 35840) ·. . -.
• Firs_tsites added to NPL under revised HRS October 14, 1992 (57 FR 47181)
• · Construction Completion. List activated March 2, 1993 (58 FR 12142)
6.
REMOVING PROPOSED SITES .
-. ' '
As of December 199( 76 sites (see page 17) have
bccll proposed for the NPL but subsequently removed
. from further consideration, most of them because
' their fin.al HRS scores were below the 28.50 cutoff or
they are subject to RCRA Subtitle C. . Three of the
sites were reproposed on February 7, 1992 (57 FR
4824) after being rescored with the revised HRS.
7
' LISTS AND DATA SUMMARIES
"i
:/
St
AK
· AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
National Priorftfu L;at
Federal FacHitfes Section, Final ard Proposed Sites (by State)
Decent>er 1994
,._: Date ......................
Site N-Cfty/Ca<-.ty Proposed Final
Adak Naval Air Station Adak'. 10/92 05/94 Etelaon Afr Force Base Fairbanks N Ster Boro 07/89 11/89"
Elmerdorf Afr Force Bose· Greater Anchorage Bo~ 07/89 08/90 Fort Richardson (USARMT) Anchorage 06/93 05/94 · Fort Wainwright Fairbanks N Star·BOro 07/89 08/90
Standard Steel&Netils Salv_ege Tard(USD_OT Anchorage . 07/89 08/90
6 Final + 0-Proposed • 6
AL, Alel>an!a Army Alllu,ftfon Plant Childersburg 10/84 07/87
AL Anniston Army Depot (SE lnoJStrial Area) Amiaton 10/84 03/89
AL Redstone Arsenal_(USARMT/NASA) H161t8Vll le 06/93 05/94
3 Final + 0 Proposed • 3
AZ Luke Afr Force Base Glendale 07/89 08/90
AZ Williams Air Force Base Chardler 07/89 11/89
AZ Tuna Marine Corps Afr Station ' · Tuna 06/88 02/90
3 Final + 0 Proposed • 3
CA Bara~OW Marine Corps L09_fstfca Base Barstow 07/89 . 11/89
CA Cenp Pendleton Marine Corps Base San Di ego COU"lty 07/89 11/89
CA Castle Afr Force Base Merced 10/84 .07/87
CA. Concord Naval Weapons Stetfon Concord 02/92 12/94 CA Edwards Afr Force Base Kem CCU\ty 07/89 08/90 CA. El Toro Marine Corps Afr Statton El Toro 06/88 02/90 CA" Fort Ord Marina 07/89 02/90
CA George_Afr Force Base Vfctorvi lie 07/89 02/90
CA Jet Pr-lsion Laboratory (NASA) Pasadena 02/92 10/92 .·CA LEHR/Old Caq,us Lardftll (USDOE) · Davis 01/94 •05/94
,CA Lawrence Livermore lab Site 300 (USDOE) Livermore 07/89 08/90
CA Lawrence Livl!rmore Laboratory (USOOE) L ;vermore · 10/84 07/87
CA Mar"ch Air Farce Base Riverside 07/89 11/89
CA Mather. Afr Force Bose Sacramento 10/84 07/87
CA McClellan Afr Force Base (GW Cont1111) Sacramento . 10/84 07/87
CA. Maffett Nevel Afr Stetfon Si.myvale 04/85 07/87 i:A Norton Afr Force Beae Sen Bernardi no 10/84 07/87
CA . Riverbank Army Alllu1ftfon Plont Riverbank 06/88 02/90
CA Seer-to Army Depot . Sacramento 10/84 ·01187
CA Sharpe Army Depot Lathrop '10/84 . 07/87
CA Trecy Defense Depot (USARNY) -Tracy . 07/89 08/90
CA Travis Afr Farce Base .Salano C01.r1ty. · · 07/89 11/89
CA Ti-eilsure Island Naval Stat'ion .. Hui Pt An San Francisca 07/89 11/89
23 Final + 0 Proposed •. 23
co Afr Force Pl..,t PJKS · . Waterton 07/89 11/89 co Rocky Flats Plont (USDOE) Golden 10/84' 10/89 co Rocky Ma<-.tefn Arsenal (USARMT) Adams Ca<-.ty ·10184. 07/87
3 Final + 0 Proposed • 3
·CT New London s.-rtne Base New London 10/89 08/90
1 Ffr,al-+ 0 Proposed • 1
DE Dover Air Farce lase Dover 10/84 03/89
1 Final_+ O_Propoaed-• 1
9
•
Federal
. Nati0!'18l Priorities list
Facilities Section, Final and Proposed Sites (by St8te)
Decent>er 1994
St Site Name
FL Cecil Field.Naval Air Station
·FL Homestead Air Force .Base .
FL Jacksonville Naval Air Station
F.L -·Pensacola Naval Air Station·
FL llllitlng Field Naval Afr Station
5 Final + 0 Pr"""9ed • 5
GA Marine Corps Logistics ·ease
GA Robins Air F_orce Base(Lf#4/Sludge lagoon
2 Final + ~ Pr"""9ed • 2 ·
.GU Andersen Air Force Ba~•
1 F.lnal + 0 P,._aed •
MI Naval C~er & Telecomu,fcatfons Area
· H_I · P·eerl Harbor Naval C~lex ·
HI Schofield Barracks (USARMY)
3 Final + 0 Pr_...t ■ 3
IA Iowa Army Alllllunttfon Plant
_-1 Final + 0 Pr"""8ed ■ 1-
1D 1-o National Engineering Lab (USDOE)
IP MCUltain Home Afr ·Force Base ·
IL Joliet Antrf Aam.Jnition Plant (LAP Area)
._IL Joliet Army Aam.lnftfon Plant (Mfg Area)
· IL ·sangamo Electric/Crab Orchard NIIR (USDOI
IL · . Savama Anny Depot Ac_t t vi ty
4 Final ,+ 0 Pr"""8ed • '4
KS . Fort ilfley ·
1 Final + 0 Pr"""8ed • 1
ICY Pecb:ah Gaaeous Otffuston Plant (USDOE)
1 Final + 0 Pr"""8ed • 1 .
LA Louisiana Anoy -.ittton Plant
, 1 Final + 0 P_r_...t • 1
MA Fort Devens ..
. MA Fort Oevens·SIMblry Training Amex
-NA HansCam field/Hanscom Air ForCe Base .
, MA ,'M11tertals, Technology Laboratory·(USARMY)
MA Natfck·Laboratory'Army Research,D&E cntr
. :MA ,N8val weapons 1·ndustrial ·Reserve Plan~
.. MA Otta Afr National Guard (USAF)
MA South lleymouth Naval Afr Station ,
8 Fi{l8l + 0 Proposed • 8
·10
Jacksonville
Homestead
J8cksonvi l le
Pensacola
Mil ton
Albany
Houston Cou,ty .
· Yigo
Oahu
Pearl Harbor ...
,Oahu
Middletown
Idaho Falla
M0111ta f n Home
Joi let
Joi let
Cartervf lie
·-Savama
Jcnctton City
Pecb:ah
Ooyl ine
Fort Devens
Middlesex COU'\ty
Bedford · ·
Watertown
Natick
. Bedford
Falmouth
lleymouth
Date
07/89
07/89
07/89
07/89
01/94
11/89
08/90
11/89
· 11/89
05/94
07/89 11/89
--10/84 07/87
02/92 10/92
· 01/94
, 07/91
07/89
05/94
10/92
08/90
07 /89' 08/90
07/89 11/89
07/89 08/90
04/85
10/84
10/84
10/84
03/89
07/87
07/87
03/89
_07 /89 . '08/90
. 05/93 .05/94
10/84 03/89
07/89
-07/89
'05/93
06/93
05/93
06/93
07/89
06/93
11/89 ·
02/90
05/94
. 05/94
05/94
05/94
11/89
05/94
•
National Priorities List
°Federol Facilities Section, Final and .Proposed Sites (by State)
Deceni>er 1994
.. Date
---------------St Site Nome Ci ty/Cou,ty Proposed Final
II) ;Aberdeen Proving Grl>lnl (Edgewood Areai Edgewood 04/85 02/90
II) Aberdeen Proving Grl>lnl(Michaelsville LF Aberdeen 04/85 10/89
JI) -,Bf!l tivf°lle_.Agr; cul tuial Research (USDA) Bel tsvfl le 05/93 05/94
II) PatUXerit River Naval Air Station -· st; Mary••. Cou,ty . 01/94 05/94
4 Final + 0 Prop0sed a 4:
ME a,,.,.wick Naval Air Station Sru,swf ck 10/84 07/87
ME Lorfng Air Force Base Limestone 07/89 02/90
ME Portimouth Novel Shipyard Kittery 06/93 05/94 · .
3 Final + D Proposed • 3
Ml wurtaafth Alr,Force B•~• I OSCO Ccu,ty · 01/94
0 Final.• 1 Proposed• 1
MN Naval JndJstrial Reserve Ordnance Plant Fridley 07/89 11/89
'MN New Brighton/Arden Hills/TCAAP (USARMY) New Brighton 12/82 09/83
MN Twin Cities Afr Force Base(SAR Landfill)· Minneapolis 01/87 .07/87
3 Final + 0 Proposed = 3
MO Lek.a City Anny Annu. Plant (NM Lagoon). lnclepe11de11ce 10/84 07/87 .. MO Moldan Spring Former Afflf'f Ordnance Marks St.Charles Cou,ty 07/89 · 02/90 . MO Mildon Spring QuarryiPlant/Pftts(USDOE) . St. Charles Ccu,ty 10/84 07/87
3 Final + 0 Proposed • 3
NC c-LeJO\n! Military Res. (USNAVY) 0nslow Cou,ty 06/88 10/89
NC _Cherry Point Marine Corps.Air Statton Havelock 08/94 12/94
2 Final ♦, 0 Proposed = 2
NE CorMusker Anny Annunftion Plant Hal I Cou,ty 10/84 07/87
1 Final + 0 Proposed •
NH Pease Air Force Base Portsmouth/Newington 07/89 . 02/90
1 Final + D. Proposed • 1
NJ· Federal Aviation Achin. Tech. Center .AUantic Cou,ty 07/89 08/90
NJ Fort Dix (Landfill Site) · Pent>erton T-,shfp 10/84 · 07/87
NJ . Naval Afr Engineering Center Lakehurst 09/85 07/87
.NJ hval lleapons Station Earle (Site Al Col ts Neck 10/84 08/90 , NJ Picatinny Arsenal (USARMY) Rockaway Township 07/89 02/90
NJ M.R~ ~race/W_ayne· Interim Storage (USDOE) . Mayne T-,sllip 09/83 09/84
6 Final + 0 Proposed • 6
·NM CBI Mest Metal• (USSBA) -Lemf tar 06/88 03i89
NM LN Acres Landfill (USDOI) Farmington 06/88 08/90
2 Final·+ 0 Proposed• 2
NT Brookhaven National Labornory (USDOE> Upton 07/89 11/89
NY Grfffiss Afr Force Base Roma .10/84 07/87
NY Plattsburgh Afr Force Base Plattsburgh 07/89 , 11/89
NY Seneca A~ D-t R0C1L1lus · ···01189 08/90
4 Final + 0 Proposed • 4
11
---::_;;,-..
. . Nation&l Priorities List ,,
'Federal Facil itfes Section, Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
· · Deceailer 1994
Date ... --................. -,-.
St Slte·Nama Ci ty/Cou,ty Proposed Final
OH Air Force Plant 85 Collm>US 01/94 OH. Feed Materials Production Center (USDOE) Fernald 07/89 11/89 OH · -Plant (USDOE) Miamisburg 07/89 11/89 'OH Rickermacker Air National Guard (USAF) Lockbourne 01/94 OH Yright-Patterson Air Force Bas~ Dayton .06/88 10/89
3 Final ~ 2 Proposed • 5
OK Tinker Air Force(SOldfer Cr/Bldg 300) Oklahana City 04/85 07/87
1 Final + 0 Proposed • 1
OR Fremnt Nat. Forest 'uraniun" Mines (USDA) L.ake Cou,ty 06/93 OR -tllla Anny Depot (Lagoons) Hermiston 1D/84 D7/87
1 Fine I + 1 Proposed •· 2
PA . Letterkemy.Anny Oepot (PDO Area) Frankl In COOlltY 04/85 03/89 . PA L.etterkenny Anny Depot (SE Area) Chari,ersburg . 10/84 07/87 · PA Naval.Air Devel"opnent Center(S Areas) Warminster T0WnSMp 06/86 10/89 PA Navy Ships Parts Control Center ·. Mechanh:sburg 01/94 05/94 PA Tobyhama Anny Depot Tobyhanne D7/89 D8/90 . PA Willow Grove Naval Afr & Air·Res. Stn. · Willow Grove 08/94
5 Final + .1 Proposed • 6
PR -Naval Securfty'Gr~ Activity . Sabana Seca 06/88 1D/89 ' ~-·· 1 Ffnel + 0 Proposed • 1
:·, RI Daviavflle Naval Construction aBtt Cent North Kingii:on 07/89 11/89 f, Rf N.ewpoi-t Naval EciJcation/Tratnfng Center Newport D7/89 11/89 }
2 Final + D. Proposed • 2
SC Parris Island Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island -08/94 12/94' SC -Savannah River Site ,(USDOE) · Aiken 07/89 11/89
2 Final + D Proposed • 2
SD Ellsworth Air Force Base Rapid City 1D/89 . 08/90
1 Final ~ D Proposed • 1
TN Arnold Engineering Develop. Ctr. (USAF) Tullahoma/Manchester 08/94 TN . Meq,his Defense Depot (DLA) Meq,hfs 02/92 10/92 fN Mi Ian Anny Amu,ltlon Plant . Milan 1D/84 07/87 TN Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) Oak Ridge D7/89 11/89
3 Final +·1 Proposed• 4.
TX. Air Force Plant #4 (General Dynamics) Fort.Worth 10/84 08/90 TX Lone Star Anny Anrnzlition.Plant Texarkana _ 10/84 07/87 TX Longhorn Anny _Amruiitlon Plant Karnack D7/89 08/90 TX Ps,tex Plant (USDOE,> -' _ -Pantex Vil I age 07/91 D5/94
4 Final + .o Proposed ,; 4
. UT Hill Air Force Iese Ogden 10/84 07/87 : UT Monticello Mi II Tall fngs (USDOE) Monticello 07/89 11/89
12
: __ -----... -
Netfonel Priorities List
Federal facilities Section, Final and Proposed Sites (by itate)
Decenl>er 1994
,:!'·if'
' . -.-~ •;·_ ·.
t St Site Name
. UT Ogden Defense Depot (DLA)
, UT Tooele Army Depot (North Area) ·
4 Final + 0 .Proposed • 4.
VA Defense General S"""ly Center (DLA)
VA Fort Eustis (US Army). .
·vA Langley Afr force Base/NASA Langley Cntr
VA Narine :corps C<lli>ot Development Caomand
...... _YA· N8vel Surf8ce Warfare • Dehlgren
VA Naval weapons Stat I on • Yorktown
6 .Final + 0 Proposed • 6
WA -•lean Lake Gardens/McChord AFB
WA Bangor Naval S1D118rlne Base
WA Bangor Ordnance Disposal (USNAVY).
.WA ·Bonneville.Power .Adnln Ross (USDOE)
.WA · Fairchild Afr Force Base (4 Wasta Areas)
·.WA Fort.Lewis (Landfill No.·5) .
. 'WA .Fort.Levis Logistics Cer)ter
. WA Hamilton Island Landflll(USA/COE)
WA ·Hanford 100•Area (USDOE)
WA Hanford 1100-Area (USDOE)
WA Han.ford 200-Area (USDOE).
. \WA Hanford 300-Aree (USDOE·)
'WA Jackson Park Housing Coq,lex (USNAVY)
:WA MCChOrd Afr Force-Base (Wash Rack/Treat)
WA Naval ·Air ·station, Whidbey Is (Seaplane)
.·WA 'Naval Air.Station, Whldbey laland (Ault)
··WA--.N8vel llndei"see Warfare Station (4 Areas)
WA' .. ot'it Navy D-/Nanchester Lab(USEPA/NOAA)
WA '•Port Hadlock Detachment (USNAVY)
WA Puget SO<nl Naval Shipyard COq)lex
' 20 Final + 0 Proposed • 20
W All09any Ball lsttcs Laboratory (USNAVY)
liv West Virginia ·ordnance (USARNY) •··
2 final+ 0 Proposed• 2
IN F.E. warren Afr Force·aeae
1 final ~ 0 Proposed • 1
154 Final + 6 .Proposed • 160.
13
Clty/C01.nty
Ogden
Tooele
Chesterf I eld C01.nty
Newport News
H"""ton
Quantico
Dahlgren
Yorktown
Taccma
Silverdale
Bremerton
Vancouver
Spokane C01.nty
Tacama
Tlllicun
North Bornevllle
Benton CO\l\tY
Benton COW1ty
Benton CCUlty
Benton C01.nty .
Kitsap Ca<nty
Tacama
Whidbey Island
Whldbey Island·
Keyport
Manchester
Indian Island
·Bremerton
Mineral·
Point Pleasant
Cheyeme
Dete
Proposed Final
10/84 07/87
10/84 08/90
10/84
01/94
05/93
05/93
02/92
.02/92
09/83
07/89
10/84
07/89
06/88
10/84
07/89
07/91
·06/88
06/88
06/88
06/88
06/93
10/84
09/85
09/85
06/86
01/94
06/93
05/93
07/87
12/94
· 05/94
05/94
10/92
10/92
09/84
08/90
07/87
11/89
03/89
07/87
11/89
10/92
10/89
10/89
10/89
10/89
05/94
07/87
02/90
02/90
10/89
.05/94
. 05/94
05/94
06/93 05/94
1.2/82 09/83
07 /89 · 02/90
.. St
AL
CA
co
Site•-
Gene.rel Superfin:t Sites
·Nationa·l Pi-forities List
Proposed Sites, by State
Deced>er 1994 ·
··Monarch Tile Manufacturing, Inc.
1 General Superfin:t Sites+ O Federal facility Sites= 1
General Superfin:1 Sites
Cooper Dr1.1n Co. ·
Del Amo Facility
GBF, Inc., D1.1rp
Stoker C011"8ny ·
4 General Superfllld Sites+ 0 Federal Facility Sites• 4
General Superfin:t Sites
ASARCO, Inc. (Globe Plant) .
Smeltertown Site
2 General Superfllld Sftes .+ 0 Federal Facility Sites =-2
CT General Superfin:t Sites
· Raymark: Industries, _Inc.
1 General Superfin:t Sites + 0 Federal Facility Sites • 1
FL . ·General Superfin:1 Sites
--Broward CCM61ty·•21st Manor D1.JJP
Plymouth Avenue Landfill . .
. Stauffer Chemical Co. (TBl1l)B Plant)
3 General Superfin:t Sites+ 0 Federal ·Facility Sites• 3
IA General Superfin:t Sites .
10
~ Waterloo Coal Gasification Plant
1 General Superfund_Sites + 0 Federal Fact.lity Sites• 1
General Superfin:t Sitea
Blackbf rd Mine
.. Trfu,i,11 Mine Tail fngs Piles . : • .
2 General Superfin:1 Sites+ 0 Federal. Facility Sites• 2,
IN General Superfin:t Sites .
U.S. Smelter & Lead Refinery Inc •
. 1 General Superfin:t Sites + O· Federal Faci ltty Sites = 1-.
LA General Superfin:t Sites
. Unc;oln Creosote . . .
1 General Superfin:t Sftea + 0 Federal Facility Sites •.1
Ml) Gener8l Super°flm Shes
Ordnance Products, Int.
1 General Super~Lm Sftes + 0 Federal f~cilftY·Sites •
OM! . Federal Facil tty Sites
Yurtsatfth A Ir Force Bale
0 General S'4)erfllld Sites + 1 federal. Faci l i~y Sites ■
MS ·General ~rfin:t Sites . ·
Chemfax, Inc.
POtter Co. • . · . · ·
Texas Eastern KOSciusk:o Conpressor Stn.·
3 General Superf&.rd Sites+ 0 Federal Facility Sites• 3
MT Gene~a·l Superfln:J Si1:8s
Burlington Northern Livingston ·ca'f1:)leX .. ,
· 1 GeMral ·superflm Sites + O. Federal Faci l i_tY Sites ·Ill'
·.NE · General .sUJ)erfund Sites·
· B_rl.l"IO Co·op Associa~fon/Assocfated Prop ·
1 General si.prfl..nd Sites +.Q· Federal Facility Sites·• 1
·14'
Location
Florence
South Gate
Los Angeles :Antioch .
•-rial :··
•· Denver
Salida
Stratford
Fort Lauderdale
OeLand
. TBl1l)B
Waterloo
Lemhi County
. Triu,i,11
East Chicago • ·
Bossier City·.
. Cec i l County :
JosCo C0'6'1ty
• .Gui fport
Wesson
Kosciusko
Livings_ton
Notes8 ·
A
St
NJ
;
'
NM
OH
QI(
OR
PA
so.
TN·
.TX
UT
VI
·.-.~.-WA
• National Priorities List·
Proposed Sites", by State
Deceri>er 1994
Site:,.,,.·
General S...,arfu-d Sites
Horseshoe Road
·1 General S'-""rfim Sites+ D Federal Facility Sites·= 1
General S'-""rfim Sites
Rfnchem Co., .Inc.
1 General Superflm_ Sites_+ ·O Federal Facility Sites ■ 1
General S'-""rfim Sites .
Diamond Shamrock Corp(P8inesvllle lilorks)•
Dover Chemical Corp.
·Federal Facility Sites
Air Force Plant 85
Rickenbacker Air National Guard (USAF)
· 2 General S'-""rfim Slt011 + 2 Federal Faci l ftY stt:es • 4
.General S'-""rfim Sites
National Zinc Corp.
1 General S'-""rfim Sites+ 0 Federal FaciHty Sit.es ■
Genera.I Si4)erfim Sites
Ea1t Mµltnomah C01..11ty Grtw.nt \ltr Contani.'
federal Facility Sites
Fremont Nat. Forest Uranfun Mines (USDA)·
1 'General Superflld SitH + 1 Federal Facility Sites • 2
• General S'-""rfim Sites
East Tenth Street
federal Facility Sites
Willow Grove Naval Afr & Afr Res. Stn.
1 General S'-""rfim Sites + 1 Federal Facility Sites• 2
•General S'-""rfim Sites
Amie cr .. k Mine.Tailings
1 General 5'-""rfim Sites+ 0 Federal Faci_lity_Sites ■ 1
General S'-""rfim Sites
Ternessee Procb:ts 7
: Federal Facil lty Sites
· ' · Arnold Engineering Develop. Ctr. (USAF)
1 ·ilenerol ·s'-""rfim Sites + 1 Federal Facility Sites• 2
General S'-""rfim Sites
RSR Corp.
, 1 General S'-""rfim Sltas + 0 Federal ·FacH i.t)'. ~ites ■ 1
,General· 5'-""rfim Sites
Kennecott (North Zone)
Kerw,ocott ·(South Zone)
Murray -lter
Rlchardaon flat Tailings
4 General SUperfim Sites+ 0 Federal Facility SltH • 4
General 5'-""rfim Sites
Island Chemical Corp/V. I. Chemical Corp
Tutu Well field
2 General S'-""rfim Sites,+, O Federal Facfl lty ·Sites • 2 .
General S'-""rfim Sites
Boansrtb/Afrco
Tulal Ip Landffl I
'FaCility Sites• 2 2 General S'-""rfim Sites·+ 0 Federal
15
•
Location Notes8
Sayreville
·Albuquer-
Painesville
-Dover
Colu!t,us
Lockbourne
, Bar-tlesvi l le
Multnomah COllnty
Lake COllnty .
Marcus Hook
\lil low ~rov·e ·
Leed
Chattanooga A
Tullahoma/Manchester
Dallas·
Magna
c._rton
Murray City
SUIIIII t COllnty
St. Croix
. Tutu
·. Vancouver s
Marysville
St· Site Name
NSttonal PrtOrtttes List
Proposed s;tes, by State
Decen-ber 1994
40 General Superfund Sites+ 6 Federal Facility Sites= 46
i.ocati0n
aA .. = Based on _issuance of health actv;sory by Agericy for Toxic S~tances and Disease Registry (°if scored, HRS score need not be > 28.50). .
s • State top priority (included emong the 100· top priority sites regardle_ss of score).
16
Notes8
Proposed Sites Removed FrCXD Consideration for NPL ,
\ .
St,. Site Nmne ·-f-
AR ;"Allen Transformer
AR 'cri ttenden C"'-"tY Lardf ll l
AR ·Magnolia City Lardflll
A2 Kingnmn Airport Industrial Area
AZ Mesa Area GrOl.nd Water Contamination
CA fMC Corp, (Fresno Plant)
CA Newlett•Packard
CA ·IBM Corp,. (Sen Jose Plant)·
CA Kaiser Steel Corp.(Fontana Plant).
CA. Marley ~ooltng Tower tO.
CA Precision Monol lthlc, Inc,.
CA Rhona·P.oulenc, lnc./Zoecon Corp.
CA Slgnetics, Inc.
CA Solvent Service; Inc.
CA •:.southern Pac~fic Tr~r~atton
CA· van Waters & Rogers, Inc.
co :Marttn-Narietta(DenYer Aerospace)
DC ·!uSA Fort ·Lincoln Barrel Site
· . DE Old Brine Sludge Lardfill
· Deceri>er 1994
Location
Ft. 51111th
Marion
Magnolia
Klngnan
Mesa
Fresno
Palo Al to
San Jose
Fontana
Stockton
Stockton
Santa Clara
Eost Palo Al to
SlfflYVale
San Jose
Roseville ·
San Jose
Waterton
Washington
, ~eleware City
17
Date
Removed
Proposed Score8 Otherb
10/23/81
47FR 58476
12/30/82
47FR 58476
10/26/89
54FR 43778
12/30/82
47FR 58476
06/10/86
51FR 21099
10/15/84
49FR 40320
10/15/84
49FR 40320
10/15/84
49FR 40320
06/24/88
53FR 23988
06/24/88
53FR 23988
10i15/84
49FR 40320
10/15/84
49FR 40320
·10/15/84
. 12/30/82c
09/08/83
47FR 40658 .
08/30/90
55FR 35502
09/21/84d
49FR 37070
06/10/86
51FR 21054
•49FR 40320 . i
10/15/84
49FR 40320
06/24/88
53FR 23988
10/15/84
·49FR 40320
10/15/84
49FR·40320
09/18/85
50FR 37950
10/23/81
'· 09/08/83 09/24/84
48FR 40674 49FR 37070
02/08/91
56FR 5598
10/04/89
54FR 41000
10/04/89
54FR 41000
10/04/89
54FR 41000
10/04/89
54FR 41000
08/30/90
53FR 35502
10/04/89
54FR .41000
10/04/89
54FR 41000
10/04/89
54FR 41000 ·
08/30/90
55FR 35502
10/04/89
54FR 41000
10/04/89
54FR 41000
10/04/89
54FR 4iOOO
12/30/82e
. 47FR 58476
• Proposed Sites Removed Fran Consideration for NPL ,
· · Oeceut>er 1994 . · · ..
St Site Nmae
OE Pigeon Point Landf il l
FL . Davidson LUlt>er Co.
·· FL Non~co_ Res~arch Pr~ta. Inc:.
FL Pr_att &.Whitney Ai-r/lJnited Tech
GA Olin Corp. (Areas 1 ,2 & 4)
"
HI Kunia wella I
HI Kunia wells II
HI Mil llanl Yells
MI .. Matawa Shaft
HI ,,llalpahu llella
Hl_c,llaipio Heights llella 11
IA ·A.Y. McDonald JndJstriel~ Inc.
IA Cheq,lex Co.
IA · Frit lnm.oatries (Humoldt Pl,.;,t)
. IA . John Deere (Dubuque llorka)
ID Fl ym Lumer Co. ·
. IL Sheffield (US Ecology, Inc.)
IL .. Stauffer a,.., (O,lc Heights Plnt) .
IL Warner Electric Brake & ·cluti;h Co
' Location
New Castle
South Miami
Hollister
\Jest Palm Beach·
Auguste·.
-Proposed
01/22/87
52FR 2492
Removed --;~;;;•········-~;~;;b~
10/04/89
54FR 41015
10/15/84 06/10/86
49FR 40320 . 51 FR 21054 ·
10/15/84 03/31/89
49FR 40320 54FR 13296
09/18/85 10/04/89
5_0FR 37950.. 54FR 41000
09/08/83 10/04/89
48FR 40674 54FR 41000
.. · • Oahu 10/15/84. 02/08/91f
0ahu
Oahu
0ahu
0ahu
Oahu
/
49FR 40320 56FR 5598
10/15/84 02/08/91f
49FR 40320 -56FR 5598
10/15i84 02/08/91 f .
49FR 40320 56FR 5598
10/15/84
49FR 40320
10/15/84 .. ,
49FR 40320
10/15/84
49FR 40320
02/08/91 f
56FR 5598
.· f
· ·02/08/91
56FR 5598
02/08/91f
56FR 5598
. Dubuque 09/18/85 10/04/89
50FR 37950 54FR 41000
Clinton/Camanche 10/15/84 02/08/91
49FR 40320 56FR 5598
... c,Hu,t,oldt ·. 04/10/85 10/04/89
. 50FR 14115 54FR 41000
. Dubuque 09/18/85 10/04/89
.50FR 37950 54FR 41000
. ·Mount Vernon · 10/15/84 . . 10/04/89 .
49FR.40320 54FR 41000
Caldwell. · 12/30/82 09/08/83
·· 47FR 58476 48FR·40658
Sheffield 10/15/84 · 10/04/89
49FR 40320 54FR 41000
Chicago Heights 01/22/87 10/04/89
52FR 2492 54FR_41015
. Roscoe 06/24/88 08/30/90
'53FR 23988 55FR 35502
18
-1 •
Pr'oposed Sites Removed From Consideration for NPL ,,
· Deceri>er 1994
_·_(:-.,;·:: . . ,:· Date
Removed
St Site _Name Location Pr-sed .. ',Score11 Otherb
IN Firestone·Jndustrial Products Co. Noblesville 09/1B/85 10/D4/89
. 50fR. 37950 54fR 41000
IN McCarty's Bald Knob Landfill !tt. Vernon 01/22/87 10/D4/89
52FR 2492 54FR 41015
IN Parrot Road D~ .. New Haven . 12/30/82 09/D8/83
47FR 58476 48FR 40658
KS National Industrial Envi~on serv Furley · 10/15/84 10/D4/89 ·
49FR 40320 54FR 41000
Ml E.I. du Pont (Montague Plant) . ' . .
Montague 10/15/84 03/31/89
49FR 40320 54FR 13296
Ml ford Motor Co. (Sludge Lagoon) Ypsilanti 01/22/87 D8/30/90
52FR 2492 55FR 35502
. Ml .. Hooker (Montague Plant) -. Montague 09/18/85 10/D4/89
50FR 37950 54FR 410D0
NI Lacks J~t~fes, Inc. Grand Rapids 10/15/84 10/D4/89
49fR-40320 54FR 41000
. Ml Lenawee Disposal Service, Inc. Landfill. Adrian 10/15/84 06/10/86
49FR 40320 51FR 21054
Ml Littlefield Township D~ Oden 12/30/82 09/21/84
47FR 58476 49FR 370~0
110 ffrdett Corp. . St~ Charles 10/15/84 02/D8/91
49FR 40320 56FR 5598
110 Qua fl R"' llobll a Manor Gray S111111ft 09/08/83 02/08/919
· 48FR 40674 56FR 5598
MS Gautier Oil ·coi, Inc. , Gautier 06/24/B8 08/3.0/90
53FR 239B8 · 5FR 35502
NS Plastffax,. Inc. Gulfport 12/30/82 · 09/08/83h_
48FR·40658
MT ·Burl lngton Northem(_Somers Plant> •. Somers 10/15/84 02/08/91
49FR 40320 56FR 5598
MT . Comet Oil Co. · Bill lngs 06/24/B8 02/08/91
. 53FR 23988 56FR 5598
NE Nonr~ AutO Equipiaent Co. -Cozad 09/18/85 . -10/D4/89
50FR 37950 54FR 41D0~ ..
. NE Phil l fps Chemical Co. • -Beatrice 12/30/82 -09/08/83
47FR 58476 48FR 40658
NJ ,.fforstmam•a D~ · East Hanover.· 01/22/87 03/31/89
52FR 2492 54FR 13296
NJ Jane Ff no Chem I cal . ·. BDlhl Brook 10/15/84 06/10/861.
49FR 40320 51FR 21054
19
• -PropoSed Sites Removed From Consideration for NPL /.
Deceoiler 1994
St Site •-. Location Proposed
NJ-Matlack, Inc. Woolwich·Township 09/18/85
50FR 37950
OH General Electric(Coshocton Plant) Coshocton 10/15/84
.49FR 40320
01:· :Karr'.NcGee Corp, (Cushing Plant) .Cushing 10/26/89
54FR 43778
OK • S1r1ray Oil Co, Reff nery. Allen 06/24/88
. 53FR 23988
PA Keyser Avenue Boreh~l• . Scranton . 06/24/88
53FR 23988
PA Rohm and Haas Co. Lardfill Bristol .Township 04/10/85
.. 50FR 14115
TX 'Pig Roa,{ New Maver l y _ .09/08/83
48FR 40674
TX Rio Grande Oil Co. Refinery · Sour Lake. 06/24/88
53FR 23988
UT Mayflower Mcultafn Tailings Pord ·wasatch·C0111ty 10/15/84 -
· 49FR 40320
UT -Olson/Neihart Reservoir Was&t_ch Cou,ty 10/15/84
49FR 40320
UT SI lver C_reek ·Tailings Park .City 09/18/85
50FR 37950
VA IBN Corp. (Nanasses Plent Spill). N&nassas 10/15/84 ·
. 49FR 40320
11A auendell Tenofnal --Renton 10/15/84
49FR 40320
WA Rosch Property Roy 09/08/83
48FR 40674
Green Bay 06/24/88
53FR 23988
Nev Martfnsvfl le 10/15/84
49FR 40320
. N.._,.r of sf tes removed: 76
a . /
Date·
Removed
Score8 ·otherb
02/08/91
56FR 5598
· 08/30/90
55FR 35502.
02/21/90
55FR 6154·
06/10/86
51FR 21054
. 08/30/90
55FR 35502
.06/10/86
51 FR 21054
03/31/89
54FR 13296
06/10/86
· 51FR 21054
09/21/84 .
49FR 37070
08/30/90
53FR 35502
10/04/89
·54FR 41000
10/04/89
54FR 41000
10/04/89 ·
54FR 41000
10/04/89
54FR 41000
10/04/89
· 54FR 41000 .
bfinal HRS score below 28.50. . 51.t>ject to-RCRA Sli>tftle C, except es noted. ~ ?'· lnt!ri•'Prforftfes List amcx.nced OCtober 23, .1981; ·removed at proposal of first .NPV (47FR 58476, Oeceoiler 30, •1982) •. •. Contannnatfon occurs naturally . ·· . . ·
(FOOtnot~, cantiru, on the next page.)
20
-...... .
St' Site Nana
--------~ • •
Proposed Sites Removed From Consideration for NPL
Deceri>er 1994
Location Proposed
Date
Ren:ived
Score8 Otherb
.--.. . . '
On Interim Priorities List amoon:ed October 23, 1981; removed at proposal of first NPL (47FR 58476, Deceri>er 3D, 1982),
1e Federal facility site and so ineligible at the time.
Pendingdeve.lopment of EPA pesticide pol icy. . · · .. • • . 1 ~No longer meets healih advisory iss~ by Agency for. Toxic Substances ard Disease Registry; .
. On Exparded Eligibility List arnounced·July.23, 1982; removed at proposal of first NPL (47FR 58476, Deceri>er 30, 1982)
.because ·st8te withdr"' top-prfor;ty desi&nat;o,l, HRS score below 28.50. · I • . . . -jlncluded i~ Brook Jrdustrial 'Park, listed OCtober 4, 1989 (54FR 41015).
Removed per SARA Section 118(p) ·
NOTE:· Th~-following. four sites wer_e proposed, removed, and then reproposed. In this case, the site has been listed: · _•'. Van. o·ale Jt.rik.yard, M8r'fetta, OH; prop0sed ·oecenber 30, .1_982 (47FR 58476>; removed Septed>er 8, 1983 (48FR ·
. ·. 40658);° reproposed OCtober 15, '1984 (49FR 40320); 1 isted June 10; 1986 ·c51FR 21054>. .
These.'.thrff .si~es have been _repropoSed t.rder · the revised HRS: · ·
-~C"oncord _Naval \Jeapon5 Station,. Concord, CA: proposed Ju-.e 24, ~988 (53FR 23988); reffl0ved August 30, 1990 (55FR
. 35502); reproposed February 7, 1992 (57FR 4824). · ·
GBF, Inc., Antioch, CA: proposed Ju,e 24, 1988 (53FR 23988); removed OCtober 4, 1989 (54FR 41015); reproposed
February 7, 1992 (57FR 4824). .
·Richardson Flat. Tailings, Sunnit C01.ity, .UT: pr0po'!ed June 24; 1988·(53FR 23988); renoved February 11,· 1991
·. (56FR 5598); reproposed February 7, 1992 (57FR 4824). ·
21
-~~://: ,._. . ,·.:· .. · ,17; .. .-_,._ . · ···•·;<~":-; • •
Netionel Priorities List
Final and Proposed Sites Per State/Territory
(by·New Finol Sites)
·--,~~;: . December 1994
. . .. New Final Total Final Total Proposed
·······------·-······ ·------·-····-·
Stete/Territory Gen Fed Gen Fed ·Gen Fed Total
South Carolina 2 1 24 2 D 0 26
New York 2 D 78 4 0 0 82
North Carolina° 1 1 21 2 0. ·o 23
Florida 1 0 5D 5 . 3 0 58
Hewai t 1 D 1 3 0 0 4
Iowa 1 0 17 1 1 0 19
Louisf ena ; 0 12 1 1 ,0' 14
Minnesote 1 0 38 3· 0 0 41
Nebraska 1 0 8 1 . 1 0 10
New Mexico 1 0 .8 2 1 o. 11
Oregon 1 0 .9 1 1 1 12
Ternessee 1 . O• 13 ·3 . 1 1 .18
· -California 0 1 69 23 4. 0 96
Virginia 0 1 19 6 0 0 25
Alabama 0 0 9 3 1 0 13
Alaska 0 0 2 6 0 ·o 8
American Samoa 0 0 0 0 0 0 ·o
Arizona 0 0 7 3 0 0 10
Arkansas 0 0 12 O· 0 0 12
·Colorado 0 0 13 . 3 2 0 18
Conmonwealth of Marianas 0 0 0 0 0 0 o·
Connecticut 0 .0 13 1 1 0 .15
OelaWare 0 0 18 1 0 0 19
District of Colurt>ia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Georgia 0 0 11 2 0 0 13
· Guam 0 0 1 1 0 0, 2
, Idaho 0 0 i; 2 2 0 10
Illinois 0 ·o 33 4 0 0 37
Indiana 0 0 32 0 1 0 33
Kansas 0 0 .9 1 0 0 10
Kentucky 0 0 ·19 1 ' 0 ·o 20
Mail'.'4! .o 0 7 3 0 0 10
Narylond 0 0 8 4 1 0 13
Massachusetts 0 0. 22 8 0 0 30
Michigan 0 0 76 0 0 1 77
Mississippi· 0 0 2 0 3 0 5
Missouri 0 0 ·19 3 0 0 22
Montana 0 ·o 8 0 1. 0 9
Nevada 0 .0 1 0 0 0 1
New H81'1)Shire 0 0 16 1 0 0 17
New-Jersey .. 0 0 100 6 1 ·o 107
North Dakota 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
Qhjo 0 0 31 3· 2 2 38 I.
Oklahoma o· 0 9 1 .1 D 11
Pemsylvanta 0 0 95 5 1 1 102
Puerto Rico 0 0 8 1 0 ·o 9
Rhode lslond 0 0 10 ·2 0 0 ,12
South Dakota 0. 0 2 1 1 0 4
Texas 0 0 25 4· 1 .. 0 30
Trust Territories 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Utah 0 0 8 4 4 0. 16
Yennont 0 0 8 0 '0 . 0 8
vtrgin lslonds 0 0 0 0 ·2 0 2
Yashington 0 0 33 20 2 0 55
llest Yfrgtnia 0 0 4 2 0 0 6
-llisconsin 0 0 40 0 0 0 40
Wyoming 0 0 2 1 0 0 3
Total 14 4 '1088 154 40 6 1288
22
• •
National Priorities List final and Proposed Sites (by EPA Region)
Deceri>er ·1994
final Proposed
··----------·----·------Reg . State/Terri_tory ·. · Gen Fed Gen Fed Total·
' Comectfcut 13 ' 1 1 D. 15 . Massachusetts 22 8 .D . D 30 Maine 7 3 D 0 -10 New Heq,shf re 16 1 0 o· 17 Rhode lslard 10 2 0 0 12 ··-··vennont 8 0 o_ D ,8 -
76 15 0 92
• 2 New Jersey · 100 6 1 0 107 New York. 78 4 0 0 82 Puerto Rico ·8 ·1 0 0 9 Virgin lslerds · 0 0 2 0 2·
• I
186 11 3 . -0 200
3 Dfstrict of C0ll.ll'bia 0 0 0 0 0
Delaware 18 1 . 0· 0 ·19 Maryland 8 4 . 1 0 · 13 Pemsylvania 95 ·5 1 1 102 Vfr'ginia• · 19 6 0 0 25 ~•t·vfrginia 4 2 0 0 6
' -
144 18 2 165
4. Alaboma 9 j 1 0 13 Florida 50 5 3 0 58 Georgia 11 2 0 0 13 Kentucky 19 1 0 0 20 Mississippi ·2 0 3, .0 5 North Carolin& 21 2 0 0 -23 South Carolina 24 ·2 0 '0 26 Ternessee 13 3 . 1 1 18
-,
149 18 •8 176
5 ll linoi■ . 33 4 0 0 · 37
Indiana 32 0 1 0 -33 -Michigan . 76 0 0 1 n Nfmesota 38 3 0 0 41' ·01110 . 31, · : 3 2 2 38 Wfaconsfn 40 0 .0 0 40 ---
250 ·10. .3 3 266
6 -~Arlt8"Sas 12 0 0 0 12. Louisiana · 12 1 1· 0 14 New Mexico 8 2 -·1 o· 11 Oklahoma : 9 1 1 0 11 Texas ·25 4 1 0 30
.66 8 4 0· 78
23
•
National Priorities List
Final and Proposed Sites (by EPA Region)
Deceri>er 1994
·;: ...
Final Proposed
-----------------------. Reg State/Territory Gen · Fed Gen Fed Total
• ·, 7 Iowa 17 1 --1 D 19 Kansas ·9 1 0 0 10
Missouri 19 3 0 0 22
Nebraska 8 . 1 1 0 10
53. 6 2 0 .. 61
8 Colorado 13 3 2 0 18
Montana 8 0 . 1 . 0 9
North Dakota 2 0 0 0 2
South Dakota '2 , 1 0 4
Utah 8 4· 4 0 16 Wyoming 2 1 0 0 3
.
35 9 8 ·O 52
9 Corrmonwealth of Marianas 0 0 0 0 o·
American Samoa 0 0 0 0 0 · Arizona 7 3 0 0 10
Cal lfomia 69 · 23 4 0 96 Guam 1 1 ·o o. 2
Hawaii 1 3 0 0 4
Nevada 1 0 0 0 . 1
Trust Territories o· 0 0 0 0
79 30 4 0 113 ·
10 Alaska. 2 6. 0 0 8 Idaho 6 2 2 0 10 Oregon 9 , T 1 12
Washington 33 20 - 2 0 55
-
50 · · 29 5 1 85,
r
·Total · 1088 154 . 40 6 1288
24
.;;,.
FEDERAL REGISTER
· NOTICES
Date/Citation/Number of·
Sites
/
-. Number of Sites
Date Final _Proposed ,,
,·
October 23, 1981 -115 ("Interim Priorities List")' 115
July 23, 1982 ,·
45 ("Expanded Eligibility List")' 160
. December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58476) _
4 I 8 (proposal of first NPL; including 153 of 160 sites · 418
announced previousiy) . -. .
March 4, 1983 (48 FR 9311) . ' I (proposal of Times Beach, Missouri) . 419
September 8, 1983 ( 48 FR 40658) ,•
406 (promulgation of first NPL; 1 proposed site split_ into 2
sites; 1 site deleted; 6 proposed sites dropped; 7 sites remain ·
proposed) ' 406 140 .
September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40674)
133 (Proposed Rule #1)
May 8, 1984 (49 FR 19480)
4 (promulgation of 4 San _Gabriel Valley Sites in California, 410 136
part of Proposed Rule #I)
September 21, 1984 (49 FR 37070)
128 (promulgation of 123 Proposed Rule #1 sites and 5 from .538 4
original proposal; 4 proposed sites dropped)
October 15, .1984 (49 FR 40320)
244, including 36 Federal facility sites_ (Proposed Rule #2) 538 ' 248
February 14, 1985 (50 FR 6_320) -
2 (promulgation_ of Glen Ridge and Montclair/West Orange 540 246
Radium Sites in New Jersey; pan of Proposed Rule #2)
April 10, 1985 (50 FR 14115) I --
32, including 6 Federal facility sites (Proposed Rule #3) 540 278
September 16, 1985 (50 FR 37630)
•' (promulgation of Lansdowne Radiation Site in Pennsylvania, · .541 277'
· pan of Proposed Rule #3)
September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37950)
41, · including 3 Federal facility sites and one reproposed site 541.. 318
(Proposed Rule #4) . '
.
25
. Total
115
160
418
419
' . 546
546
. 542
'
786
786
, 818
818
859
•
-FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
(continued)
'. .,: . .
. '. Number of Sites
, . -Date ' Final. Proposed Total
June 10, _1986 (51 FR 21054) ·
170 (promulgation of sites from ProposedRules #1-4; 8 ·sites
deleted) ' ·-
.
June 10, 1986 (51 FR 21099) 703. 185 888 45, including 2 Federal Facility sites (Proposed Rule #5)
June 10, 1986 (51 FR 21109)
proposed RCRA policy; reopening of comment period for
5 sites·
January 22, 1987 (52 FR 2492)
64, including I Federal facility site (Proposed Rule #6) 703 2482 . 951
February 25, 1987 (52 FR 5578)
A vaiiiibility of information
.
May 13, 1987 (52 FR 17991)
proposed RCRA policy for Federal facility sites ,,
July 22, 1987_ (52 FR 27620)
99 (promulgation of sites from Proposed Rules #2-6) -
802 149 951 July'22, 1987 (52 FR 27643) ,,
7 (reproposal of Federal_ facility sites) -• I
June 24, 1988 (53 FR 23978) --43 (reproposal of RCRA sites) I
799' 378 1,177 J'une 24, 1988 (53 FR 23988) -
229, including 14 l'ederal facility sites (Proposed Rule #7)
-
August 9, 1988 (53 FR 30002/30005) _ -
RCRA policy statements .
March 13, 1989 (54 FR-10512) ..
(8 Federal facility sites) ·
and 890'
March 31, 1989 (54 FR 13296)
.273 · 1,163 .
IOI (promulgation of sites from Proposed Rules #2-7; .
4 proposed sites dropped)
May 5, 1989 (54 FR 19526) .. -10 (Proposed Rule #8) 890 '283 1,173
July 14, 1989 (54 FR 29820)
. 52 Fcderal·Jacility sites (Proposed Rule #9) . 889' 335 1,224 -
August 16, 1989 (54 FR 33846) ,.
2 (proposal of ATSDR sites) 889 337 1,226
' ..
· 26
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
·-,. · (continued) .
-. ~· . .. Number of Sites . :::"}": ,_, . . ,_. . , Date . Final Proposed Total
October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41000/4101.5)
93 (promulgation of sites from Proposed Rules #2-8; 31 9813 213 1,194
, . proposed sites dropped)
October 26, 1989 (S4 FR 43778)
25, including 2 Federal facility sites (Proposed Rule #10, last 981 238 1,219.
proposed rule under original HRS) . :
November 21, 1989 (S4 FR 48184)
29 (promulgation of 27 Federal facility sites from· Proposed Rule 1,010 209 1,219
#9 arid 2 ATSDR sites; expansion of I Federal facility site) ·
February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6154)
71 (promulgation of sites from Proposed Rules #2-7, 9; · · ·1,081' 137 1,218
1. proposed site dropped)
March 14, 1990 (55 FR 9688)
I (promulgation of United Heckathorn Co., Richmond, 1,082 136 1,218 ·
California, pan of Proposed Rule # I 0) ,
.. ' Aug,m 30, 1990 (55 FR 35502).
106 (promulgation of sites from Pro~ Rules #2, 5-10; 10 1,1873 · 20 1,207
proposed sites dropped) .
February 11, 1991 (56 FR 5598) . · . ,.
6 (promulgation of sites from Proposed Rules #2, 5-7, '10; 1,189' · 0 1,189
·. 14 proposed sites dropped) (last final rule under original HRS) .
May 9, 1991 (56 FR 21460)
1,1883 ..
I (proposal of A TSDR site) · I I, 189
July 29, 1991 (56 FR 35840) -
22 .(Proposed Rule # 11, tint proposed rule under revised HRS) 1,188 ·23 1,211
.
September 25, 1991 (S6 FR 48438)
I (promulgation of ATSDR. site) . . 1,1853 22 1,207
February 7, 1992 (57 FR 4824) ,.
30 (Proposed Rule #12) · •: '. . l, 1833 52 1,235
October 14, 1992 (57 FR 47181) .
,
33 (promulgation of sites from Proposed Rules #11 and 12);
tint final rule under revised .HRS .
October 14, 1992 (57 FR 47204) 1,2083·'. -. 28 .1,236' .
9 (Proposed Rule #13)
I
I • ••
I
May 10, 1993 (58 FR 27507)
..
26 (Proposed Rule #14) 1,202'·' . 54 1,256 ·
.
•
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES.
(continued)
.. -I Number of Sites .. .... --
Date .
. .
, Final Proposed
June 23, 1993 (58 FR 34018)
I 7 (Proposed Rule # I 5) · 1,199'·' 71
January 1s; 1994 (59 FR 2568) ' 26 (Proposed Rule # 16) 1,1923 97
.
February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8724) . ..
I (promulgation of ALCOA (Point Comfort)/Lavaca Bay, Point
Comfort, Texas) 1,191' .. 96 .
May 31, 1994 (59 FR 27989)
42 (promulgation ofsites from Proposed Rules #11-16) 1,2323 54
December 1994 · · . • . .
18 (promulgation of sites from Proposed R~es 12-14, 16 and· 1,2423 . 46
17)
'No Federal Register notice. . .
2Silver Creek Tailings, Park City, UT, removed October 17, 1986 as required by CERCLA Section 118(p). ·
'Reflects site(s) deleted since last rule. .
'Reflects site(s) removed since last rule.
\
28
.
Total
..
1,270
1,289
1,287
1,286
1,288
· United States
Environmental Protection ·
Agency
•
For further information, .call the Superfund Hotline, toll-free
1·800:424•9346 or (703) 412'.981.0 in Washington, DC
1111tropolitan area, or the U.S. EPA Superfund Regional Offices
lisled below.•
For publications, contad
_ EPA Superfund Docket, 5201
. 401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
[phone]
Olllce of Emergericy and Remedial Response, 5204G
· Unitea Stales Environmental Protection Agency . · . . 401 M Street SW
.
Connecticut
llalne
llassachusetls
Washington, DC 20460 -
[phone] .
Realon 1
· .. New Hampshire . .. .. Rhode Island
.Vermont . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. •' ..
.• Waste Management Division, HAA-CAN-1 .. . John F. Keruiedy Federal Building
-::.-· .. . Boston, MA 02203-2211 .
., [phone]
• Realon 2
New.Jersey Puerto Rico
New York ·--~~~--. . . .. . • ... ..... . . . ...
.·, F.mergency and Remedial~ DivisiOD
· : ·· . . · 26 Federal Plaza ·
; New York, NY 10278 . . i212\.264-8672
Region 3
Delaware Pennsytvna
Dlst!lct of Columbia Virginia
. -~-.. . . . . . . . . . . ~~~---..
Site Assessment Section, 3HW73 .
.841Chestnut Building.
Philadelphia, PA I 9 I 07
' ,'. ,. . . . [phone] .
Realon 4 · -Alabama Mississippi ...
Flolkla North Caollna
Georgia SouthClrollna --~--· Tam111ee · 'Waste Maiuigeuient bivisfmi .· .•.. . ..
'. 345 Counland Street NE .•
.. Atlanta, GA 30365
1404) 347-5065
·• Reolon 5
Ullnola
Indiana Ohio
• ; M_lc!d98!1 • • • • Wlsconlln . ,, ... wasie 0Management Divisimi • •
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 6th Floor
ChiClll!o, IL 60604
1312\ 886-7570 ·.
Louisiana
New Mexico
Realon 6
Oklahoma
Texas
. .
· · · -~~ ww" Maiu;g~, bivisi~ iili-ii · · ·
~ · .1445 Ross Avenue
Dalla.,, TX 76202-2733
[phone]
Realon 7 ·
ICIW1I. Missouri
. Kll'lsas Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....
, . Waste Management DivisiOD
726 Minnesota Avenue . . . Kansas City, KS 66101
[phone] or 551-7595.
... ·, . Region 8
;:IOUlll UIUWfa
Montana Utah
•. N!JIPI.D!llc!)l!I. ; ••••••••• : \lfY!K!llr)g, ••••••
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 8HWM-SR . . . . · · 999 18th Street, Suite 500 · . ,, Denver, CO 80202-2466
' [phone]
. .. Realon 9 ... ,..,ncan _ .. oa · _,, , · Northern Marianas
Arizona Hawaii Trust Territories
. ~ C!l'!fo!n!a. . . . . . . ~-" -. . • • . . • . • • • . • .
.Waste Management Division, H-1 · . . 75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
. . . [phone]
Realon 10
"""'"" ~~on Idaho , . . Washington . . . . . . . . ··-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
· Hazardous Waste Division, HW-113
· 1200 6th Avenue
, '
· Seattle. WA 98101
·. 111161 553-1677
. ii, AD.EPA telephone and telecommunications systeim may lie
, 111 c sed via the Fedenil Teleci>mmimicailns System (Fl'S),
•.
' .
. . United States
· Environmental Protection Agency
I,
Office of · Publication 9320. 7-041
Solid Waste and December 1994
Emergency Response
. . oEPA-Background -Information:
National Priorities List,
Final Rule
. Office of Emergency and Remedial Resgonse
· Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (52 4G)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
adding 18 sires to the National Priorities List (NPL) in
a rule' published in the Federal Register in December
1994. · Of the 18 sites in Final Rule #13, 14 are in ·the
· General~ Section and 4 in the Federal Facilities
Section." The siies are in 14 States. South Carolina is
adding three sites; New York and North Carolina are
adding two sites; and a number of States arc adding one ·
site.
The starus of the NPL is as follows: -
General Federal . Total
Proposed 40 6 46
Final 1,088 154 1,242
Final Rule #13 (14) (4) Previous Final (1,082) (ISO)
Proposed Plus Final 1,288
EPA is not the lead agency at Federal facility sites,
and its role at such sites is accordingly less extensive
. than at sites in the Gel!era1 Superfund Section. Under
Executive Ordei 12580 and CERCLA Section 120, each
Federal agency is·_ responsible for carrying ont most
response action,; at facilities under its own jurisdiction,
custody, or control; although EPA is responsible for
scoring Federal facility sites. ·
The NPL identifies uncontrolled · hazardous waste
sites !ha! wammt further investigation to determine if
long-term "remedial action" is necessary, The sites in_
the Genera! Superfund Section of the NPL arc eligible
Intermittent Bulletin · -Volume 4, Number 4
. ~
. for remedial action funded under the Comprehensive
·· Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), enacted on December 11, 1980_, as
amended by ·. the Superfund Amendments and
· Reauthorization Act (SARA), enacted on October 17,
1986. -· SARA authorized a "Hazardous Substances
Superfund" totalling $8.5 billion over 5 years to pay
costs · for overseeing work by those responsible for
. cleaning up waste sites, and to pay costs not assumed by
. responsible parties for cleanup at sites in the, General
Superfund Section of the NPL, In October I 990, SARA
was .extended to September 30, 1994 to provide an
· additi~nal $5, I billion. An appropriation by Congress
for Fiscal Year 1995 authorized Superfund to continue
to operate,
EPA's goals for the Superfund program arc to:
• Address the worst sites and the worst problems
first
• Make sites safe by immediately controlling acuie
· threals to people and the environment ·
• Develop and use -new . tecbnologies for more
effective cleanups
·EPA _continually seeks ways to evaluate and clean up
_ sites more quickly. The "Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model" (SACM) involves several pilot projects
. aimed ai 'streamlining the Superfund process. EPA will
describe . any changes to the process resulting from ·
: SA.CM as they are identified. . .
This document provides background information on
the iule and two lists:
• Toe names and locations of the 18 Final Rule #13 .
sites
• Toe 1,288 final and pniposed NPL sites by stale
CONTENTS OF RULE
Two sites in this rule may be subject to Subtitle C of
· the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
. EPA's policy is, in general, not to place sites subject to'
RCRA Subtitle C corrective action authorities on the
NPL because the owners can be forced legally to take
such action under RCRA. However, certain .caiegories
will be listed if EPA concludes that doing so best
funhers the aims of the· NPURCRA policy and the
CERCLA program -that is, cleaning up sites
expeditiously while conserving CERCLA's fixed
resowci:s. One of the. sites in this caregory open!!ed a
RCRA Trealmeht, Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) under interim sta1us until their RCRA Pan B Pennit
application was denied and they were forced to close.
· :The loss of authorization to operate qualifies this site for
NPL listing: llie second site potentially subject to
RCRA involves a RCRA subtitle C regulated facility
· which qwdifies for NPL listing because of bankruptcy.
• Toe two sites in this caregory are respectively,
• Aqua-Tech . Environmental .Inc. (Groce .
Laboratories), Spanenburg County, ~th
Carolina
• ·. Onondaga Lake, Syracuse, New York
All sites in this rule scored 28.SO or ·greater on the
Ha=!. Rimldng System (HRS). · EPA's policy is to .
. 'place Fc:deral facility sites on the NPL if they have an ·
HRS score of 28.SO or greater, even if the. Federal
facility also is subject to the corrective action authorities .
: · of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
· Subtitle C. In that wey, those sites could be cleaned up
. under CERCLA, if appropriate. This rule includes 4 .
Federal facility sites ..
EPA empbasius that designating a site as Federal or ~ non-Federal bas no legal significance and is purely
informational in nature. . . Such · designation does not
determine, or limit, the extent of any Federal agency's
obligations under CERCLA Section _120. EPA solicits
·comments on the most appropriate designation of the
site ..
2
OTHER SITE ACTIONS
At the.time of the last proposed rule (59 FR 43314,
August 23, 1994), 1,232 sites were on the final NPL.
With this rule, the number is increased to 1,242. Eigbt
sites were deleted because no funher response is
required to protect human health and the environment.
• Yakima Plating Co., Yakima, Washington (59
FR 43291, August 23, 1994)
• Wide Beach Development, Brant, New York (59
FR 44633, August 30, 1994)
• • Revere Textile Prints Corp.. · Sterling,
Connecticui (59 FR 45628, September 2, 1994)
• · North-U _Drive Well Contamination, Springfield,
·. Missouri (59 FR 46354, September 8, 1994)
• BioClinical Laboratories, Inc.. Bohemia, New
York (59 FR 46569, September 9, 1994)_
• C & J Disposal Leasing Co, Dump, Hamilton;
· New York (59 FR 48178, September 20, 1994)
•• · Ringwood Mines/Landfill, Ringwood Borougb, New Jersey (59 FR 54830; November 2, 1994)
• Allied Plating, Inc., Portland, Oregon (59 FR .
. 56409, November 14, 1994)
The names· of two sites have been modified to better
reflect the nature of the sites.
• Baytown Township Ground Water _Plume
(previously Lake Elmo Airpon/Ground Water
Ccmtamination)
• Ogallala Ground Water Contamination·
(previously American Shizuki/Ogallala
"
Electronics Co.) ·' .
· CONSlRUCTION COMPLETION LIST
. _ EPA.bas developed the Construction Completion List
(CCL)(58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993) to better show the . smful rompletion of Superfund response action at
present or foimer NPL sites. The CCL i< intended to
enhana: public undemanding of the status of cleanup
pro!l"S5 at sites.
· The CCL now totals 279 sites, all bw rwo · from th~
General Superfund Section.
Oeanups at sites on the NPL do not reflect the total
. ·pictureofSuperfundaccomptisbments AsofNovember
1994, EPA bad ronducted 2,979 removal actions, 648 of
them at NPL sites. · Information on removals is available ·
from the Superfund Hotline .
. ADDmONAL PUBLICATIONS ..
, . Single ropies of rwo additional publications relalive
to this rule are available from the EPA Superfund
Docket; telephone [phone]:
• . Supplmu!ruary Materials: National Priorities
List, FmaIRule. Publication 9320.7-051, Volume
4, Number 4, December 1994 ..
• Descriptions of 18. Fmal Sites Added to thL
. · National Priorities List in .December .1994. ·
Publication 9320.7-071, Volume 4, Number 4, ·
. December 1994.
•
3
FL Escant>i a Wood •
HI Del Monte Corp.
Pensacola
National Priorit'ies List•
General S14M'rfund Section, Final Rule (by State)
Decem,er 1994
Location
· ·Pensacola.
(Oahu Plantation) H~nolulu County
IA~ Mason City coBl Gasification Plant Mason City
LA Agriculture Street Landfill New Orleans
MN Baytown Township GrOllld Water Plune Baytown Township
NC General Electric Co/Shepherd Fann East Flat Rock. ''
NE Ogallala Ground Mat~r Contamination Ogallala
NM. AT&SF (Albuquerque) Albuquerque
NY Onondaga Lake Syracuse NY Pfohl Brothers Landfill Cheektowaga
OR Reynolds Metals C-ny Troutdale
SC Aqua-Tech Environnental Inc (Groce Labs) Greer SC Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) Chart"eston
TN ICG Jselin Railroad Yar:d -Jackson
NlJ?Der.of Sites Beiffg PrCNILllgated to the General Superfund Section: 14
Notes11
·-
8A = Ba~ed on f~suence of heal th· advisor.y by AsencY for Toxic Substances and Dise~se Registry
. _'( tf. scor_ed, HRS score need not be > 28.50). ·
s ~ State top.priority (included among ·the 100 top priority siteS regardless of score).
National Priorities list
Federal Facilities Section, Final Rule (by State)
Deceni>er 1994
St Site Name
CA concord N_aval Weapons Station
NC Cherry.Point Marine Corps Air Station
SC Parris Island Marine tarps· Recruit Depot
VA Fort Eustis .cus Army)·
location
··Concord
Havelock
-Parris Island
.Newport News ·
N~r of SiteS Being Pronulga"tecf to th~ FederBl Facilities Section: 4
. a -Notes
· 8A •.Based on issuance of health:·advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
.. (.{f scored, H_Rs·score ~ not be> 28.50). ·. .
s ~ ~tate top prjority (included_among the 100 top prio~ity sites regardless of score) •
•
5
• •
National Priorities List
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
Deceri>er 1994 1
Date
St Site Name Location Proposed" Final
AK . General S~rf....i Sites
Alaska Battery Enterprises Fairbanks.NStar Soro 06/88 03/89 Arctic Surplus
Federal Facility site& Fairbanks 10/89 08/90
Adak Naval Afr Station Adak 10/92 05/94 F Elelaon Air Force Base Fairbanks NStar Soro 07/89 · 11/89 F Elmendorf Air Force Base Greater Anchorage Sor 07/89 08/90 F Fort Richardson (USARMY) Anchorage 06/93 05/94 F Fort Wainwright Fairbanks NStar Soro 07/89 08/90 F Standard Steel&Metals Salvage Yard(USOOT
2 General S~rf"'1d Sites + 6 Federal Facil lty Sites = 8
Anchorage · 07/89 08/90 F
Al G~ral S"4)erfllld Sites
Clbo·Gefgy Corp. (McIntosh Plant) McIntosh. 09/83 09/84
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO) Leeds 09/85 06/86
Mon&rch Tile Manufacturing, tnc. Florence 05/93 Olin Corp. (McIntosh Plant) McIntosh 09/83 · 09/84
Perdido Greuld "'•ter Contamination Perdido_ 12i82 09/83
"Redwfn; Carriers, · Inc. (Saraland) Saraland 06/88 02/90
St8uffer·chemical Co. (Cold Creek Plant) Bucks 09/83 09/84 Ste1,1ffer _Chemical c;o. (LeMOYJ'.M! Plant) Axis 09/83 09/84 T.H. Agriculture·& Nutrition (Montgomery Montgomery 06/88 08/90
Trfane/Terv.ssee River Limestone/Morgan 12/82 09/83 Federal Facility Sites
Alabama Army Amluiltfon Piant Childersburg· 10/84 07/87 F Amfaton Army Depot (SE Jrdlstrfal ·A.real Amfstori 10/84 03/89 F ·•edatona Arsenal (USARMY/NASA) H111tlvi l le 06/93 05/94 ·F
10 General S-rf....i Sites'+ 3 Federal F~cilfty Sf_tes • 13
AR General Superft.n:I Si t_es
Arkwood, Inc. Omaha 09/85 03/89 .. Frit Industries Walnut Ridge . 12/82 .09/83 /: Gurley Pit E-on 12/82 09/83
lrdustrial Waste Control Fort Smith . 12/82 09/83 . Jacksonville Municipal Landfill Jacksonyi l le 01/87 07/87 Mid-South Wood Products Mena 12/82 09/83 . Midland Products Dla/Bfrta 10/84 . 06/86 Monroe Auto Equfpnent (Paragould Pftl Paragould 10/89 · 08/90
Popi le, Inc. El Dorado 02/92 10/92
Rogers Road Munfcfpal Lardffl l · · Jacksonvf l le 01/87 07/87 ·South 8th Street Landfill West Meq,hfa 02/92 10/92
Vertac, Inc. Jacksonvl I le -.12/82 . 09/83 12·General.S-rf"'1d Sites+ 0 Federal Facility Sites= 12
•
AZ·· Genera I S~rf....i Sf. tes
Apache Powder co •. st. David . 06/86. , 08/90 . Hassaylllll"' Landf fl 1 HBSSl!ly8"1J8 06/86 07/87 I ndf an Bend 1188" Area Scottsdale/Teq>e/Phoe 12/82 09/83 Litchfield Airport Area :Goodyear/Avondale ·12/82. 09/83
Motorola, Jnc.(52nd Street Plant) Phoenix 10/84 10/89 Nineteenth Avenue Landfill Phoenix· .12/82 09/83
Tucson Internation&l Airport Area Tucson 12/82 09/83 )ederal Facil tty Sites
Luke Afr·Force Base Glendale 07/89 08/90 F· Williams Afr Force Base Chandler 07/89 11/89 F YLIIIB. Marine Corps Air Station YUIIII 06/88 02/90 . ·F 7 General S~rf....i Shes + 3 Federal Facfl fty Sites • 10
CA General S~rf....i Sites
AdY~ed Nfcro Devices, Inc. · Surnyvale 10/84 06/86
6
St
:,. ..
National Priorities List
Final and Proposed Sites (by St'ate)
Deeen,er 1994
Sito Name . LOC:atfon
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (Bldg. 915) Sirnyvale
. Aerojet General Corp. Rancho Cordova Applied Materials Sante Clara
Atlas Asbestos Mine Fresiio Colllty _Beckman lnstrunents (Porterville Plant) Portervll le
Brown & Bryant, lnc.(Arvln Plant)' .Arvin CTS Prlntex, Inc. Mcu,ta in View
Celtor Chemical Works Hoops Coal Inga Asbestos Mine Coal Inga Coast Wood Preserving Ukiah Cooper Drun Co. . South Gate Crazy Horse Sanitary Lordflll Salinas Del Amo Facility Los Angeles
_Del Norte.Pesticide Storage Crescent City F~lrchlld Semlconcructor Corp (Mt View) Moll'ltafn View
· Folrchlld Semiconcructor Corp (S San Jose. • South San Jose . FireStDne Tire&Rubber Co.(Salinas Plant) Salinas
Fresno Municipal Sanitary Lardflll Fresno
Frontier Fertilizer Davis
"GBF,. Inc., D~ Antioch Hewlett-Packard (620·640 Page Mill Road) Palo Al to
Industrial ~aste Processing Fresno
. Intel CorP. (Mou,tain View Plant) Mou,tain VieW
Intel Corp. (Santa Clara Ill) Santa Clara Intel Magnetics , Santa Clara Intorsll .lnc./Siemens COl11)0nents· ;, . . · Cupertino Iron MOl.l"ltain Mine Redding J.H. Baxter & Co. Weed _Jasco Chemtcal tOrp. MOl,l"ltafn View Koppers Co., Inc. (Oroville Plant) Oroville Liquid Gold Oil Corp. Richmond Lorentz Barrel & Drun Co. San Jose Louiaiana·Pacific Corp.: Orovll le MGM Brakes Cloverdale McColl Fullerton
Mc.~ormick. & Baxter Creosoting Co. . ·stockton
Modesto Grcuid Water Contamination Modesto
Manol ithlc Memories · Sirnyvale Mqntrose Chemical Corp. _Torrance National Semlcona.,ctor Corp. Santa Clara ~etnark. GrOl.l"W:i.Water·contaraination San Bernardino Operating lncilstries, Inc., Landfill Monterey Park Pacific Coast Pipe Lines. Fillmore Purity Oil Sales, Inc. Malaga Ralph Gray TN:king Co. Westminster Raytheon Corp. Mcu,tain View Son Fornardo Valley •(Area 1) Loa Angeles San Fernardo Valley (Area 2) . Los Arisieles/Glendalo San Fernardo Valley (Area 3) Glendale San fernardo Valley ·(Area 4) . Los Angeles ·
San Gabriel Valley (Area 1) El Monta
• Sen Gabriel Val Ley (Areo 2) Baldwin Park Area San Gabriel Valley (Area 3) Alhallt>ra
Sen Gabriel Vollity.(Area 4) La Puente Selma Treating Co._· selma Sola Optical USA, Inc •. · Petaluna
_South Bay Asbestos Area Alviso Southern Californlo Edison ·co. (Visalia) Visalia .Spectra-Physics~ Inc. . Mcu,tain View
7
..,
Date
Proposed"
06/88
12/82
10/84
09/83
10/84
06/88
06/88
12/82
09/83
12/82
02/92
06/88
07/91
09/83
10/84
10/84
10/84
06/88
01/94
02/92
06/88
10/89
10/84
10/84
10/84
06/88
12/82
10/84
06/88
09/83
12/82
10/84
10/84
12/82
12/82
02/92
06/88
. 10/84
10/84
. 10/84
06/88
10/84
06/88
12/82
07/91
10/84.
10/84
10/84
10/84
10/84.
09/83
09/83
09/83
09/83
12/82
06/88
.10/84
01/87
.. 06/88
Final
08/90
09/83
07/87
09/84
06/86
10/89
02/90
09/83
09/84
09/83
08/90
09/84
02/91
· 10/89
07/87
10/89
05/94
02/90
08/90
06/86
06/86
06/86
.08/90
09/83
. 10/89
10/89
09/84
09/83
10/89.
06/86
09/83 .
09/83
10/92
03/89
07/87
10/89 . '
07/87
03/89
06/86
.10/89
09/83
10/92
06/86
,06/86
06/86
06/86
·06/86
05/84
· 05/84
05/84
05/84
09/83
02/90
06/86
03/89
02/91
St
-t;
co
•
National Priorities List
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
Deceri>er 1994
.
Site N-Location
Stoker Coq,any Jq:,erial
Strlngfel low
Sulphur Bank Mercur)' Mine
•Glen Avon Heights
Cle&r Lake
Synertek, Inc. (Building 1) Santa Clara
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrftfon Co. Fresno ·
TRW Microwave, Inc (Building 825) Stn"iyvale
T9ledyne Semiconductor MOW1tain View
United Heckathorn Co. Richmond
Yall"Y Wood Preserving, Inc. Turlock.
Waste Disposal, Jnc. Santa Fe Springs
Watkfns•Johnson Co.· (Stewart Divia~_on) Scotts Valley .·
Western Pacific Railroad co; Orovf l le
.. Westinghouse Elecetric Corp. (Sln"lyvale) . SLn"lyvale
Feder~l Facility Sites
_Barst~ Marine Corps Logistics Base ·aarstow
C~ Pendleton Marine Corps Base Sen o i ego Couity
. ·castle Afr force Base Merced
Concord Naval Weapons Station Concord
Edwards.Air Force Base · Kern Cou,ty
El Toro Marine Corps Air_ StatiOf'I El Toro
Fort Ord Marina
George Afr force Base Victorville
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA) Pasadena
LEHR/Old c_,. Landfill (USOOE) Davia
. Lawrence ·Livermore Leb Site 300 (USOOE) L fvennore
Lawrence L fveMnOre Laboratory ('!5DOE) L fvermare
March Afr Force Base Riverside
Mather Afr-Force Baa8 Sacramento
McClellan Air Force Base (GW Contam) Sacramento .
Moffett Naval Afr Statton S.n,yvale
Norton Air Force Base San Bernardino
Riverbank AMI¥ Almuiltlon Plant Riverbank
Sacramento Army Depot Sacramento
Sharpe Amri Depot . Lathrop
,Tracy .Defense Depot (USARMY) Tracy
·Travis Afr Force Base Solano CCU'lty
Treasure Island Naval Statton-Hl.l"I Pt An San Francisco
73 General Superfl.l'd Sites~ 23 Federal Facility Sites• 96
General S'-""rf,-,d Sites
ASARCO, Inc •. (Globe Plant) Denver
Broderick Wood PrOOJCta Denver
California .Gulch Leedvfl le
Central City-Clear Creek Idaho Sprt_ngs
· Chemical Sales CO. Denver ,
. Denver RediUI Sitt DenYer ' -Eagle Mine Minturn/Redel lff .
Lincoln Park Canon City
Lowry Landfll I Arapahoe County·
Marshall Landfill Boulder CMty
Sand Creek IIDJStrtal · . Conmerce Ct ty .
Smeltertown Site Sal Ida
sa,ggler Mouitatn Pitkin Couity
S111111itville Mine Rio Grande Cou,ty
Uravan Uranfua Project (IJnlon Carbide) Uravan .
. Federal Facll tty st tes ·
Air Force Plent PJKS -~Yaterton
.. Rocky,Fleta Plant (USDOE). . ··Golden
. Rocky Mouitain Arsenal (USARlffl •, Adams Cou,ty
15 General S-rf,-,d Sites+ 3 Federal Facility Sites• 18
8
Date
·-----------------Propos.J" Final Notes b
07/91
12/82 c 09/83 s
06/88 08/90
06/88 ·10189
10/84 06/B6
06/88 -02/90
10/84 07/87
10/89 03/90
· 06/88 03/89
. 06/B6 07/87
01/87 08/90 -·.10189 08/90
10/84 06/B6
07/89 11/89 F
07/89 11/89 F
10/84 07/87 F
. 02/92 .12/94 F
07/89 08/90 F.
06/88 02/90 ·F
. ;.07/89 02/90 F
07/89 02/90 . F
02/92 10/92 F
01/94 05/94 F
07/89 08/90 F
10/84 07/87 F
07/89 · 11/89 .F
10/84 07/87 F
10/84 07/87 · F
04/85 07/87 F
10/84 07/87 F
06/88 02/90 F
10/84 07/87. F
10/84 · 07/87 F
· 01189 · 08/90 --F
07/89 11/89 F
· 07/89 11/89 · F
05/93
09/83 09/84
12/82 -09/83
12/82 09/83
06/88 08/90
12/82 09/83
10/84 06/B6
09/83 09/84
· 09/83 09/84
12/82 09/83 . · s
12/82 · 09/83
02/92
10/84 06/B6
05/93 05/94
10/84 _ 06/B6
' 07/89 11/89 F
10/84 10/89 .F
10/84 07/87 F
'
St
CT.
DE
, . .. · ~
FL ·
• •
'·Nat;onal Priorities List
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
Deceni>er 1994
Site Name Location
General S1.1perfi.nd Sites
Barkhamsted-New Hartford Landfill Barkhamsted Beacon Heights Landfill Beacon Falls
Cheshire GrOllld Water Contamination Cheshire Durh1n Meadows Durham
Gall""'" Quarry Plainfield Kellogg·Oeerjng Well Field Norwalk
Laurel Park, Inc. Naugatuck Borough
Linemaster Switch Corp.-Woodstock Nutmeg Valley Road Wolcott Old Southington Landfill Southington . Precision Plating Corp. Vernon
R_aymark lrdJstries, Inc. s·tratford
Solvents Recovery Ser-vice New England Southington
Yaiworskf Waste Lagoon ..
Federal Facility Sites
. Canterbury
. New London Subnartne Base New London
14 General S1.1perfi.nd Sites+ ; Federal Facility Sites :: 15
General sl4)erf\.l'ld Sites
Army Creek Landfill· New Castle Couity
Chem·Solv, Inc. Cheswold Coker•s Sanitation Service Landfills Kent COU"lty Delaware City PVC Plant Delaware City · Delaware Sand & Gravel Landfill New Castle Cou,ty
Dover Gas Light Co. Dover ·
E.I.Du Pont·de Nemours (Newport Landfill Newport
Halby Chemical Co. New Castle
_Harvey & Knott DMD, Inc. Kirkwood
KOl'P"r• Co., Inc. (Newport Plant) Newport
NCR.Corp. (Millsboro Plant) Millsboro
New Castle Spill New Castle COIA'lty
Sealand Limited Mol.l"'lt Pleasent
Standard Chlorine of Delaware,Jnc Delaware City
Sussex COIA'lty Landfill No. 5 Laurel
Tybouts Corner Landfill New Castle Cou,ty
Tyler Refrigeration Pit Smyrna
Wildcat Landfill Dover • Federal Facility Sites
Dover Air Force-Base. Dover
18 General Superfl.nd Sitea + 1. Federal. FadU_ty Sites,= 19
General_Superfi.nd SitH
A;rfco Chemical Co. •Pensacola
. Airco Plating co.· · Miami
Alpha Chemical corp. Galloway
American Creosote lilorks (Pensacola Plt) . Pensacola
Anaconda.Ali.af~ Co./Mil90 Electronics Miami
Anodyne, Inc. North Miami Beach
B&8 Chemical Co., .Inc •. Hialeah
BMl•Textron Lake Parle.
Beulah Landfill: Pensacola
Broward C0111tr·21st ~anor D~ Fo·rt Lauderdale
·arOIII'\ Wood Preserving' · Live Oak
Cabot/K"l'P"r• Gainesville
_Chemfoi-m, inc: POrl1)8no Beach
Chevron Cheaiical CO; (Ortho DJvision) Orlando
City lnca,stries, Inc; Orlando
· Coleman-Evans Wood Preservif'l9 co·. Whftehouse
9
Date
. Proposed". Final
06/88. 10/89
1J/82 09/83
06/88 08/90
06/88 10/89
06/88 10/89-
09/83 09/B4
12/82 09/83 s
06/88 02/90
01/87 03/89
09/83 09/B4
·. 06/88 10/89
01/94 A
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
10/89 08/90 F
12/82 09/83
01/87 08/90
04/85 07/87
10/81 09/83
12/82 09/83
01/87 10/89
01/87 02/90
09/85 06/86
12/82 09/83
10/89 -08/90
04/85 07/87
12/82 09/83
06/88 08/90
09/85 · 07/87
06/88 10/89
12/82 09/83 s
06/86 02/90
12/82 09/83
· 10/B4 03/89 F.
06/88 10/89
06/88 02/90
12/82 09/83
12/82 ·-09/83
· 10/89 · 08/90
06/88 02/90
06/88 08/90
06/88 08/90
06/88 02/90
07/91
12/82 09/83
09/83 09/B4 .
06/88 .10/89 .
01/94 05/94
10/B4 10/89
-12/82 09/83
•
National Priorities List
Final ard Proposed Sites (by State).
· Deceni>er 1994
St · Sita Name Location
GA
Davie Lardftl l
Di.mose Oil ProcaJCta Co.
Eacmmia Wood_-Pensacola
Florida Steel Corp.
Gold Coast Oil·corp.
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant)
Helena Chemical Co. (Tampa Plant)
Hipps Road Lardfill
Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal
_ · Kasseuf-:Kimerl_ing Battery-Disposal
Madison COl.l"'lty Sanitary Landfill
Mf amf Dn.111 Services
Muntsport Lardftll
. Northwest 58th Street Lardfill
Peak Oil Co./Bay Drun Co.
P-r Steel & Alloys, Inc.
PetrOleun Products Corp.
Ptckettville Road Lardftll
Piper Aircraft/Vero Beach Water & Sewer
Plymouth Avenue Lardfill
. Reeves Southeast Calvanizfng·corp
Sapp·&attery Selvage
Schuylkill Metals Corp.
Sherwood Medical lnciJstrtea
Sixty-Secord ,Street DUI'!)
Standard Auto B~r Corp. , · .,,
Stauffer Chemical Co. (TII0"8 Plant>.
·stauffer Chemical Co. (Tarpon Springs)
Sy,t,ey Mine Sludge Ponds
Taylor Road Lardfill
Tower Chemical Co.
llhitehousa Oil Pita
Wf lson Concepts of Florida, Inc.
Wingate Road Munt ct pal Incinerator DUI'!)
Woodbury Chemical .Co. (Princeton Plant)
Yellow Water Road 0-
Zellwood Ground Water. Contamination
Federal Facility Sites
Cecil Field Naval Air Statton
Homestead Afr Force Base
Jacksonville Naval Afr Station
Pensacola Naval Air Station
Whiting Field Naval Afr Station
Davie
Cantonnent
Pensacola
Indiantown
Miami
Palm Bay .. Tampa .
Duval CO\.Flty
Fort Lauderdale
TII0"8
Madison
Miami
North Miami
Hfaleah
Tampa
Medley
Penbrok.e Park.
Jacksonville
Vero Beach
Deland
Tampa
Cottondale
Plant Chy
Delard
Tampa
Hialeah
TII0"8
Tarpon Springs
Brandon
Seffner
Clermont
Whitehouse
Poq>ano Beach
Fort Lauderdale
Princeton·
--Baldwin
Zell wood
· -Jack.sonvi l le
Hanestead
Jacksonville
PfflSacola
Mil ton
53 General S"'°rf...t Sites+ 5 Federal Facility Sites• 58
General S"'°rf...t Sites
Cedartown lncilotrtes, Inc •
. Cedartown Municipal Lardftll
' Dtainond Shamrock Corp. Lardftll
·Firestone Tire & Ri.t>ber Co(Albany Plant)
Hercules 009 Lardftll .
Narzone Jnc./Chevron.Chemf'cal Co.
Mathia Brothers Lardftll ·
Monsanto Corp. (Augusta Plant)
Poweravtlle Site
T.H. 'Agriculture & Nutrition (Albany)
WooUolk. Chemical .Worlts, Inc.
Federal Facility Sites
Narine Corps Logistics Base
10
Cedartown
Cedartown
Cedartown
Albany
· Br\.W\Swfck
· Tifton
r:ensington
.. •Augusta ,
Peach COU"lty
Albany
Fort-yal_ley
Albany
Date
Proposed" Final
12/82
10/84
08/94
12/82
12/82
· 04/85
02/92
09/83 -12/82
i2t82
06/88
12/82
12/82
12/82
10/84
09/83
04/85
12/82
06/86
05/93
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
06/88
02/92
02/92
06/86.
12/82
12/82
12/82
06/88
· 06/88
· 06/88
09/85
·12182
07/89
07/89
07/89
07/89.
01/94
.06/88 . 06/88
01/87
06/88
. 09/83.
06/88
01/87
09/83
09/83
06/88
. 06/88
· 07/89
09/83
06/86
. 12/94
09/83
09/83
07/87
10/92
09/84
09/83
-09/83
08/90
09/83
09/83
09/83
06/86
09/84
07/87
09/83
·02/90
09/83
09/83
09/83
09/83
09/83
10/89
05/94
10/89
09/83
09/83
09/83
03/89
10/89
08/90
06/86
09/83
11/89
08/90
11/89
11/89
· .05/94
02/90
03/89
08/90
10/89
09/84
10/89
03/89
09/84
09/84
03/89
08/90
·-11189
· Notesb
F
F
F
F
F
F
J
St Site-
•
National Priorities List
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
DecetdJer 1994 ·
Location
•
Robins Air Force Base(Lf#4/Sludge lagoon Houston'C0<6lty
11 General S_r_fln:I Sites+ 2 Federal Facility Sites• 13
GU General 5-rfln:I SI tea
HI ,
IA
Ordot Landfill .
· Federal Fact l lty Sites
· Andersen Ai r Force Base
1 General Superf....-.d Sites+ Federal Facility Sites.= 2
General s-rfln:I Sites
Del llonte Corp. (Oahu Plantation)
· Federal Facil tty Sites
. Naval C~ter & Telecomrs.nications Area
Pearl Harbor Naval Cacrplex
Schofield Barracks (USARMY)
General 5-rfln:I Sites + 3 .Federal, Facility Sites • 4
.General S...,.rflrd.Sltes
Des Moines TCE
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours (County Rd X23)
· Electro·Coatings, Inc. _
·Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant Faniera• Mutual Cooperative
.John Deere (Ottunwa Morks landfills)
Lawrence Todtz Farm · .
Nason City Coal Gasification Plant:
Nid·America Taming Co.
,.MidYes_t Nan.rfacturing/North Farm ..
· .· Norttilfestern States Portl-and Cement Co.
"peoplff Natural Gas Co.
Red Oak City landfill
Shaw_Averue Duq>
Sheller·Globe Corp. Disposal
Vogel Paint & Max Co.
· Materloo Coal Gasification Plant
Mhite Fenn Equipment Co. D-
Federal Facility Sites
Guam
Ylgo
.-Honolulu COU'\ty
Oahu
Pearl Harbor
Oahu
·oes Moines
West Point
Cedar Rapids
Fairfield
Hospers
· Ottl.Jl'Wa
Cmnanche
Mason City
sergeant Bluff
Ka.llogg
Mason City •
Dubuque
Red Oak
Charles City
Keokuk
Orange City
Waterloo
Charles City
Iowa Army Anllu'lition Plant , Middletown
·1e Genera
1
l_ S'-4)erfu,cf Sites+ 1 Federal Facility sites= -19
ID General 5-rfln:I Sites
Blackbird Mine
B16\ker Hill Mining & NetallurgiCal
eB·stern 'Michaud Flats Contamination
· ... i:err•McGee Ch•icel Corp.(Soda Springs)
Monsarito·cheaical Co. (Soda Springs)
. Pacific Hide & Fur Recycl Ing Co.
· Trhaph Nine Tail Inga Piles
Union Pacific Railroad ca.
'Federal Facility Sites
Idaho National Engineering Lab CUSOOE)
NOU"lt8in Home Air· Force Base a· General Superfi.n:I Sites+ 2 Federal. Facili_ty_Sit'es a 10·
IL General S.rfln:I Sites
· A & f Met_erhl Reclaiming, Inc.
A'ane Solvent Reclaiming(Norristown Plant
Adams Cou,ty Quincy Landfills 2&3·
. Amoco Chemicali (Jol let· landfill)
11
Letin i COl.'1ty
· Smelterville
Pocatello
Soda Springs
Soda Springs
Pocatello
Tri"""'
Pocatello
Idaho Fells
NO\.l'\ta in Home
GreerA4>
Norristown
. Gufr,cy
Joliet
Date
Proposed" Final
. 10/B4 .
12/82
02/92
05/93
01/94
07/91
07/89
12/82
. 06/88
06/88
06/88
06/88
06/88
09/85
01/94
06/88
09/85
06/88
06/88
06/86
09/85
05/89
10/B4
10/92
06/88
07/89
. 05/93 .
.12/82
05/89
05/89
05/89
09/B3
05/93
09/B3
.. 07/B9.
07/89
· 12/82 .
12/82
. 06/88
06/88
07/8_7
09/B3
10/92
12/94
05/94
10/92
08/90
09/B3
08/90
10/89
08/90
08/90
02/90
06/86
.12/94
03/89
06/86
08/90
08/90
03/89
07/87.
08/90
06/86
08/90
08/90
' 09/B3
08/90
10/89
08/90
09/B4
09/B4
11/89 .
08/90,
09/B3
09/B3
, 08/90
02/90
• b Notes
F
s
F
F
F
F
F
F·
F
St
I
i-~-'
IN
National Priorities List
final and Proposed Sites (by State)
. Deceai>er 1994
Site ■-· Location
Beloit Corp. Rockton
Belvidere Municipal Landfil 1 Belvidere
Byron S&l voge Yard Byron
Central lllfnoia P\mlic Sel"Vice Co . Taylorville
. c~S BrOthera Pail Recycling (Perrtlroke) P...,roke Township
Dll'agit County Landffl l/Blackwel l· forest Warrenville
Galesburg/K-ra.Co. Galesburg
H.O.D. Landfill Antioch
llada Energy Co, East Cape Gfr8rdeau
Interstate Pollutfon .. Control, Inc Rockford
.Johns-Manville Co~. Waukegan
Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek/\1 Branch DuPage) Dll'age C<><.nty Kerr'McGee (Reed·Keppler Park) . West Chicago· Kerr-McGee (ResidenttBl Areas) West Chlcag0/01.l>age C
·.~err-McGee (Sewaee .. Treatment· Pfant) · West Chicago
LaSalle Electric Utilities LaSalle
Lenz Ofl Service, Inc. Lemont
NIG/Dewane Lendffl l Belvidere ·
NL lndusirfes/Taracorp Lead ~lter ·Granite City
Ottawa Radiation Areas Ottawa
Outboard Narine Corp. Waukegan
Pagel 18 Pit Rockford
Persona Casket·Mardware co. Belvidere
Southeast Rockford Gd Wtr Contemtnetton Rockford
Tri·COl.llty LarwJfllltwast~ Mgmt lllino;s South Elgin
.Velilicol Chemical Corp.(l l l inois) Marshall
Wauconda Sand & Gravel Wauconda
Woodstock M1a1lcipal Landfill Woodstock.
· Y.-n Creek Landfill Waukegan
Federal facility Sites
Joliet Army Allllu1ition Plant (LAP Area) · Joliet
Joliet Army Almulition Plant (Mfg Area) Joliet
.S,,11911110 Electric/Crab Orchard NIIR (USDOI tartervflle
Savanna Army Depot Activity Savanna
33 General S.rfund Sites+ 4 federal facility Sites• 37
Generel Superfund Sites
· American Chemical Service. Inc •. · Griffith·
8etY1ett Stone Quarry. Bloanington
Carter Lee Ll.lrt>er Co., lndianapo\ Is Colll!DIII Old Municipal Landfill 11 Colll!DIII
Conrail.Rail Yard (Elkhart) Elkhart
Continental Steel Corp. Kokomo
Douglass Roed/UnlroVal, Inc.' Landf ll l Mishawaka
Envi rochem Corp. Zionsville
flsher·Calo LaPorte
·fort Wayne Reductlcin D.-Fort Wayne
Galen Myers D1.111>/Drun Salvage OSceola
Hiar:o D-Elkhart
Lake Sandy Jo (N&II Landfill) Gary ✓ .Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc. Claypool
Leman Lane Landfill Blocmlngton
MIDCO I · Gary
MIDCO II Gary
Main Street Well field Elkhart
Marion (Bragg) D""' Marlon . Neal •1 D-(Spencer) Spencer
Neal's Landfill (Blocmlngton)· Bl ocmi ngton
Ninth Avenue 0-. _Gary
12
"
· Date
final
06/88 D8/90
. 12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
06/88 08/90
12/82 09/83
06/88 02/90
12/82 09/83
09/85 02/90
06/88 ·10/89
06/88 · 03/89
12/82 09/83
10/84 02/91
10/84 08/90
10/84 08/90 ·
10/84 08/90
12/82 09/83
06/88 10/89
10/89 08/90
10/84 06/86
07/91 . 10/92
12/82 09/83 s
10/84 06/86
01/87 07/87
06/88 03/89
06/86 · 03/89
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
06/88 ·10189
06/88 · 03/89 ·
04/85 03/89 F
.. 10/84 07/87 f
10/84 07/87 f
,.0/84 03/89 .f
· 09/83 09/84
09/83 09/84
06/88 03/119
09/85 06/86
06/88 08/90
06/88 03/119
06/86 03/89
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
10/84 06/86
06/88 03/89
06/88 02/90
12/82 09/83
06/88 03/89 . ·
. 12/82 . 09/83
12/82 09/83
10/84 . 06/86
.12/82 09/83
-12/82 09/83
10/84 06/86
12/82 09/83
12/82 .. 09/83
• • "''•
National Priorities List
· Final and Proposed Sites (by State) ·· Decm,er 1994 ·
· Date
·----------------St Site Mame Location Proposed" Final Notesb
Northsfde Sanitary Landfill, Inc Zfonsvll le 09/83 09/84 Prestolite Battery Division Vincemes 09/85 10/89
--Reilly Tar & Chemfcal(lndienapolfs Plant lndianapol is 09/83 09/84
s._r Recyc Ii ng Corp. Seymour 12/82 09/83 s -Southside Sanitary Landfill lndianapol Is 06/86 03/89
TlflPOCanoe Sanitary Landfill, Inc Lafayette 06/88 -08/90 -Tri-State Plating ---ColuibJs 09/85 06/86 U.S. Smelter & Lead Refinery Inc. East Chicago . 02/92 Vaste1 Inc., Landfill Michigan City_ · 04/85 07/87 llayne llaste Oil Colll!Cia City 12/82 _ 09/83
Mhiteford Sales & servi'ce/Nationalease ·South Bend -D6/88 08/9D
. 33 General Superfund Sites_ + 0 Federal hcil ity Sites • 33
KS General-Super fund Sites
· 29th & Mead Ground \later Contamination lllchfta 06/88 02/90
57th and North Broadway Streets Site lllchita Heights 02/92 10/92
_ Arkansas City 0..,.:, Arkansa_s c.i ty 12/82 09/83 s
_ Chemical C0111110dities, Inc. Olathe 01/94 05/94 Cherokee CO<.l>ty Cherokee C0<.1>ty 12/82 09/83 Doepke Disposal (Holliday) Johnson. COU'lty -12/82 09/83 Obee Road Hutchinson 01/87. 07/87 Pester Refinery Co. El Dorado . D6/88 03/89 Strother Field Industrial Park Co~ley COU"lty 10/84 06/86 Federal Facility Sites
fort Riley J111etion c.ity 07/89 08/90 F · 9 Genera I Super fund Sites ·+ 1 Federal Facility Sites= 10
ICY General Superf\.l"'d Sites
A.l. Taylor (Valley of DMIIIS) Brooks -12/82 09/83
Afrco Calvert City .12/82 09/84 B.F. _Goodrich Calvert City 12/82 09/83
-Brantley Landfill Island D6/88 02/90 .,
Caldwell Lace Leather Co., Inc • Alburn D6/88 08/90 . '",
Distler Brickyard West Point 12/82 09/83 -
Distler Farm Jefferson CO<.l>ty 12/82 09/83
Fort Har_tf0rd· Coal cci. Stone Quarry Claton -06/88 .08/90 · General Tire & Rubber(Mayfield Landfill) Mayfield D6/88 -02/90 Greel\ River Disposal, Inc. Maceo· -D6/88 08/90
-Howe Valley Landfil L Howe Valley 06/86 07/87
. Lee's Lane Landfill Louisville ' 12/82 09/83 -Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal Hillsboro 10/84 06/86
Notional Electric Cofl/C"-r lndustles -Dayhoit , 07/91 _ -10/92 Naticiirial•southwire Aluairv..m co~ Hawesville 07/91 05/94
Newport D-Newport 12/82 09/83 '.·~ Red Pem Sanitation Co. landfill Pee11ee· Val,ley D6/88 03/89
· Smith's farm Brooks 10/84 D6/86 Tri-City Disposal Co. Shepherdsville. D6/88 . 03/89
. Federal Facility Sites
Pacb:ah Geseoua Diffusion Plant (USOOE) -Pacb:ah 05/93 05/94 F
19" General Superfund Sites + 1 Federal Fecil fty Sit!"' • 20
LA -General Superfund Sites
Agriculture Street Landfll f New Orleans 08/94 12/94
American Creosote Work&. Inc (Wimfield) Wimfield 02/92 10/92 Bayou BOl'lfouca · Slidell _ . 12/82 09/83 Bayou Sorrel-Site ··Bayou sofrel 12/82 09/84 'c1eve Reber · Sorrento 12/82 09/83
coatJustf on, Inc. Denham Spr I ngs . . D6/86 08/90 D.L. Mud, lnc. -Abbeville 06/88 10/89
13
St
, ·NA
'·-
-~.
l
. -..
II)
. '
·National Priorities List·
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
Deceat>er 1994 ·
Sfte lame Location
Dutchtown Treatment Plant Ascension Parish
Gulf Coast Vac\AIII Services Abbeville Lincoln Creosote Bossier Cfty · Old Inger Oil Refinery Darrow
PAB Oil & Chemical Servke, Inc.· Abbeville
Ptitro-Processors of Louisiana Inc Scotlandville
Federel Facility Sites
. · .Louisiana Army Armu,ition Plant Doyline
·13 ·General Sl4)erft.rd Sites+ 1 Federal Facility Sites R 14
General s....,rfund Sites
· Atl111 Tack Corp •. _ Fairhaven ·aafrd & McGuire Holbrook.
Blackburn & Union Privileges Walpole
Camon Engineering Corp. (CEC) .. Bridgewater
CharlH·George Reclamation Landfill Tyngsborough
Groveland Wells · Groveland
Haverhill Municipal Landfill Haverhill
Hocomonco Pond Westborough
lrdJstrf-Plex Woburn Iron Horse Park Billerica
New Bedford SI te New Bedford
Nonoood PCBs . Norwood
Nyanza Chemical Waste D""' · Ashlard
PSC Resources , _ Palmer
Re-Solve, Inc. Dartmouth Rose Disposal Pit . Lanesboro
Salem Acres Salem
Shpack Lardf fl 1 Norton/Attleboro
Sflresfm Chemical Corp. Lowell
Sullfv&n•a Ledge New.Bedford
W.R. Grace & Co Inc (Acton Plant) Acton Wells G&H Woburn Federal Facility Sites
Fort Devens Fort Devens . ,art Oevens-51.d:iury Training Arnex _ Middlesex Cou,ty · Hanscom Field/Hanscom Air-Force Base Bedford
Materials Technology Laboratory (USARMY) Watertown
ifiltlck LaboratOry Army Research,D&E Cntr Natick
.Naval Weapons ln<lJ!ltrfal Reserve Plant . Bedford
Otis Air National Guard (USAF) Falmouth
. South.Weymouth Naval Afr Station Weymouth
Z2 Gener.a.l .S-rfund Sites + 8 Federal Fac·il ity Sites = 3~
General S-rfund Sites
.Bush VaUey Lardfill .Abingdon
Kane & Lombard Street Druas Baltimore
Limestone Road Cin>erlard Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc Hermans
OrQ'\&nCe Products, Inc. Cecil C0111ty Sand, Gravel & Stone .Elkton
Southem Maryland llood Treating Hollywood
Spectron, Inc. .Elkton
Woodlawn C0111ty Landfill Woodlawn
. Federal ·Facility Sites
· Aberdeen ~roving Ground (~dgewood Area) Edgewood
'Aberdeen Proving Ground(Michaelsville LF Aberdeen
Beltsvfl le' Agricultural Research (USDA) Beltsville Patuxent RiVer Naval Air Station St. Mary•• C0111ty
9 General S-rfund Sites+ 4 Federal Facility Sites = 13
14
Date
Proposect" Final
01/87 07/87
06/88 03/89.
01/94
.12/82 09/83 s
06/88 03/89
· 09/83 09/84
10/84 03/89 F
06/88 02/90.
12/82 09/83
02/92 05/94
12/82 09/83
12/82 · 09/83
12/82 .09/83
10/84 06/86 12/82 . 09/83
12/82 09/83.
09/83 09/84
12/82 09/83 s
10/84 06/86
12/82 09/83
12/82 . 09/83
12/82 .. · 09/83 ·
10/84 06/86
10/84 06/86
10/84 06/86
12/82 09/83
09/83 09/84
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
07/89 11/89 F . 07/89 · 02/90 F
05/93 05/94 F
06/93 05/94 F
05/93 05/94 F
.' 06/93 · 05/94 F
07/89 11/89 F
06/93. 05/94 .. F
06/88 03/89
10/84 06/86
12/82 09/83
· 10/84 06/86
05/93
12/82 09/83
10/84 06/86
10/92 05/94
01/87 07/87
04/85 02/90 F
04/85 10/89 F
05/93 05/94 F
01/94 · 05/94' F
''. ,,
St
ME
NI
" . r-
1,·
· Nations! Priorities List
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
Oeceffiler 1994
Sf te Name Location
General Superfund Sites
McKfn Co. · Gray o•comor co. Augusta
Pinette•• Salvage Yard Washburn . Saco N1.11icipal 'Landfill Saco ... Saco Tamery Waste Pits Saco
Union Chemical Co., Inc. South Hope
Winthrop Landffl l .. Winthrop
Federal Facility Sites
er1S1Swfck Naval Air Station Br\r\Swick Loring Afr Force Base . Limestone
Portsmouth Naval Shfpyard Kittery
7 General Superfund Sites+ 3 Federal Faci l fty Shes = .10 .
General Superfllld Sites·
, Adam's P.latfng Lansing ·
.Albion~Sheridan Township Landfill Albion Allfed'Paper/Portage Ck/Kalamazoo River Kalamazoo ·American Anodco, Inc. Ionia Anderson Developnent Co. Adrian
Auto ·1on Chemicills, Inc .. • Kalsmazoo :Avenue •e11 GrOllld Water Cont&minitfon Traverse City Barrels, Inc. Lansing
Bendix Corp .• /Allfed Aut..,,.tfve St. Joseph Berl fn & Farro · · Swartz Creek
Bofors Nobel, Inc .. . Muskegon . Burrows Sanit8tion Hartford
. B~tterworth #2 Landfill · . • . Grand Rapids
Cannelton Industries, ·1nc. Saul te Saint Marie
Carter Industrials, Inc •. Detroit
Cemetery 0-Ros• Center Chem Central Wyani ng T ownshf p
Clare Water S-ly Clare
Cliff/Dow 0-Marquette
Duell & Gardner Landfill Dalton Township
Electrovoice Buchanan
Folkertsma.Refuse · Grand Rapids
Forest waste Products Otisville
G&H Landt il l . Utica
Grand Trave~se Overall Supply Co. Greilickville
Gratiot County Landfill ·st. Louis
H. Brown Co., Inc. .Grand Rapids; Hecl>lLID Industries Oscoda Hi-Mill Manufacturing Co. •Highland
Ionia City.Landfill Ionia ·
J & L Landfill Rochester Hilla K&L Avenue Landfill · Oshtemo Township
Kaydon Corp. Muskegon
Kent Ch'( Mobfltt Home Park· Kent Cf ty
Kentwood Landfill · .. «::entwood
Kysar Industrial corp. ·cad I llac ·
Li~fd Disposal, Inc. ~ Utica
Lowe~ Ecorse Creek D1.arp •··Wyandotte
Mason C01.11ty Landfill Pere Marquette Twp
. _.McGraw Edi son Corp. Albion .
·Metamora Landfill Metamora
Michigan Disposal(Cork Street .L.andffll) Xalamazoo
Motor Wheel,' Inc. . Lansing
-Nusk~M Chemical Co. . Whitehall
15
Date
Proposed°
12/82
12/82
12/82
06/88
12/82
04/85
12/82
10/84
07/89
06/93
·06/88 ·
06/88
05/89
06/86
12/82 . 12/82
10/84
01/87
06/88
12/82
06/88
09/83
12/82
06/88
06/88
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
12/82
06/86
12/82
· 12/82
12/82
· 12/82
04/85 ,
12/82
06/88
12/82
06/86
12/82
06/88
09/85
12/82
09/85
12/82
01/94
12/82
12/82
· 09/83
10/84
.10/84
06/88
Final
09/83
09/83
09/83
02/90
09/83
10/89
09/83
., 07/87
02/90
05/94
03/89
10/89
08/90
03/89
· 09/83 ·
09/83
06/86
10/89
02/90
09/83
· 03/89
09/84
09/83
08/90
03/89·
09/83
09/83
09/84
09/83
09/83
· 09/84
03/89
. 09/83
·09/83
09/83
09/83
06/86
09/83
02/90
09/83
03/89.
09/83
02/90
. 07/87
09/83
10/89
09/83
05/94
09/83
09/83
09/84
02/90
06/86
02/90
i
. b Notes .
·F
·f
F
s
•
National PriorftieS List
Final ard Proposed Sltes.(by State)
Decenl>er 1994 ·
Date
-----------------St Site Name Location Proposed" . Flnel Notesb
North Bronson Industrial Area·· Bronson 10/84 -06/86 Northernafre Plating Cadillac 12/82 09/SJ
Novaco Industries T errperance 12/82 09/SJ Organic Chetr1lcala, Inc. GrendYll le 12/82 · o9/8J
Osifneke GrOU"d Water Contamination ·OSsineke 12/82 09/SJ Ott/Story/Cordove Chemical Co. Dal ton Township 12/82 · 09/83 Packaging Corp. of America Filer City 12/82 09/83
Parsons Chemical Works, Inc •. Grand Ledge . 06/88 03/89 Peerless Plating Co. Muskegon 06/88 08/90 Petoskey M1.niclpal Well Field . Petoskey 12/82 .• 09/SJ
_Rasmussen I a D~ Green oak Township 12/82 09/83 Rockwel I lnternetfonal Corp. (Al legon) Allegan 04/85 07/87
Rose T ownsh f p D-Rose Township 12/82 09/83
Rota-Finish co., Inc .. Kalamazoo 10/84 06/86 SCA Independent Lardf 111 Muskegon Hel ghta 12/82 09/SJ .ShiaWassee River Howell 12/82 09/SJ South Moc-Disposal (Landfills 9 & 9A) Mac-Township 10/84 ·. 06/86 Southwest Ottawa COl.l'lty Lardflll . Park Township ·12/82 09/SJ Sparta Landf 111 Sparta ·Township 12/82 09/SJ Spartan Chemical co. Wyoming 12/82 09/SJ Spiegel berg Lardfll 1 Green Oak Township 12/82 09/83 Springfield Township D-Davlsburg · 12/82 09/83 State Disposal Lardffll, Inc. Grard Rapids 06/88 02/90 Sturgis M1.nlclpal Wells Stur9fs 09/83 09/84 Tar Lake · Mancelone Township 12/82 09/83 . Thenno-Chem, Inc. ~-Muskegon· 10/84 . 06/86
Torch Lake Houghton COl.l'lty 10/84 •. 06/86
U.S. Aviex Howard Township 12/82 09/SJ Velafcol Chemical Corp.(Michlgan) -St. Louis 12/82 09/SJ Verona Well Field ' Battle Creek 12/82 09/SJ .Wash King La,,,,dry Pleasant Pl~ins Twp 12/82 09/83
{' . Waste Management of Michigan (Hollard) Hollard 10/84 . 06/86
Federal Facility Sites
11Urt&11lth Afr Force Base I, OSCO CCK.nty 01/94 F 76 General Superfl.nd Sl_tes + 1 Federal Facfl ity sites = 77
·MN General Superfl.nd Sites
Agata Lake Scrapyard Fairview Township 10/84 06/86 Arrowhead Refiner-,( Co.· Hermantown 09/83 09/84 Baytown Township Grol.nd Water Plune Baytown Township 10192· 12/94 Bof se ·ciis'cade/Onan Corp./Nedtronica, Inc. Fridley . . . . _09/83 09/84 Burl fng't:on NOrthern (Brainerd/Baxter) Brainerd/Baxter·. 12/82 . 09/SJ Dakhue Sanitary Lardffl l Camon Falla 10/89 . 08/90 East Bethel Demolition Landfill East Bethel-Township 09/85 · 06/86
· FMC Corp. (Fridley Plant) frldley .12/82 09/SJ ·Freeway Sanitary Landfill Burnsvfl le 09/85 06/86 _General Mil ls/Hankel Corp. Mimeapol ls .. 09/83 . 09/84
Joslyn Manufacturing & S'4'Ply Co. Brooklyn Center 09/83 ,09/84 · .. Koch Reflnln1f Co./N·Ren Corp. Pine Bend 10/84 06/86 1Copp8ra Coke St. Paul · 12/82 09/83 K111111er Soni tary Lardffl 1 Bemidji )0/84 • · 06/86 Kurt Man.rlacturfng Co. Fridley 10/84 06/86 LaGrard Sanitary Landfill LeGrand Township 06/86 07/87 Lehfllfer/Mankato Sita Lehi lifer/Mankato 12/82 '09/83
··::; Lona'Prafrie GrOl.l"ld Water COntaminatfon Long Prairie . 10/84 . 06/86 MacGlllfa' Gibbs/Bell Lum>er & Pole Co. New Brighton 09/SJ 09/84 NL lndustrfes/Taracorp/Gol-Auto St. Louis Park 12/82 09/83 Nutting Truck & Caster Co. . Faribault · 09/83 09/84 08k Grove Sanitary LardfH l ·· 08k Grove Township 10/84 06/86
16
National Priorities List
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
· Deceirber 1994
St Site Name Location
Oakdale D-Dakdale
Olmsted c.ounty Sanitary Landt.ii 1 Oronoco,
Perham Arsenic Site · · Perham
Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill . Dakota Couity R·eilly Tar&Chem (St. Louis Park.Plant) St. Louis Park ·. Ritari Post & Pole Sebeka
South Andover Site . Andover
St. Augusta Sanitary ·Landfill/Engen 0-St. Augusta Township
St. Louis River Site St. Louis County
· St. Regis Paper Co. Cass Lake
.-·university Nimesote (Rosemcx.nt Res Cen) RosemotJ"lt
Waite Park Wells Waite Park
Washington County Landfill Lake Elmo
\laste Disposal Engineering "Andover Yhitteker Corp. Mimeapol is
Windom 0-J . Yindom
Federal Facility s·ites
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant Fridley
New Brighton/Arden Hil ls/TCAAP (USARMY) ,New Brighton·
Twin Cities Air Force B_ase(SAR Landfill)
38 Gen8fal S~rf,n:fSites + 3 Federal FacH ity Sitff • 41
Nil"lneapolis
MO General S'-""rf..-1 Sites
Bee Cee-Marufacturing Co. Malden
·Bi9 River Mine Tailings/St. Joe Minerals .Deslolile Conservation Chemical Co. Kansas City
Ellisville Site Ellisville Fulbright Landfill Springfield Kem-Pest Laboratories Cape Girardeau Lee Chemical Liberty
Mfnker/Stout/Romaine Creek Jrrperial. ·
Missour; Electric Works Cape Girardeau
· Oronogo-Duenweg Mining.Belt Jaspe·r Cot.l"lty
Quality Plating Sikeston· . Shenandoah Stables .Moscow Mills
· Solid State Circuits, Inc·. , Republic
St Louis Airport/HIS/Future Coatings Co. . ·. St. Louis CCU\ty
Syntax Facfl ity Verona
Times Beach Site -Times Beach Valley Park TCE ~ Valley Park Westlake Landfill Bridgeton
Wheeling Disposal Service Co. Landfill Amazonia ·
Federal Facility Sites
Lake City AMlrf Amw. Plent (NW Lagoon).' Independence
_Weldon -Spring Former Anny Orct\ance Works St.Charles Cot.l"lty
Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pitts(USDOE)
. 19.General Super~ll'ld Sites.+ 3 F
1
ederal Facility Si~es ~ 22
St. Charles COU'lty
MS. General S'-""rfund Sites
Chemfax,· Inc. Gui fport
Flowood Site Flowood
NMom Brothers/Old Reichh.old Chemicals Columia
Potter Co. -Wesson
Texas Eastern Kosciusko COff1:)ressor Stn.
5 General Suj,erftm Sites+ O federal facility Sites• 5
ICosciusko-
MT General.S'-""rf..-1.Sites
Anaconda CO. Smelter Anaconda
Burlington Northern L f_vingstDn C~lex : Livingston
17
· Date
Proposed"
12/82
10/84
09/83
10/84
12/82
.01/87
12/82
. 09/85
09/83
09/83
10/84
09/85
09/83
12/82
09/83. ·
10/84
07/89
.12/82
01/87
10/84
02/92
04/85
12/82
12/82
01/87
10/84 :
12/82
06/88
06/88
10/84
12/82. ·
10/84
05/89
12/82
03/83
04/85
10/89 .
01/87
10/84
07/89
10/84
06/93
09/83
10/84 .
05/93
08/94
12/82
· 08/94
. Final
09/83
06/86
09/84
06/86
· 09/83 ·s
07/87
09/83
07/87
09/84
09/84
06/86
06/86
09/84
09/83
09/84
· 06/86
11/89 F
. 09/83 F
. 07/87 F
06/86
10/92
10/89
09/83 s . 09/83
10/89
06/86
: 09/83
02/90
08/90
. 06/86
09/83
06/86
10/89
09/83
. 09/83
06/86
08/90
10/89
07/87 .F
02/90 . F
07/87 F
09/84 s
06/86.
09/83
. .
National Priorities list
Final ard Proposed Sites (by State)
Decem,er 1994
•••• . .
St . Site Nine · Location
. NC
ND
East Helene ·site .
·Idaho Polo Co.
Lt bby GrO\rd Watee Contmnf nation
Milltown Reservoir Sediments·
Montana Pole and Treating
, Mouat Industries ·
·Silver-Bow Creek/Butte Area .
9 General Superfuid Sites+ D Federal.Facility Sites• 9
General Superfuid Sites
ABC one Hour Cle&nera
Aberdeen Pesticide D""'9
aentteld Industries, Inc·.
Bypass .601 GrOlm Water Contamination
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Caroline Transformer Co.
··· Celanese Corp. (Shelby Fiber Operations)
·· Chlrles Macon_ Lagoon & Drua Storage
Chemtronfcs, Jnc.
FCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
FCX, Inc. (Washington Plant)
Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen Plont)
G.eneral Electric Co/Shepherd Farm
JFD Electronfcs/Chamel Master
Jadco·Hughes Facility
Koppers Co. Inc. (Morrisville Plant)
Martfn·Marfetta, Sodyeco, Inc •.
NC State llniversfty(Lot 86,Form unit 11)
National Starch & Chemical Corp.
Ne,,:.Hanover Cnty Airp0rt Bum Pit
Potter's Septic Tank Service Pfts
·Federal Facility Sites
. Caq,. Lejeune Mil ftary Res. IUSNAVT)
.Cherry Point Marine Corps Afr Station
21 General Superfuid Sites + 2 Federal Facfl fty Utes = 23
General Superfuid Sites
East Helena
Bozeman
Libby
Mill town
Butte
ColUll:>us
Sil Bow/Deer Lodge
Jaclisonvfl le
Aberdeen
Hazelwood \
Concord .
Fayettevfl le
Fayettevt l le Shelby . .
Coro;,va
SWBl'Y\Bnoa
Statesvf l le
Washington
Aberdeen
East Flat Rock
Oxford
Belmont
Morrisville
Charlotte
Raleigh
Sal fsbury
Wilmington
Maco
0nslow CO<Jnty
Havelock
Arsenic Trioxide Site ·Southeastern ND.
Minot Lardfil l Minot
2.General Superfuid•Sftes + 0 Federal Facility Sites• 2
NE -General Superfuid Sf tes
10th Street Site
Bruno Co•op Association/Associated Prop
Cleburn Street Woll .
Hastings ·Grouid water Contmnfnatfon
Lindsay Marufacturfng.Co.
Nebraska Ordnance Plant (Former)
··. OIJal lala Grouid Water·Contanfnatfon·
Sherwood Medical· co. ·
. Waverly Grouid Water tontmnlnatfon
· Federal Facility Sites
Comhusker Anny M11U1ftion-Plant
9 General Superfuid Sites+ 1 Federal Facility Sites• 10
'11":
NH General· Superfuid Sf tes
Aul>um Road Lard! fl l
Coakley Landfill
Dover ""'icipal Landfill
18
Colim,us ·
Br.,,a
Grand lslard
Hastings
Lindsay
Mead.
OIJallala
·Norfolk
·Wa~erly
Hall CO<Jnty
Londonderry
North Haq,ton
· Dover
. Date
. ·---------------' Proposed"
·09/83
10/84
12/82
12/82
06/86
10/84
12/82
·06/88
01/87
06/88
10/84.
06/86
01/87
10/84
01/87
12/82
·06188
06/88
06/88
02/92
06/88
10/84
06/88
12/82
10/84
04/85
06/88
06/88
06/88
· 08/94
12/82
06i88
10/89
·10192
07/91
10/84
10/84
10/B9
10/92
07/91
;10/84
.. -10/84
12/82
10/84
12/82
Final
09/84
06/86
09/83
· 09/83
07/87
06/86 . 09/83
· 03/89
03/89
10/89
06/86
07/87
07/87
06/86
07/87
09/83
02/90
03/B9
10/89
12/94
10/89
06/86
03/89.
09/83
06/86
10/89
03/89
03/89
10/89
12/94
09/83
03/89
08/90
10/92
06/86
10/89
08/90 · ·
12/94
10/92 ·
06/86
. 07/87
09/83
06/86
09/83
F
F
s
F
St
NJ
1: ..
'
National Priorities
Final and Proposed Sites
Decent>er 1994
Site Name
Fletcher•s Paint Works & Storage
Kearsarge·Metallurgical Corp.
Kfffe Envirormental Services
Mottolo Pig Fam.
.New Hlllll)Shire Plating Co.
Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Dr1n
Savage Mi.iicipal Water Supply
. Somer-sworth Senf tar, Landfill
South Mi.iicipal Water Supply Well
Sylvester
Tibbets Road
Tfnlchom Garage
Town Garage/Radio Beacon
Federal Facility Sites
Pease Air Force Base
16 General Superfi.ld Sites+ 1 Federal F~cil ity Sites =
General Superfi.ld Sites
·A. O. Polymer
American Cyanamid Co.
Asbestos Dll'l)
Bog Creek Farm
Brick Township Landfill
· Bridgeport Rental & Oil Ser-vices
&rook Industrial Park
Burnt Fly Bog
CPS/Madison IFOJStrfes.
Coldwell Trucking Co.
Chemical Control
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Chemical Leaman _Tank Lines, Inc.
Chemsol, Inc.
Clba·Gelgy Corp.
Clrnanfnson Grocnd Water Contamination
Cori>e Fill North Landfill
Ccm,e F.11 1 South Landt ii 1
C-Chemical Coatings Corp. :
_Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc •.
D•l-rfo P,_rty
Dayco Corp./L.E carpenter Co.
De Rewal Chemical Co.
, Del I lah Road
~enzer & SchBfer X·Ray Co.
Df-,d Alkal I Co.
Dover Mi.iicipal wall 4
Ellis Property
. !vor Phi II fps l-lng
Ewan Property
·Fair Lown Wall Field
Florence Land Recontourlng Landfill
Fried lraJStries
GEMS Landt fl l ' Garden State.Cleaners .Co.
~len Ridge Radii.ID Sfte
Global Senftary Landfill'
Goose Farm
· . Helen Kramer Landfill
Hercules, Inc. (Glbbstown Plant) .
Higgins Disposal
'19
•
List
(by State)
Date ·
Location Proposed" Final
Mil ford 06/88 03/89
Conway · 09/83 09/84
· Epping 12/82 09/83
Raymond 04/85 07/87
Merrimack 07/91 10/92
Kingston 12/82 09/83
Mil ford 09/83 09/84
Somersworth 12/82 09/83
Peterborough 09/83 09/84
Nashua 12/82 09/83 s
.Barrington 04/85 06/86
Londonderry 12/82 09/83
Londonderry 06/88 03/89
17
Portsmouth/Newington .07/89 02/90 F
Sparta ·Township 12/82 09/83
BOU'ld Brook 12/82 09/83
Millington , 12/82 09/83
Howell Township 12/82 09/83
· Brick Township 12/82 09/83
Bridgeport 12/82 09/83
BOU'ld Brook. 06/88 10/B9
Marlboro Township .. 12/82 09/83 Old Bridge Township 12/82 09/83 ·
F8irffeld 12/82 09/83 ·
Elizebeth. 12/82 09/83
Edison Township 10/89 . 08/90
Bridgeport 09/83 09/84
,Piscataway 12/82 09/83
Toms River 12/82 09/83
.Cimaminson Townsh_ip 10/84 06/86
M01.nt Olive Township 12/82 09/83
_Chester Town'ship 12/82 09/83
Beverly 01/87 07/87
·saddle Brook Township 01/87 07/87
HamHton Township 12/82 09/83
'Wharton Borough 04/85 07/87
Kingwood Township D9/83 09/84
Egg Harbor Township 09/83 , 09/84
Bayville 12/82 09/83 ·
Newark 09/83 09/84 Dover Township. 12/82 . 09/83
Evesham Township 12/82 09/83
Old Bridge Township 12/82 09/83
. Stiamong Township 09/83 · 09/84
Fafr Lawn . 12/82 09/83
Florence TOMnShfp 09/83 09/84
East Srll\Swick. Townsh 10/84 06/86 .
G~oucester Tori_hfp 12/82 09/83
Minotola , 06/88 03/89
Glen Ridge. 10/84 02/85
Old Bridge Township '06/88 03/89
Plunstead Township 12/82 09/83
Mantua Township 12/B2 · 09/83
Gibbstown · 12/82 09/83
Kingston , 06/88. 08/90
'--'-•.'• ·= • •
Natlanal"Prloritles List
final ard Proposed Sites (by State)
Deceri>er 1994
,-~---
Date
St Site ■-Location ,Proposed" Final -Notesb
ffiw;ns Fam · Frankl in Township. 06/88 03/89
Hopkins Farm Plunstead Township 09/83 09/84
Horseshoe Road • Seyrevil le 05/93
Imperial Oil Co.,lnc./Chaq,ion Chemicals Mor9anvi l le 12/82 09/83
Industrial Latex Corp. Wallington Borough 06/88 03/89
-JIS Landfill J_8fflesburg/S. Brnswck. 12/82 09/83,
Jactsan Township lardflll Jack.son Township 12/82 09/83
Kauffman & Minteer, Inc. Jobstown 06/88 03/89
Kin-Bue: Lardff ll Edison Township 12/82 , 09/83-
King of Prussia Winslow Township 12/82 09/83
Landfill & Developnent Co. M01Jnt-Holly '09/83 09/84
Lang Property Peri>erton Township 12/82 09/83
Lipari lardfil l , Pitman 12/82 09/83
Lodi 111.niclpal Well Lodi 10/84 08/90
lone Pine Lardff_l l Freehold Township 12/82 09/83
Mannheim Avenue Du,p Galloway Township 12/82 09/83
MB)'IIOOca"Chemical Co. Maywood/Rochelle Park 12/82 09/83
Mete\tec/Aerosystems Franklin Borough 12/82 09/83
_Monitor Devices/lnterctrcuits Inc Wall Township _ 04/85 06/86
'Montclalr/\lest Orange Radiun Site Montclafr/W Orange. 10/84 02/85
Montgomery-Township Housing Oevelopnent Montgomery Township 12/82 09/83
Myers Property Franklin Township • 12/82 -09/83 NL frd,strl es -Pedrick.town 12/82 09/83
Naacollte Corp. -Millville 09/83 09/84
PJP lardffl l Jersey City_ 12/82 09/83
Pepe field Boonton 12/82 09/83
Pl Jot farm Plunstead Township 12/82 09/83
Pohatcong Valley Gra<rd Water Contamlnat Warren CO\.l"lty 06/88 -03/89
p_,. 0aks Residential Wells Galloway Township 10/84 06/86
Price Lardffll Pleasantville 12/82 09/83 s
Radiation Technology, Inc. Rockaway T ownsh Ip -09/83 09/84
Reich Farms , Pleasant Plains 12/82 09/83
Renora, Inc. Edison Township 12/82 -09/83
Rockaway Borough Well Field Rockaway Township 12/82 09/83
Roctaway Township Wells Rock.away 12/82 09/83
Rocky Hill 111.niclpal Well Rocky Hill Borough 12/82 09/83
R-ling Steel Co. Ftorence 12/82 09/83
Sayreville Lardflll , Sayrevfl le 12/82 09/83
Scientific· Chemical Processing Carlstadt 12/82 09/83
Sharkey Lardflll ,Parsippany/Troy Hls 12/82 09/83
Shieldalloy Corp. ,, Newfield Borough 09/83 -09/84
South Brunswick Landfill South Brunswick -12/82 -09/83
South Jersey Clothing Co. _-Mlnotola 06/88 , _ 10/89
Spence Fara Plunstead Township 12/82 09/83
Swope Oil & Chemical Co. Pemsauk.en 12/82 09/83
Syncon Resins South Kearny 12/82 09/83
Tabemacle 01'\11 D""' -Tabernacle Township 09/83 09/84
U.S. ladiuo Corp. Orange 12/82 -09/83
Unhersal Oil Procb:ta(Chemlcal Division East lutherford 12/82 09/83
Upper Deerfield Township Sanlt. Lardflll Upper Deerfield Towns 09/83 09/84
Ventron/Velalcol :wood Ridge Borough 09/83 09/84
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.. Vlnelerd :09/83 09/84
Vinelard State School Vinelard 12/82 09/83
.W8ldick. AerospaCe DevicH, Inc. Wall Township 10/84 06/86 _
White Chemical ,Corp.--Newark 05/91 09/91 A
, ; Wllll811S Property Swaint·on 12/82 09/83
;,.· Wilson farm Plunstead Township 09/83 09/84
Witco Chemical Corp.(0aklard Plt)-_ Oaklard 06/88 10/89
-Wood,land Route 532 D""' , Woodl ard T ownsh Ip 09/83 09/84
20
''
. '
St
NM
· NV
· NY
' '
•
National Priorities List
· Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
Decent>er 1994
Site NBIRO Location
Woodland Route n DUii> Wood I end Township
Federal Facility Sites
'Federal Aviation Acinin. Tech. Center Atlantic COU'lty
Fort Dix.(Landfill Site) Pent>erton Township
iiaval Air· Engineering Center· Lakehurst
Naval Weapons Station Earle (Site A> Col ts Neck -,
' _)icatimy Arsenal· (USARMY) . Rockaway Townsh~p ·W.R. Grace/Wayne Interim Storage (USOOE) Wayne -Township
. 101 General' SuperfLrld Sites + 6 Federal F_aci l ity s,ites = 107
General SuperflA'ld Sites
AT & SF (Clovis) Clovis AT&SF (Albuquer<rJ&) Albuquerque
· Cimarron Mining Corp. Carrizozo Cleveland Mi 11 Silver City
. Homestake Mining Co. Mi Lan Prewitt Abandoned Refinery Prewitt Rinchem Co., Inc. A I buquercr-,e : South Valley .. Albuquer<rJ&
united Nuclear Corp. -Church Rock
Federal Facility Sites
. C_al West Metals (USSBA) Lemitar'
'Lee Acres Landfil I (USOOI) Farmington
9 General SuperflA'ld Sites + 2 Federal Facility Sites= 11
General SuperflA'ld Sl~es
Carson River Mercury Site Lyon/Church fl I Cnty
1 General S~rfllld Sites+ 0 Federal Facility Sites·•
General SuperflA'ld Sites
Act ton Anodizh'l9, P.lating, ·& Pol iahing Copiague
American Thermostat Co. South Cafro Anchor Chemicals Hicksville
Applied•Envirormental Services GI enwood Landing
Batavia Landfill Batavia
Brewster Well Field Putnem C~ty Byron Barrel & OM.ID Byron
Carroll & Oubies Sewage Disposal Port Jervis t_frcuitron Corp. East· Farmingdale
Claremont Polychemical Old Bethpage
Clothier Disposal· Town of Granby
Colesville ..._,lcipal Landfill Town of Colesville
Conk I in 0""'5 Conklin
Cortese Landfill Village of Narrovsb.Jr Erdlcott Viii-Well Field Village of Endicott FMC Corp. (DoJ,lfn Road Landfill) Town ·of .. Shelby
F8Cet Enterprfaea, Inc. Elmf ra
Forest Glen Mobile MOIiie suldivisfon \ -Niagara Falls Fulton.Terminals Fulton
GCL Tie & Treating Inc. Village _of Sidney GE Moreau South Glen Falls
Gerieral· Motora(Central FOl.l'ldry Division) Massena
Genzale Plath" Co. .Frankl In ~r• Goldiac Recordings, inc: Holbrook
Haviland C0"1'lex · Town of Hyde ·Park
Hertel Landf ii I Plattekfl I
Hooker (102nd Streeti Niagara Falls
Hooker (Hyde Park) Niagara Falls
Hooker cs Area) Niagara_ Falls
21
Date
·-----------------Proposed" Final Notesb
09/83 -. 09/84 -
07/89 08/90 F
,10/84 07/87. .F 09/85 07/87 F
10/84 08/90 F
07/89 02/90 F
09/83 09/84 F
12/82 09/83
10/92 _ -12/94
06/88 10/89
_06/88 03/89
12/82 09/83
06/88 08/90
10/92
12/82 09/83 s
12/82 09/83
06/88 . 03/89 F
06/88 08/90 F
10/89 08/90
06/88 03/89
12/82 09/83
10/84 06/86
10/84 06/86
12/82 09/83
-12/82 09/83
10/84 06/86
06/88 02/90
06/88 03/89
10/84 06/86
10/84 06/86
10/84 06/86
06/86 03/89
. 10/84 06/86
10/84 06/86
10/84 06/86
12/82 09/83
08/89 -11/89 A
_ 12/82 09/83
01/94 05/94
12/82 09/83
09/83 09/84
06/86 07/87
10/84 06/86
10/84 . 06/86
· 10/84 06/86
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
St
\
·('
._;" .-:
... ~.
OH·
•
National Priorities Lfst
Final end Proposed Sites (by State)
Oeceriler 1994
Site Nmne Location
Hooker Chemical/Ruc·o Polymer Corp Hicksvfl le
Hudson River PCBs Hudson Rf ver
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill Islip ·
Johnstown City Landfill. Town Of Johnstown
Jones Chemicals, .rnc. -Caledonia
Jonas Sanitation Hyde Park
Katonah MLrlicipel Well Town of Bedford
Kennark Textile Corp. Farmingdale
Kentucky Avenue Well Field Horseheads
Li Tqsten Corp. Glen Cove
Liberty lrwstrial Finishing Fanningdale
Love Canal . Niagara Falls
Ludlow Sand & Gravel -Clayvj I le
Malta Rocket Fuel Area Malta
Marethon Battery Corp. Cold Springs
Mattiace Petrochemical Co.,. Inc. Glen Cove
Mercury Refining, Inc. Colonie
Nepera Chemical Co., .1nc. Maybrook
Niagara C0111ty Refuse ·Wheatfield
Niagara Mohawk Power Co(Saratoga Spfngs) Saratoga Springs ·
North Sea Municipal Landfill_ North Sea
Old Bethpage landfill · Oyster Bay
Olean Well·Field Olean
Clnondega Lake .. '.·. Syracuse
P~sley Solvents & Chemk_als, Inc. H"""5tead
Pfoh I Brothers Landf ii I Cheektowaga
Pollution Abatement SerYfces Oswego
Port Washington Landfill Port Washington
Preferred Plating Corp. Farmingdale
Radhn Chemical co.·, Inc. New _Tork City
Rmnapo Landf I II Ramapo.
Richardson Hill Rood Landfill/Pond Slaiey Center
Robintech, lnc./Natlonal Pipe Co. · Town of Vestal
Rosen· Br.Ot~ers Scrap Yard/DLq> Cortland -
Rowe Industries Gnd Water Contamination · Noyack/Sag Harbor
SNS Instr1.1nents, Jnc. Deer Park
Sarney Farm -ia
Sealand Restoration, Inc. Lisbon
Sia,ey Landfill Sicr,ey ·_
Sinclair Refinery . Wellsvfl le
-Sol vent Savers L lncklaen
Syosset Landfill"_. Oyster Bav.
Trf·Clties Barrel Co., Inc. Port Crane ·
Tron;c Plating Co., Inc. Farmingdale
Vestal Water" ~ly Well 1·1 · Vestal
.Vestal Water S'-"!'IY Well 4·2 · Vestal
Volney Municipal Landfill. Town of Votnev
Warwick landfil I ijarwick
Tork Oil Co. Moira
Federal Facility Sites
· Brookhaven National Laboratory (USOOE) Upton
.'·criffiss Air FOrCe Base Rome
PlattsbJrgh Air·Force Base Plattsburgh
· Seneca Army Depot ROaaJIUS
78_Ceneral SUJ)erfllld.Sites + 4 Federal ·fac;tftv Sites a 82
_General Superfund Sites
Allied Chemical· & Ironton Coke Ironton
A I sco Anaconda_ . Gnadenhutten
Z2
Date
··········-------. Proposed8 Final
10/84 06/86.
09/83 09/84
01/87 03/89
10/84 06/86
·06/88 02/90
01/87 07/87
10/84 06/86
· 10/84 06/86
12/82 09/83
07/91 10/92
10/84 06/86
· 12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
06/86 07/87
12/82 09/83
06/88 03/89
12/82 09/83
10/84 06/86
12/82 09/83
06/88 02/90
10/84 06/86
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
05/93 12/94
. 10/84 06/86
05/93 12/94
12/82 _ 09/83
12/82 · 09/83 _
10/84 -06/86
08/89 11/89
.12/82 09/83
06/86 07/87
10/84 06/86
-06/88 03/89
06/86 07/87
10/84 06/86
10/84 06/86
10/89 08/90
06/88 . 03/89
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
05/89 10/89
10/84 06/86
12/82 09/83
12/82 .09/83
10/84 06/86
_ 09/85 03/89
12/82 _ 09/83
07/89 11/89
10/84 07/87
07/89 11/89
07/89 08/90
12/82 09/83
10/84 -06/86
s
A
. F
F
F .
F
St
·. ',;:
01(
OR
, National Priorities lfst ·
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
Deceri>er 1994
Site Name Location
Arcarun -Iron & Metal Darke County
Big D Canwr.,.._j Kingsville
Bowers Landfill •Circleville
Buckeye Reclamation. St. Clairsville · . Chem-Dyne Hamil ton Coshocton Landfill . . ·. Franklin Township
Diamond Shamrock Corp(Painesville Works) · •. Painesville
Dover Chemical Corp. · Dover
E.H. Schilling Landfill Hamil ton Township
fields Brook Ashtabula
. Fultz Landfill Jackson Township
Industrial Excess Landfill Uniontown
Laskin/Poplar Oil Co. Jefferson Township
Miami COU"tty_Incinera~or Troy
Nease Chemical Salem
New L-Landfill New L-North Sanitary Landfill ·Dayton.
Old Mill Rock Creek
Onnet Corp. Hamibal
·Powell Road Landfill Dayton
Prfstfne, Inc .. Reading
'Reilly Tar & Chemical(Dover Plant) Dover
Repi,lic Steel Corp.·auarry Elyria
Sanitary Landfill Co. (Industrial Waste) Dayton
Ski mer Landf fl l . West Chester
South Point Plant South Point
Sumft National Deerfield Township·
TRW, Inc. (Minerva Plant) Minerva
United Scrap Lead Co., Inc. Troy
Van Dale J~yard Marietta
Zanesville Well Field Zanesville·
Federal Facility Sites
Afr Force Plant.85 Cohm:us
Feed Materials Prom,ctton Center (USDOE) Fernald
M.,.._j Plant (USDOE) Miamisburg
. Rickenbacker Air National Guerd (USAF) Lockbourne
· Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Dayton
33 General Superfund Sites+ 5 Federal Facllhy Sites • 38
General Si.,:,erfllld Sites
· coripass Industries (Avery Drive) Tulsa
Double Eagle Refinery Co. Ol<lehoma City
.. ,fourth Street Abandoned Refinery Oklehano City
Hardage/Criner Crfr~r
Mosley Road sanitary Landfill . Oklehome City
National Zinc Corp. Bartl~vi l le
Oklahano Refining Co. Cyril
.Sand Springs Petrochemical Coq,lex Sand Springs
Tar Creek (Ottewa.Cowity) Ottawa County
Tenth Street D""'/Jll'lkyard
federal Facility Sites .
Oklahome City
·Tinker Air Force(Soldier Cr/Bldg 300) .. , Oklehoma City
. 10 General Superfund Sites + 1 federal facility Sites •· 11 .
General Superfund Sites
East Multnomah Cou,ty GrOU'ld Wtr -Contam~ Nultnaneh County
Gould, Inc. Portland
Joseph Forest Products ·Joseph
Martin-Marietta Alunfnun Co. The Calles
23
· Date
----------------· Proposed" Final Notes b
12/82 ·. 09/83
12/82 -09/83
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83 s .
-12/82 09/83
05/93
05/93
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
10/84 -06/86
. 12/82 09/83
09/83 09/84
12/82 09/83
12/82 .09/83
06/93 05/94
12/82 09/83
09/85 07/87
09/83 09/84
12/82 09/83
06/88 08/90
10/84 06/86
10/B4 06/86
12/82. -09/83
09/83 09/84
12/82 09/83
06/86 03/89
09/83. 09/84
10/84 06/86
12/82 09/83
01/94 f
07/89 .11/89 f
07/89 11/89 F
01/94 F
.06/88 10/89 F·
09/83 09/84
'06/88 · · 03/89
06/88 03/89
12/82 09/83
· 06/88 02/90
05/93
06/88 02/90
09/83 06/86
12/82 09/83
·01t87 07/87
... ,04/85 07/87 'F
·05/93
12/82 09/83
06/88 03/89
10/B4 06/86
' '. l
'National Priorities Lfat
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
·Decencer 1994. ·
Date
-----------------Notesb St . Site Name Locat;on Proposed" Final
McCormick & Baxter Creos. to. (Portland) Portland · 06/93 05/94
Northwest Pipe & Casing Co. · Clackamas 02/92 10/92
Reynolds Metals Coq,any Troutdale 08/94 12/94
Teledyne Wah Chang, . Albany 12/82 D9/83
· union Pacific Railroad Tie Treatment The Dal Les 10/89 08/90
united Chrmne P,oo,cts, Inc. Corvallis D9/83 09/84
Federal Facility Sites
Fremont Nat. Forest Uranhn Mines (USDA) Lake County ·06/93 F
Ulllatll la 'Army Depot (Lagoons) Hermiston 10/84 07/87 F·
10 General S-rfund Sites+ 2 Federal Facility Sites a 12
PA General s-rfund Sites
A.1.w; Frank/Mid-County Mustang Exton · 06/88 10/89
AMP, Inc. (Glffl Rock Facility) Glen Rock 06/88 10/89
·Aladdin Plating Scott Township. . 01/87 07/87
Ant>ler Asbestos Piles An-bier 10/84 06/86
Austin Avenue Radiation Site . Delaware C0111ty 02/92 · 10/92 A
Avi:o .. Lycomlng (Wll I lmnsport Division) W i ll i ams port 01/87 02/90
Bally Ground Water Contmnination Bally Borough 06/86. 07/87
Bell Landffl I Terry Township 06/88 10/89
Bendix Flight Systems Division ·Bridgewater Township D9/85 07/87
Berkley Products Co. Durp Denver 06/88 03/89
Berks Landi I 11 ', '. Spring ·Township 06/88 10/89
Berks Sand Pit -Longsw""" Township D9/83 09/84
Blosenski Landfill West Caln Township 12/82 D9/83
Boarhead Farms Bridgeton Township 06/88 03/89
Brodhead Creek Stroudsburg 12/82 . D9/83
Brown•s Battery Breaking · Shoenmkersvl I le 10/84 06/86
Brufn Lagoon Bruin Borough 10/81 09/83
Butler Mine Turnel Pittston 06/86 07/87
Butz Landf fl I . Stroudsburg 06/88 03/89
C & D Recycling Foster Township 09/85 07/87
Centre County Kepone ·state College Borough 12/82 09/83 ·
Camnodore SemicordJctor Gr01.4> lower Providence Town 01/87 10/89
Cratg Farm·Drun Parker 12/82 D9/83
Crater Resources/Keystone Coke/Alan Wood Upper Merton Township 02/92 10/92
Crossley Farm Hereford Township 07/91 10/92 .
Croydon TCE Croydon 09/85 · 06/86
CryoChem, Inc. Morman 06/86 10/89
.Del ta Quarries & Dtsp./Stotler Landfill Ant I &/Logan Twps 06/86 . · 03/89
Dorney Road Landfill Upper Macungie Townsh D9/83 09/84
Douglassville Disposal Douglassville 12/82 . D9/83
Drake Chemical Lock Haven 12/82 , 09/83
Dlbl iri TCE ·Site Dublin Borough 10/89 08/90
East Mount Zion Springettsbury Townsh D9/83 D9/84
East 'Tenth StrNt Marcus Hook · 01/94
Eastern Diversified Metals Hcmetown .. 06/86 10/89
Ellzabethtciwn Landfill El izabethto.., 06/88 03/89
Fischer & Porter co. Warminster 12/82 D9/83
Foote Mineral Co. East Whiteland Townsh 02/92 10/92
Havertown PCP : Haverford 12/82 09/83
Hebelka Auto salvage Yard. Weisenberg Township . 06/86 07/87
Heleva Landfill North Whitehall Towns 12/82 09/83
-Hellertown MaMacturing Co. Hellertown 01/87 03/89
Henderaon Road Upper -Merion Town5hip D9/83 'D9/84
Hrani ca Landi ii I Buffalo Township .12/82 D9/83
Nl.l'lterstown Road Straban Township 10/84 06/86
lrd.lstrial Lane Wfl I illllS Township 09/83 D9/84
} ~ Jacks Creek/Sitkln Smelting and Refinery Maitland , 06/88 10/89
24
• •
National Priorities List
FiNll and Proposed Sites (by State)
Deceni>er 1994
Date
------------··---St Site Name Location Proposed" Final Notesb
Keystone Sanitation Landfi II Union Township D4/85 D7/87 Kiaberton Site Kimberton Borough 12/82 D9/83 Laclcawal'YlB Refuse Old.Forge Borough 12/82 09/83
Lindane D~ Harrison Township 12/82 D9/83 Lord-Shope Landfill . Girard Township. 12/82 09/83 Nlil N&r'lJfacturing . Valley Township · 10/84 06/86 Malvem TCE Malvern 12/82 D9/83 McAdoo Associates McAdoo Borough 12/82 09/83 s Metal Banlcs Philadelphia 12/82 09/83 Metropolitan Mirror and Glass Fr8clcvil le 02/92 10/92 "Middletown Air Field Middletown 10/84 06/86 Mil I Creek D1111> · _Erie 09/83 D9/84 Modem Sanitation Landfill Lower Windsor Townshi 10/84 06/86 Moyers Landfill Eagleville 12/82 09/83 North Pem -Area 1 · Souderton 01/87 . 03/89 North Penn -Area 12 Worcester ' 01/87 -02/90 North Pem • Area 2 Hatfield 01/87 10/89 North PerY'I -Area 5 Montgomery T ownsh i_P 01/87 03/89 North Pem -Area 6. ·Lansdale 01/87 03/89 · .. North Penn• Area 7 . North Wales 01/87 03/89 Novak Sanitary Landfill South Whitehall. Towns 01/87 10/89 OcCidental Chemical Corp./Firestone Tire LOWer Pottsgrove Town 06/88 10/89 Ohio Rfver Park Nevil le Island 10/89 08/90 Old City of York Landfill • Seven Valle)'S 12/82 . 09/83 Osborne Landfill·· Grove City· ·12182 09/83 Palmerton Zinc Pile -Palmerton 12/82 D9/83 Paoli Rail Yard Paoli 01/87 08/90 Pl.ml fcker Industries Inc. Phfladephfa 05/89 10/89 Raymark Hatboro 06/88 10/89 Recticon/Allled Steel Corp. East Coventry Twp 06/88. 10/89 Resin Disposal Jefferson Borough 12/82 09/83
-_Revere Chemical Co. · Nockamixon Township-· 09/85 07/87 ."#". River Road Landfill/Waste Mngnnt, Inc. , Hermitage 01/87 10/89 L· . Rode le Manufacturing CO., Inc. Emnaus Borough 07/91 10/92 .. Route 940'DrUII D"'1) Pocono S1.1m1it 09/85 07/87
Saegertown lndustrt"al Area . Saegertown 06/88 02/90 •-Shrtver•a Corner Straban Township , 10/84 · 06/86 Stanley_ Kessler King of Prussia· 12/82 09/83 Strasburg Landfill Newl In Township 06/88 03/89
Taylor Borough D1111> ,·. Taylor Borough D9/83 D9/84 Tonoll I Corp, . Nesquehoning 06/88 '10/89
Tysons 0"'1> Upper Merl on Twp 09/83 . 09/84 ·uGI ColLEt>ia Gas Plant Columfa . 06/93 05/94 Wal sh Landi fl l · Honeybrook Township 09/83 09/84 Westinghouse Electronic (Sharon Plant)· ·sharon 06/88. 08/90 We"stinghouse Elevator Co. Plant · Gettysburfi ·10/84 . 06/86
Whitmoyer L~ratorfes Jackson Townshfp 1.0/84 06/86 William Dick Lagoons . West Caln Township 01/87 07/87 York C0<.nty Solid Waste/Refuse Landfill Hopewel I .Township 04/85 07/87 Federal FacHity' Sites
Frankl In C01.ity Letterkenny Anny Depot (PDO Area) · ,04/85 '03/89 . F
Letterkenny Anny Depot (SE Area) . Chan'bersburg 10/84 07/87 , F · Naval Afr Developnent Center(8 Arees) Warminster Township 06/86 10/89 F
· Navy Ships Parts Control Center Mechanicsburg 01/94 05/94 F . Tobyhama Anny Depot Tobyhama 07/89 08/90 F
-Willow Grove NEival "Afr & Afr Res. Stn. Willow Grove 08/94 F . 96 General_ Sl.4)erfl.l"d Sites+ 6 Federal Facility Sites a 102
PR General Superfin:I Sites
Barceloneta Landfill Florida Afuera 12/82 09/83
25
. St
.~:.
-.
RI
SC
' Nation,;! Priorities list
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)
. Deceri>er 1994
•• C • .,., .
Sita Naoe Location
. Fibers Plbl le S-ly Wei ls Jobos
Frontera Creek Rio Abajo GE Wiring Devices Juana Ofaz J..;co. Landf IL l Jl.l"\COS
RCA Del Carlbe Barceloneta Upjohn Facility Barceloneta Vega Alta PlJ,l le S-ly Wells
Federal Facility Sites
Vega Al ta .
• Naval Security Group Activity Sabana Seea
8 General Superfi.>d Sites+ 1 Federal Facility Sites •·9
.. General Sl4)erfi.>d Sites
. Central landfill Johnston
Davis (GSR) Landfill. ·Glocester
Davis Liquid Waste Smlthf leld L8ndftll & Resource Recovery, Inc.(L&RR) North Smithfield
-Peterson/Puritan, _Inc. Lincoln/Cultlerland Plclllo Farm· .Coventry Rose Hill Regional Landfill South Kingston s.t11nlna Nil ls, Inc. North Smithfield
West Kingston Town D-/URI Disposal South Kingston
.Western Sand & Gravel Burrillville
Federal Facility Sites
Davlsvllle.Naval Construction Batt Cent North Kingston · Newpoff Naval Ecu:atiOn/Tralnlng Center Newport
10 ·General S'4)erft.m Sites+ 2 Federal Facility ~ites = 12
General Sl4)erfi.>d Sites
· Aqua•Tech Envlronnental Inc (Groce Labs) Greer·
Be8111it Corp. (Circular Knit & Dye) fou,tain Im
Carolawn, Inc. Fort Lawn
Elmore ~aste Qispoaal Greer .Geiger (C & M Oil) -Rantoul es
Golden Strip Septic Tank ·service .· Si~onvl l le Helene Chemical Co. landfill· Fairfax
Independent Nall co. · Beaufort Kai.,,. Specialty Chemicals -Beaufort
K-rs Co;, Inc. (Charleston Plant) °Charleston
K-rs Co., Inc. (Florence Plant) Florence
Leonard Chemical Co., Inc. Rock Nil I
Lexington County LandfHI Area . Cayce·
Medley Farm Orun D-Gaffney
• Palmetto Recycling, Inc. Coluii,ia
. Palmetto. Wood Preserving .Dixiana
Para•Chem Southern, Inc. Si~onvllle Rochester. Property Travelera Rest Rock Hill Ch•lcal Co •. Rock Nil I SCRO! Bluff ·Road ,Coluii,ia
SCRO! Dixiana · , Cayce•
SangllDO -ton/Twelve:Mi le/Martwel l PCB Pickens
Townsend Saw Chain Co. Ponttac
Wamchem, Inc. Burton . ,Federal Facility Sites
· Pari-1.s Island Narine Cof'P!I Recruit Depot Parris Island Savamah River Site (USDOE) Alken
24 General S-rfi.>d Sites +.2 Federal Facility Sites a 26
SD. Generel Sl4)erfi.>d Sites ;
. •." Amie Creek Nine Tafl ings •.Lead
26
Date
---·-------------Proposed" Final
09/83 09/84
12/82 09/83.
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
09/83 09/84·
09/83 09/84
06/88 10/89
10/84 06/86
04/85 06/86
12/82 · ·09/83
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
06/88 10/89
12/82 09/83
-07/91 10/92
·12/82 09/83
07/89 11i89 07/89 . 11/89
08/94 -12/94
06/88 02/90
12/82 09/83
06/88 03/89
09/83 09/84
01/87 07/87
06/88 . 02/90
09/83 09/84
09/83 09/84
02/92 12/94
09/83 '09/84
09/83 09/84
06/88 10/89
06/86 . 03/89
09/83 09/84
09/83 09/84
10/89 08/90
.06/86 10/89
06/88 02/90
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
01/87 .. 02/90
06/88 02/90
09/83 ~/84
08/94 -12/94
07/89 11/B9
07/91
· .Notesb
F
s
F
F
s
F
F
.. St
TN
· ·National Priorities List.
Final and Proposed Sites· (by State)
. Deceriler 1994
Site Name location,,
llhltewood Creek ' 11h i t ewood .
Williams Pipe line Co. Disposal Pit Sioux Falls
~ederal Facility Sites
'Rapid City Ellsworth Air Force Base
3 General Superfim Sites +·1 Federal Facility Sites= 4
General Sl.4)erfl.l"ld Sites
American Creosote Works, (Jackson Plant) Jackson Allnlcola D-Chattanooga Arl insiton Blending & Packaging Arlington carrier Air Conditioning Co~ Colllervflle Chetnet Co. Moscow _ Gallaway Pits Gallaway· JCG lselin Railroad Yard .· Jackson Lewisburg Durp Lewisburg Mallory Capacitor Co. Waynesboro
Murray-Ohio D1..111) Lawrenceburg
North Hol I ywood D-Meni:,his
Tennessee Products Chattanooga
Velsicol Chemical Corp (Hardeman Cou,ty) Toone Wrigley Charcoal Plant
Federal Facility Sites · Wri8ley
Tullahoma/Manchester Arnold Engineering Develop. Ctr. (USAF)
·M•I• Defense Depot (DLA) ·Meni,t,is
. 'Nil&n Anny Almu'li~ion Plant Milan
Oak Ridge Reservation (USOOE). 0ak Ridge
· 14 General Superfim Sites +·4 Federal FacHfty Sites • 18
TX.-· General S~rfl.l"d Sites _
ALCOA (Point Comfort)llav&ca Bay·
· Bai Ley Waste Disposal
Bio·EcolC>gy Systems, Inc.
Brio• Refining, Inc.
Crystal Chemical Co •.
Crystal City Airport
Dfxfa Oil Processors, Inc.
French, Ltd.
Geneva Jndustrfes/Flllrmam Energy ·
Highlands Acid Pit
·Koppers-co Inc (Texarkana Plant).
Mateo, Inc.
North CavalCade Strfft
Odessa Chromha #1
Odessa Chromhn. #2 (Andrews Highway)
Pesses Chemical Co. ·
Petro-Chemical Systems, (Turtle Bayou)
RSR Corp. .
Sheridan Disposal Services
Sikes Disposal Pits
Sol LyrY'l/lndustrfal Transformers
south Cavalcade Street ·
Stewco, Inc.
Texarkana Wood Preserving Co.
·rriangle Chemical co.
United Creosoting Co.
Federal Facility Sites•
··Air Force Plant #4 (General Dynamics)
Lone Star Army AmlLnftlon Plant
·LonghOm Army Armuiition Plant
··27
Pofnt Comfort
Bridge City ·
Grand Prairie
Friendswood
Houston
Crystal City
Friendswood
Crosby
Houston
Highlands
. Texerkana
La Marc,.,e
Houston
Odessa
Odessa
Fort Worth
Liberty Ccu,ty
Dallas
HOl11)Stead
Crosby
Houston
Houston
Waskom
-Texarkana
Bridge City
Conroe
Fort Worth
.Texarkana
KarN!Ck
Date
----·------------Pr_.J Final
12/82 09/83
10/89 -08/90
10/89 · 08/90
10/84 06/86
12/82 09/83
01/87 07/87
06/88 02/90
01/94 05/94
·12182 09/83
05/93 12/94
12/82 ' 09/83
01/87 10/89
12/82 09/83
12/82 09/83
01{94
12/82. 09/83
06/88 03/89
08/94
02/92 i0/92
10/84 07/87
07/89 11/89
06/93 02/94
10/84. 06/86
. 12/82 09/83
10/84 03/89
12/82 09/83
10/84 06/86
06/88 10/89
12182 09/83
09/83 ·. 09/114
12/82 09/83
10/84 06/86
12/82 09/83
10/84. 06/86
10/84 06/86
10/84 06/86
. 10/84 06/86 .
10/84. 06/86
05/93
06/86 03/89
12/82 09/83
10/84 03/89
. 10/84 06/86
10/84 06/86
04/85 06/86
12/82 09/83
09/83 .09/114
10/84 .. 08/90
· 10/84 07/87
07/89 08/90
Notes
s
F
s
A
F
F
F
F
s
F
·F
F
b
St
UT
VA
,' .
.VI
. VT
•
National Prforftfes~Lfst
.. final and Proposed Sites (by State)
Decent>er 1994
Sftti N1111e Location
Pantex Plant CUSDOE) Pantex Village
26 General s_r_fund Sites + 4 Federal Facfl fty Sites • 30
General S-rfund Sites
Kernecott (North Zone)
Kernecott (South Zone)
Midvale Slag . .
Monticello Radioactive Contaminated Prop
Murray Smelter
Petrochem Recycl Ing Corp./Ekotek Plant
·Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 & 3)
Richardson Flat Tail fngs
Rose Park Sludge Pit .
Sharan Steel Corp. (Midvale Tailings)
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel co.
Wasatch Chemfcal·Co. (Lot 6)
Jederal Facll fty Sites
Hill Afr Force Base
. Monticello Mill Tailings (USDOE)
Ogden Defense Depot COLA)
Tooele Anny Depot (North Area)
1_2 General s-rfund Sites + 4-Federal Facll fty Sites • 16
General S-rfund Sites
Abex Corp.
. Arrowhead Associates/Scovill Corp •.
"Atlantic" Wood Industries, Inc. .
Avtex Fibers, l.nc.
·Buckinghm Ccuity Landfill
C & R Battery Co., Inc.
'Chisman Creek
Culpeper Wood Preservers, rnc. ·
Dixie Caverns Ccuity_ Landfill
First Pieanont Rock Quarry (Route 719)
Greenwood Chemical Co.
. H & H Inc., Bum Pit
L.A. Clarke ' Son .
Rentokil, Inc. (VA Wood Preserving Div)
Rhinehart Tire Fire DUl1)
·sal tvil le Waste Disposal Ponds
Saunders S-ly Co.
Suffolk City Landfill
U.S. Tftaniua
·federal facility Sites
.Defense General 5-l y Center COLA)
Fort Eusti1 (US Army)
Langley Air"force Base/NASA Langley Cntr
., Marine· Corps Callbet Developnent Comnand
···Naval sur'face warfare -•Dahlgren ·
Magno
Copperton
Midvale
Monticello
Murray City
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City·
Sunnft Ccuity
Salt Lake City
Midvale
Salt lake City
Salt Lake City
,Ogden
·Monticello ·'
Ogden
Tooele
Portsmouth
Montross
Portsinouth
Front Royal
Buckingham
Chesterfield C01.11ty
York Ccuity.
Culpeper
· Salem
· Pi ttsyl vanlil Ccuity
Newtown ·
· · Farrington
Spotsylvania Ccuity
Richllllnd
Frederick Ccuity .
Sal tvll le
Chuckatuck
Suffolk
Piney River
CheSterfield Cou,ty
Newport News
Haq,ton
.. Quantico
Dahlgren
Yorkfown 'Na~al Weapons Station -Yorktown . . .
. 19 General S~rfuid Sites.+_ 6. Federal FacH itY: Sites • 25,.
General S-rfund Sites·
· Island Chemical Corp/V.I. "Chemical.Corp -·St. Croix
Tutu Wellfield Tutu
2 Generel 5-rfund Sites+ 0 federal .Fae! l fty Sites • .2:
·Generel·S-rfund Sites
BF! sanitary Landffll(Rockfnghem) .. Rocklnghm ·
28
Date ·
-----------------• Proposed" final
· 07/91 05/94
01/94
01/94
06/86 02/91
10/84 06/86
01/94
07/91 10/92
10/84 06/86
02/92
12/82 . 09/83
10/84 08/90_
05/89 -10/89
01/87 02/91
10/84 07/87
·. 07/89 11/89
10/84 07/87
10/84 0~/90
06/88 08/90
06/88 · 02/90
06/86 02/90
10/84 06/86
04/85. 10/89
01/87 07/87
12/82 09/83
10/84 10/89
01/87 10/89
04/85 07/87
01/87 07/87
01/87 03/89
. 10/84 06/86
01/87 03/89
·10184 06/86
12/82 09/83
01/87 10/89
06/88 02/90
12/82 09/83
10/84 07/87 ·
01/94 ·12/94
. 05/93 05/94
05/93 .. 05/94
02/92 · 10/92
02/92 10/92
01/94
02/92
· 06/88 10/89
F
·S
F
F
F
f
f
F
·F
F
F
F
., . ·•· • ~
National Priorities List
•final and Proposed Sites (by State)
December 1994
Date
------------------b St Site Name Location .. Proposed8 Final Notes
Bemfngton M1.r1icipal Sanit~ry .Landfill · Bemington 06/88 03/89 Burgess Brothers Land~ill · . Moodford -06/88 03/89 Oarl Ing Hill D~ Lyndon 06/88 10/89 Old Springfield Landfill Springfield 12/82 . 09/83 Parker San I tary Landfill· Lyndon 06/88 02/90 Pine Street Canal Burlington 12/82 09/83 s Tansftor Elitctronfca, Inc. Bemfngton 06/88 10/89 8 General Superf_i.nd Sf tes + 0 Federal Facil!ty Sites R 8
·11A G_eneral Superfi.nd Sites
ALCOA CVancower Smelter) · Vancouver 06/88 02/90 American Crossarm & Conduit Co. : Chehalis 06/88 10/89 Boomsl'UJ/Alrco -Vanc01.Ner 01/94 -S Centralia MLnlcipal Landfill Central fa 06/88 08/90 ·, . Colbert Landfill Colbert 12/82 09/83 Comnencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide Flits Pierce Ccu,ty 12/82 09/83 C~errient Bay, South Tacoma.Charnel. Taccma 12/82 09/83 FMC-Corp. (Yakima Pit) Yakima . . 12/82 09/83 Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc. Vancouver . _12/82 09/83 General Electric Co. (Spokane Shop) Spokane 06/88 10/89 Greenacres Landfill· Spokane · COU"lty 09/83 09/84· Harbor Island (Leed) Seettle 12/82 09/83 Hidden Valley Landfill (ThLn Field) ·Pt erce Cou,ty 06/86 03/89 · Kaiser Aluntrut Nead Works Mead 12/82 09/83 Lak-Sita Lakewood -12/82 09/83 Mica Landffl 1 Mica 10/84 06/86 Midway Landfill Kent 10/84 · 06/86 Moses Lake Well field Contemfnatfori Moses Lake -07/91 · 10192 North Market Street Spokane 06/88 · 08/90 .. Northside Landfill . Spokane 10/84 06/86 Notthwest Transformer . Everson "10/84 06/86 .;; .Northwest Transformer(South.Har~ness St) Everson 06/88 02/90 ' · Old ·Inland Pit Spokane · 06/86_ 02/90 Pacific Car & Foundry Co. Renton 06/88 02/90 Pac ff f c SOLnCI Resources Seattle 05/93 05/94 Pasco Sanitary Landfill Pasco 06/88 .-02/90
Queen City Farms Maple Valley 09/83 09/84
Seattle MLnicipal Landfill (Kent Hghlnds_. Kent 06/88 oai9o Stlv8r MOU"ltafn Nfne Loomis 10/84 06/86 Spokane JLnkyard/Assoclated Properties Spokane 10/92 05/94 .. Tulal Ip Landffl l . Marysville 07/91 vancower Water Station 11 £ontl!lffliNltfon Vancouver 06/93 •. 05/94 · :. Y~~er Wa"ter St8tfon #4 Contamination Vancouver 07/91 10/92 ·western Processing Co., Inc. · Kent 12/82 .09/83 . Myckoff Co./Ea;le Harbor · Bainbridge Island_ 09/85 07/87 Federal Facility Sites
Amer! can Lake GardensiMcChord AF8 Tacoma . 09/83 09/84 'f . 'BBngor Naval Sl.alerfne Base . .Silverdale . 07/89 08/90 F . Bangor tiraiance D_fsposal (USNAVY) Bremerton 10/84 . · 07/87 F 'Bonneville Power Aanin Ross CUSOOE) VancOUVer 07/89 11/89' F FafrChild Air Force Base (4 Waste Areas)" Spokane CO'-"ty .06/88 03/89 .f . ·Fort Lewis (Landfill No. 5) Tacoma 10/84 07/87 F . _Fof't• lewis Lc;,gistics Center Tillicun 07/89 .11/89 F H111ilton Island Landffll(USA/COE) North Bornevi l te· 07/91 10/92 F Hanford 100-Area (USOOE) Benton County · 06/88 10/89 F Hanford 1100·Area (USDOE) Benton CO'-"ty .06/88 10/89 F Hanford 200-Area-(USDOE) . Benton COll'lty . 06/88 .· 10/89 F Hanford 300·Area CUSDOE). Benton CO'-"ty 06/88 10/89 F Jackson Park Housing C-l•x (USNAVY) Kitsap COU'1ty · 06/93 05/94 F
29
• • •
Na.tfonal Priorities List
Final end Proposed Sites (by State)
· December 1994
Date
-----------------St Site N-i.ocatfon Proposed" Final Notesb
McChord Air Force Base (Wash Rack/Treat) Tacoma 10/84 07/87 F
Naval Afr Station, llhidbey Is (Seaplane) llhidbey Island 09/85 02/90 F . Naval Afr Station; llhfdbey Island (Ault) .. llh i dbey I s I and 09/85 02/90 F Naval Undersea Warfare Station (4 Areas) Keyport 06/86 10/89 F O_ld. Navy .DUll>/Manchester .Lab(USEPA/NOAA) Manchester 01/94 05/94 -F
' Port Hadlock Detachment (USNAVY) Indian Island · 06/93 . 05/94 F
Puget Soird Naval Shipyard C-lex Bremerton 05/93 05/94 F
35 General Superfund Sites+ 20 Federal . . . -·. ~acilfty Sites• 55
WI General Superfund Sites
Algoma 'Algoma M1.11fcfpal Landfill 06/86 07/87
Bett'er Brite Plating Chrane & Zinc Shops . DePere 10/89 08/90 City Disposal Corp. Landfill_ Dunn· 09/83 09/84 Delavan NLl'licfpal Well #4 ·oelavan 09/83 09/84 Eau ct'afra M1.11icipal Well Field Eau Claire 09/83 09/84 Fadrowskf Dr\111 Disposal • Frankl fn 10/84 06/86 Hagen Farm Stoughton 09/85 07/87
Hecllfmovfch Sanitary Landfill Wi II iamstown 06/88 03/89
'H1.11ts Disposal Landfil I Caledonia 06/86 07/87
Janesville Ash Beds Janesville 09/83 09/84 Janesvfl le Did Landfil I . Janesvfl le 09/83 09/84 Kohler Co. Landfill Kohler 09/83 09/84 Lauer I Sanitary Landfill Menomonee Fa II s 09/83 09/84 ·Lemberger Landfill, Inc. llhJtelaw 09/85 06/86 Lemberger ·Transport & Recycl Ing ... Franklin Township 09/83 09/84
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District Blooming Grove 06/88 02/90 Mester Disposal Service Landfill Brookfield 09/83 09/84 Mid-State Disposal, Inc. Landfill Cleveland Township 09183 09/84
Moss·Amerf can(Kerr-NcGe"8 Oil Co.) Ni lwaukee 09/83 09/84 Muskego Sanitary Landfill Muskego · 09/83 09/84 N.W. Nauthe Co.p Inc. Appleton 06/88 03/89 s · ·_National Pruto Industries, Inc. Eau Clafre 10/84 06/86 · _N~rthem Engr&ving co. . Spar"ta 09/83 09/84
_Ocouomowoc Electroplating Co. 'Inc Ashippfn 09/83 . 09/84 Onega Hills North Landfill · Germantown 09/83 '09/84
Onalaska M1.11icipal Landfill Onalaska 09/83 09/84
.Refuse Hideaway Landfill Middleton. 02/92 10/92
Ripon City Landfill Ripon 06/93 05/94 Sauk C01.11ty Landfill · Excelsior 06/88 10/89
Schmalz DUil> Harrison 09/83 09/84
Scrap Processing Co., Inc. Medford 09/83 09/84
Sheboygan Harbor &_ River Shebo)'llan 09/85 · 06/86 Spickler Landfill Spencer 01/87 07/87
Stoughton City Landfill Stoughton 10/84 06/86 Tanah Annory. Tanah 01/87 07/87 TC1118h FairgrO'-"da. Tanah 01/87 07/87 .Tanah Municipal Sanitary Landfill• Tanah · 06/86 03/89 Waste Mgmt of WI (Brookfield Sanft LF) Brookfield ·06/88 08/90
· Wausau. GrOU"ld !if•t~r Contamination ·Wausau · 04/85 06/86
Wheeler Pit . La·Prafrie T~hfp 09/83 09/84
40 General Superfu-d Sites+ 0 Federal Facility Sit~ a 40
WV General S"""rfund SftH
Fike Chemical, Jnc. Nitro . 12/82 09/83 ·. fol lansbee Si ta Follansbee 12/82 09/83
. ·Leetown Pestfctde . LeetOW'I 12/82 09/83
Orct\anc:e Worki Disposal AreU NorgantOW'I 10/84 06/86 ·
· Federal Facility Sftas
--Allegany Bal I istics Laboratory _(USNAVY) Mineral, 06/93 05/94 F
30
St
IIY
· National Priorities List
Final and Proposed Sites (by State)·
December 1994
Site NIIIIO Location
llest Virginia Ordnance (USARMY) Point Pleasant
4 General S-rfird Sites+ 2 Federal Facility Sites• 6
· General S14'8rfird Sites
Baxter/Union Pacific Tfe Treating Laramie . Mystery Bridge Rd/U.s.· Highway 20 Evansvf l le Federal Facility Sites
F.E. Warren Afr Force Base Cheyenn&
. 2 Gffleral ·Sl.4)erfund Sites·+ 1 Federal Facility Sites= 3
1128 General S-rfird shes + 160 Federal Fae fl ity Site~ • 1288,
Date
-----------------Proposed" Final Notes
· 12/82 09/83 F,S
12/82 · 09/83.
06/88 · 08/90
07/89 02/90 F
·"oate first eligible for 5-rfird ae.ti;,., •. First .NPL proposed 12/82. Same .sites were amouneed earlier In the
Interim Priorities List• (10/81f end Expanded El igibl i I ity List (7/82); most were included In the first proposed NPL.
b . . . .
A• Based on issuance of health advisory by AgenC!y for' Toxic Substances and Disease Registry · <ft: scored, ·HRS score need not be > ·28.50}. , .
. F • Fedel"al fBcfl fty sf~e, not el igfble _for Superfllld-financed response.
S = State t0p priority (intli.ded limong·the 160 top priority sites regardless of score).
31
b
---------------~----'---• United States -
Environmental Protection
Agency
For further information, call the Superfund HoHine, toll-free
_ 1•800•424_-9346 or (703) 412·9810 in Washington, DC
_ metropolitan area; or the U.S. EPA Superfund Regional Offices
6sted belcr,v .•
For publications, contact
.. __ EPA Superlund Docket, 5201
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
[phone]
Q11tce of Emergency and Remedial Response, 5204G
. . -United States Environmental Prollldion AgeOOf -
-_ _ --_ 401 M Street SW
_· Washington, DC 20460
• . . -[phone] .
Retilon 1
Connecticut -New Hampshire .
.llalne Rhode Island Massachusetts Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . .
Waste Management Division, HAA-CAN-1
" John F, Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203-2211 .. . }." [phone]
,-Realon 2
New Jersey Puerto Rico
New York Virgin Islands ...... • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......
Emergency and Remedial Response Divisicm
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
1212) 264-8672 . .. --Region 3
Delaw.-e Pennsylvania
Dlstlld ot Columbia Virginia , llaryland · · -West Virginia -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ......
Site Assessment Section, 3HW73
. -841 Chesmut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
.. / -: _ [phone] -
Region 4 _
Alabanla lllasl98lppl
Florida North Caollna Georgia _ South C8rollna · _
-_ Kentu~ -. _ · ---Tl1"111H6 -'. • • • • • • 'Waste Maiuigemeitt blvlsfmi . . '. . . • · ·
345 Counland Sueet NE -. . Atlanta, GA 30365
1404\ 347-5065
Renlon 5
UUnols .,nnesow
lndlana Ohio
.. II.Jc:!119a!l . . . . Wlscon9ln wasie ·Managemem Divisimi ••••••..
77 West Jackscm Boulevard, 6ch l'!O<I' . . . . . Oiicago, n. 60(,()4
-13121 886-7570
. •-·•-
Region 6
Arkansas Oklahoma Louisiana . Texas
Newllexlco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ". .
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 6H-M
· · -.. 1445 Ross Avenue
-Dallas, TX 76202-2733
[phone]
-Retilon 7
·' IIIWll Missouri
Kansas · Nebraska
• • • • ■ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ■ • • • • •••
_ Waste Management Division
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
.. [phone] or 551-7595
Realon 8
:IOIIUI UIIIUlla
Montana Utah
.. ~.D!ik.Ol!I ............ ~11)11 •••••••
Hazardous Waste Management Division, 8HWM-SR
-' 999 18th Street, Suite 500 ,
Denver, CO 80202-2466 ,-. .. (303) 294. 7630
Retilon 9
Arizona ""'"I?& Guam Northern Marianas
HawaD T~I Territories • • C!il!fo!n!I. • . . . . . ~Y\ld/1 • . . . . . . . . . . • • •
,-Waste Management Division, H-1 ., 75 Hawthorne Sueet .
San Francisco, CA 94105 . ' [phone]
' · Region 10
AIIISIUI -Oregon
Idaho . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . !'~li:,G~ .....
Hazardous Waste Division, HW-113
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle;WA 98101
1206\ 553-1677
* AD EPA telepbone and telecommunications systems may be
'ecxessed _via the Federal Telecommunlcidions System (FTS).
(
• •
3.2 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO./SHEPHERD FARM, EAST FLAT ROCK, NC
3. 2 .1 List of Commenters
NPL-Ul2-3-38-R4
NPL-Ul2-3-209-R4
NPL-Ul2-3-245-R4
NPL-U~2-3-289-R4
NPL-Ul2-3-L27-R4
Comment dated 3/25/92 from
Evelyn Nichols, Co-Chairwoman,
Concerned Neighbors of GE.
Comment dated 4/6/92 from
William R. Vineyard, General
Manager, General Electric
Lighting Systems.
Comment dated 4/3/92 from Ginny
Lindsey, Clean Water Fund of
North Carolina.
Comment dated 3/18/92 from Jesse
Helms, Senator from North
Carolina.
Comment dated 10/1/92 from
William R. Vineyard, General
Manager, General Electric
Lighting Systems.
A total of 265 comment letters were received from concerned
citizens. The complete list of comment letters with names,
affiliations, and dates are located and available in the EPA
Superfund Docket. The following is the list of comment letters
by docket identification number:
NPL-Ul2-3-2-R4 through NPL-U12-3-8-R4; NPL-U12-3-
. 15-R4 through NPL-Ul2-3-29-R4; NPL-U12-3-34-R4 .
through NPL-Ul2-3-170-R4; NPL-Ul2-3-172-R4 through
NPL-Ul2-3-206-R4; NPL-Ul2-3-209-R4; NPL-Ul2-3-211-
R4 through NPL-Ul2-3-222-R4; NPL-Ul2-3-225-R4
through NPL-Ul2-3-235-R4; NPL-U12-3-237-R4; NPL-
Ul2-3-249-R4 through NPL-U12-3-252-R4; NPL-Ul2-3-
255-R4; NPL-Ul2-3-256-R4; NPL-Ul2-3-258-R4; NPL-
Ul2-3-259-R4; NPL-Ul2-3-263-R4; NPL-U12-3-269-R4;
NPL-Ul2-3-270-R4; NPL-Ul2-3-272-R4; NPL-Ul2-3-273-
R4; NPL-Ul2-3-275-R4 through NPL-U12-3-285-R4;
NPL-Ul2-3-290-R4; NPL-U12-3-Ll-R4 through NPL-Ul2-
3-L3-R4; NPL-Ul2-3-L5-R4 through NPL-Ul2-3-L8-R4;
and NPL-Ul2-3-Ll0-R4 through NPL-Ul2-3-L21-R4.
3.2-1
•
3.2.2 Site Description
The General Electric Co. and the Shepherd Farm site
(hereafter referred to as GE/Shepherd Farm) is located in East
Flat Rock, North Carolina. This site is an aggregation of
several properties in the area of the GE facility. Three
properties were assessed in the HRS evaluation (the GE Plant,
Shepherd Farm, and Seldon Clark properties). Though not part of
the designated site, three additional properties (Jesse Staden,
John Span, and the North Carolina Fairgrounds properties) were
mentioned in the HRS documentation record at proposal as possible
other related sources for informational purposes. Studies have
revealed that several inorganic compounds and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) have contaminated ground water and surface water
sediments on and off both the GE and Shepherd Farm properties.
Both the ground water and soil exposure pathways were identified
as exposed to contamination by releases from the site.
Among the compounds identified in ground water samples from
on-site and off-site wells are voes such as tetrachloroethene,
trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene, and inorganic substances
such as cobalt, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and
manganese. An estimated 4,400 people formerly obtained drinking
water.from private wells within 4 miles of the site. Soils in
the trailer park at the Shepherd Farm property have been found to
contain PCBs.
3.2.3 Summary of Co111111ents
Evelyn Nichols, Co-Chairwoman of Concerned Neighbors of GE,
submitted several comments in favor of listing which included a
request that the additional properties associated with the
GE/Shepherd Farm site be investigated further. On behalf of "the
community;" she also expressed the desire to have a "permanent"
cleanup of the site. She requested that the cleanup be conducted
3.2-2
"
• •
by Superfund, since Superfund is the most stringent cleanup
program, and that the community be allowed involvement in the
cleanup. She also indicated a distrust of General Electric
Lighting Systems (hereafter referred to as GELS) and the State of
North Carolina to properly conduct a cleanup of the site.
Ginny Lindsey, on behalf of the Clean Water Fund, commented
in favor of listing the GE/Shepherd Farm site on the NPL and
opposed cleaning up the site under RCRA or the State of North
Carolina's Superfund program. She stated that the State program
has insufficient legal tools and funds to force GELS to conduct a
proper cleanup. She requested that the additional properties
associated with the GELS plant be included in the listing process
to ensure their cleanup. She also requested that the surface
water pathway be scored.
Mr. William R. Vineyard, General Manager of GELS, submitted
two sets of comments. In the first letter, dated April 6, 1992,
he made several remarks, including requests that the GELS plant
be allowed to remediate under the RCRA deferral policy and that
the plant not be aggregated with other properties for HRS
evaluation. Mr. Vineyard also commented that the NPL listing was
arbitrary and capricious in.several respects, including the
following:
"The absence of any credible information or record
establishing a release or threatened release of hazardous
substances at, or information sufficient to support an
NPL listing for three of the four aggregated properties";
"The failure to apply the petroleum exclusion" to the
Fairgrounds property;
"EPA's reliance on outdated and defective toxicological
data in calculating the HRS score";
3.2-3
•
"EPA's failure to consider remedial actions already taken
by GELS which reduce any potential threat posed to human
health and the environment";
EPA's failure to calculate a separate HRS score for each
individual property;
EPA's failure to identify in the published notice each of
the properties proposed for NPL listing, which has
deprived the public and potentially responsible parties
of their due process of law.
In his second letter, dated October 1, 1992, Mr. Vineyard
wrote in response to the Clean Water Fund's comment letter. He
reiterated many of the same points as stated in his first letter
and maintained that the Fund's comments were without merit. He
also stated that the State Superfund program has ample legal
resources to ensure cleanup at the GELS site.
An additional 260 comment letters were received from
concerned citizens including letters from individuals and form
letters. A form letter sent by 140 commenters stated that these
concerned citizens fully support the need to clean up the site
but asked that remediation be handled under RCRA rather than
Superfund. Another form letter sent by 74 commenters stated that
GELS and the State of North Carolina should be allowed to clean
up the site. This form letter went on to say that the GELS site
posed no health risk to the community, that the area would suffer
economically from the stigma of .an NPL listing, and that GELS has
a remediation plan that could be implemented immediately. A
third form letter sent by nine commenters also stated that GELS
should be allowed to clean up the site without Superfund
involvement. Jesse Helms, Senator from North Carolina, enclosed
a petition signed by 236 persons asking that GELS be allowed to
clean up without the "added burden of Superfund:"
3.2-4
·--. )
• •
Individual comment letters were submitted from those who
favored listing and those opposed to listing. Some of those in
favor of listing were concerned about the health and welfare of
exposed populations and requested that EPA review additional
possible releases from the site. Mary Ruth Brown Nichols
requested that EPA conduct a test of her parents' ground water
well for possible contaminants. Commenters opposed to the site
listing presented reasons such as that GELS is currently an
active site (not an abandoned site), that dumping was a common
practice in the past, and that this site poses no health risk.
Some commenters agreed with the site aggregation of properties
while others were against aggregation. Several commenters
expressed concern that EPA was not listening to local citizens
and that, because of the large GE employee letter writing
campaign, local citizens were not getting a fair hearing. Some
commenters stated that GELS should be allowed to clean up the
site themselves and that GELS had already completed some remedial
f. actions; however, others expressed opposition to a GELS and/or
State-supervised cleanup. Some commenters expressed doubt over
EPA's motives for listing this site while others expressed
distrust of GELS. Some commenters asserted that Superfund
involvement would delay cleanup and result in a waste of money.
They also expressed concern about the economic impact on the
community from a Superfund listing. Others expressed concern
over the economic impact that the contamination from the
GE/Shepherd Farm site could have in the future. William W.
Alexander and Marlene Holliday questioned the attribution of
contamination to the GELS facility, suggesting that two other
sites in the area may instead have been the source of ground
water contamination.
(
3.2-5
•
3.2.3.1 Comments Supporting Listing
Twenty-two commenters submitted comment letters in favor of
listing the GE/Shepherd Farm site on the NPL. Three of these
commenters and an additional 10 individual commenters expressed
concern for the health and welfare of persons exposed to
contamination from the site. Some commenters believed that
health problems such as kidney problems, nerve disorders, and
cancers in the area may be linked to site contamination.
In response, the Agency has added GE/Shepherd Farm to the
NPL. Listing makes a site eligible for remedial action funding
under CERCLA, and EPA will examine the site to determine what
response, if any, is appropriate. Actual funding may not
necessarily be undertaken in the precise order of HRS scores,
however, and upon more detailed investigation may not be
necessary at all in some cases. EPA will determine the need for
using Superfund monies for remedial activities on a site-by-site
basis, taking into account the NPL ranking, State priorities,
further site investigation, other response alternatives, and
other factors as appropriate. EPA will not stop work at some
sites to begin work at other higher-scoring sites added to the
NPL more recently. During the RI/FS, EPA may conduct a risk
assessment which will include an investigation of possible health
effects from the contamination at the site.
Regarding the commenters' concerns about site-related health
problems, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), a Federal public health agency, completed a preliminary
health assessment for the GE/Shepherd Farm site on July 8, 1994.
(As tasked by CERCLA, ATSDR prepares public health assessments
for all sites on or proposed to the NPL.) For this report, ATSDR
evaluated the levels or concentration of contaminants, how people
are or might be exposed to contaminants, and how exposure to
contaminants might affect human health. While the report does
not link specific illnesses from acute exposure to chemical
3.2-6
) ,
" " • •
releases from the site, it suggests that there is not sufficient
information to determine whether there may be long term human
health effects from exposure to hazardous chemicals. A copy of
the health assessment has been placed in the local public
repository in Hendersonville, North Carolina. It is also
available through ATSDR.
3.2.3.2 Scope of HRS Scoring
Eight commenters provided descriptions of evidence of
possible additional releases, including strong odors, foam that
has taken paint off houses and cars, and a documented chlorine
leak that occurred in July 1991. Dollie Hill stated that "at
late evening, the smoke over the plant seems to increase, and
strong odors come into our community, making us retreat inside.
Sometimes with burning noses, headaches, and other health
problems."
Ms. Hill also stated that in the 1970s, wells in the area
began to have a very strong, foul odor and that the odor recurs
several times a year and lasts for weeks at a time. She noted
that her family still uses water from the well.
Charles Dimsdale and Patricia Dimsdale submitted copies of a
memorandum dated May 16, 1986 that the commenters stated was from
GELS. The memorandum discussed the NPDES-permitted effluent and
indicated that it "continues to show detectable levels of cyanide
(about 35 ppb)" that is above the permitted discharge levels of
less than 6 ppb. The memo further noted that there was not a
single source of cyanide, but
materials used at the plant.
that it may be coming from raw
Ms. Nichols stated that the GELS
facility had been issued notice of noncompliance for excessive
levels of tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene in ground water.
Four commenters expressed concern about the loss of fish,
( wildlife, and livestock along Bat Fork Creek (a creek that runs
3.2-7
• •
through the GE facility property). The Clean Water Fund of North
Carolina questioned why the surface water migration pathway was
not evaluated for this site. It was their opinion that the
potential for pollution, especially PCBs, to migrate via this
pathway is high, and that migration is already occurring in Bat
Fork Creek. The Clean Water Fund of North Carolina noted that
GELS has an NPDES permit for two treatment ponds that can
discharge to Bat Fork Creek. They stated that these ponds contain
sediments with PCB concentrations as high as 120,000 ppb and
argued that at high stormwater flows these sediments could be
stirred up and discharged into the creek. The Clean Water Fund
of North Carolina further stated that a thorough chemical testing
of Bat Fork Creek should be conducted to determine if any such
contamination has occurred. The Clean Water Fund of North
Carolina is also concerned about the impact on potential target
populations downstream of sites on Bat Fork Creek, Mud Creek, and
French Broad River, including several schools, orchards,
pastures, residential areas, a recreation park, and the water
supply of the City of Asheville.
In response, these commenters have identified other
information that could be used in scoring the site; however, the
HRS does not require scoring all four pathways or considering all
possible information, if scoring those pathways or considering·
other information does not change the listing decision. For some
sites, data for scoring a pathway are unavailable, and obtaining
these data would be time-consuming or costly. In other cases,
data for scoring some pathways are available, but will only have
a minimal effect on the site score. In still other cases, data
on other pathways could substantially add to a site score, but
would not affect the listing decision. The HRS is a screening
model that uses limited resources to determine whether a site
should be placed on the NPL for possible Superfund response. A
subsequent stage of the Superfund process, the RI, characterizes
conditions and hazards at the site more comprehensively.
3.2-8
• •
To the extent practicable, EPA attempts to score all pathways
that pose significant threats. If the contribution of a pathway
is minimal to the overall score, in general, that pathway will
not be scored. In these cases, the HRS documentation record may
include a brief qualitative discussion to present a complete
picture of the conditions and hazards at the site. As a matter
of policy, EPA does not delay listjng a site to incorporate new
data or score new pathways if the listing decision would not be
affected.
EPA must balance the need to fully characterize a site with
the limited resources available to collect and analyze site data.
For this reason, EPA generally will not score additional pathways
upon receiving new data as long as the site still meets the HRS
cutoff score. However, any additional data characterizing site
conditions could provide useful information during the RI.
EPA acknowledges the concern the commenters have regarding
the surface water threat posed by the site. However, the
information needed to evaluate this threat was not available nor
was it supplied by the commenters. EPA considered it more timely
to propose the site on the existing information rather than delay
action to collect the needed information, particularly since the
site score was well above the 28.50, the necessary score for site
listing.
The HRS is intended to be a "rough list" of prioritized
hazardous sites; a "first step in a process--nothing more,
nothing less" Eagle Picher Industries v. EPA, 759 F.2d 922, 932
(D.C. Cir. 1985) (Eagle Picher II). EPA would like to
investigate each possible site completely and thoroughly prior to
evaluating it for proposal on the NPL, but it must reconcile the
need for certainty before action with the need for inexpensive,
expeditious procedures to identify potentially hazardous sites.
( The courts have found EPA' s approach to solving this conundrum to
3.2-9
be "reasonable and fully in accord with Congressional intent."
Eagle Picher Industries v. EPA, (759 F.2d 905 [D.C. Cir. 1985]
Eagle Picher I).
As stated above, the RI/FS stage of the Superfund process
characterizes the extent of the contamination more
comprehensively than the listing process. EPA notes that the
specific comments received concerning possible surface water
contamination in the area will be evaluated during the RI/FS.
3.2.3.3 Request for EPA to Conduct Additional Testing
Ms. Nichols requested that EPA test her parent's ground water
well, which is located near the GELS facility.
In response, the-RI/FS for this site was initiated in
December 1993. The work plan was approved in August 1994 and
field work including environmental sampling began in September of
this year (1994). Part of this investigation will include
evaluating the extent of contamination of water supply wells in
the vicinity of the site. Ms. Nichols' comment has been added to
the site files, and her request will be considered at that time.
3.2.3.4 Request for Official Notice
Mr. Vineyard requested that EPA take official notice of two
documents: GELS's RCRA Part A Application (November 1980) and an
April 30, 1982 letter from EPA to GELS concerning the exclusion
of certain material from RCRA Subtitle C regulation. According
to Mr. Vineyard, these documents could not be retrieved from
EPA's records in time for the submission of comments for this
site.
In response, EPA is aware of these documents. Since GELS has
provided them as attachments to their comments, they have been
added to the administrative record. These documents contain no
information that EPA was·not already aware of prior to proposal
3.2-10
)
)
(_
• •
of the site. All of the information contained by these documents
that affects EPA's decision regarding the eligibility of this
site for NPL listing has been reviewed by EPA. Any specific
comments identified by Mr. Vineyard regarding these documents are
addressed elsewhere in this document.
3.2.3.5 Aggregation Authority
Mr. Vineyard commented that EPA has unlawfully aggregated
unrelated properties for NPL listing at this site. He stated
that Section 105 of CERCLA, which governs NPL listings, does not
authorize the aggregation of noncontiguous facilities. He argued
that at this site EPA has relied exclusively on CERCLA Section
104 for aggregating noncontiguous properties. However, this
section authorizes EPA to aggregate noncontiguous properties when
taking certain "response" actions and does not include NPL
listings which are governed by Section 105. Mr. Vineyard stated
that "by authorizing the aggregation of noncontiguous properties
for purposes of response actions in Section 104 of CERCLA, by
limiting the scope of authority to 'this section' and omitting
any such authority from Section 105, which governs NPL listings,
Congress intended to preclude aggregation of noncontiguous
properties for purposes of NPL listing."
In response, EPA finds GELS's position that Section 105 of
CERCLA does not authorize aggregation of non-contiguous
facilities without merit. Section 105 (a) (8) (B) of CERCLA
specifically provides that facilities or incidents other than the
highest-priority facility designated by a state "may be listed
singly or grouped for response priority purposes." Even the
highest-priority facility, which a state is authorized to
designate under Section 105, is to be designated individually
only "to the extent practicable."
EPA has a long-standing policy of using aggregation in
( appropriate circumstances, and the Agency considers this a valid
3.2-11
•
interpretation of its statutory authority. This interpretation
is entirely consistent with the view of the NPL as primarily for
identifying for states and the public those facilities that
appear to warrant remedial actions. Regardless of how EPA lists
a site, the Agency is not precluded from expanding or reducing
the extent of its remedial actions.
Listing two or more noncontiguous facilities as one combined
site may serve as a guide for subsequent response actions, or the
Agency may decide that response efforts should be distinct and
separate at the different facilities.
Also, EPA may decide to coordinate the response to several
sites through a single action when it is appropriate under CERCLA
Section 104(d) (4), regardless of whether the sites were listed
separately or as a combined site. Taking an area-wide approach
to response may be more cost-effective.
3.2.3.6 Appropriateness of Aggregation
Three comment letters, including one from the Clean Water
Fund of North Carolina, were received in favor of aggregating the
Seldon Clark and Shepherd Farm properties with the GELS facility.
The Clean Water Fund of North Carolina specified reasons for
supporting aggregation, including the proximity of Shepherd Farm
to the GELS plant, the similarity of populations at risk, and the
similarity of contaminants. The Clean Water Fund of North
Carolina pointed out that Mr. Shepherd (owner of the Shepherd
Farm property) had-stated that GELS waste was the only industrial
waste disposed on his site. The Clean Water Fund of North
Carolina asserted that contamination is being released into Bat
Creek Fork from both Shepherd Farm and the GELS site and that it
would make sense to address all of the contamination at one time.
The Clean Water Fund of North Carolina also stated that
separating the areas would cause confusion and problems in
addressing the contamination in Bat Fork Creek.
3.2-12
l
)
• •
, Ten comment letters were received that opposed the ;.
·,_ aggregation of the Seldon Clark and Shepherd Farm properties with
the GELS site. Fo'ur commenters stated that aggregation was
either illegal or contrary to EPA procedures. A petition signed
by 236 concerned citizens submitted by Senator Helms stated that
the other areas should not be aggregated with GELS because they
cannot be remediated as one site since the properties are
underlain by different aquifers, because the contaminants are
different, and because the ownership is different. The petition
also stated that combining the GELS facility with other locations
would make cleanup more complex, expensive, and time-consuming.
Four commenters stated that the aggregated properties have had
more than one PRP. Robert D. Lauder and Mary K. Lauder stated
that the problems at GELS, including the chlorine leak, have
nothing in common with the Shepherd Farm area. They also stated
that they were satisfied with the June 1991 evaluation of the
Shepherd Farm/Spring Haven Development area and claimed that the
evaluation indicated that their property was free of
contamination. William Alexander disputed the statement made by
Mr. Shepherd that the Shepherd property was a "GE Dump."
Mr. Vineyard characterized EPA's practice as allowing the
aggregation of noncontiguous properties for the purposes of NPL
listing in only very limited circumstances. He added that, in
general, EPA favors an independent assessment of noncontiguous
sites for purposes of HRS scoring and NPL listing, and that EPA
specifically has declined to aggregate noncontiguous sites where
the respective properties did not have identical PRPs and waste
constituents. Moreover, he stated that the extent to which EPA
aggregated·properties for NPL listing at this site "violates the
plain meaning of CERCLA and is therefore invalid."
Mr. Vineyard commented that the GELS plant and five
additional properties included in the HRS documentation record--
( Shepherd Farm, Seldon Clark, Jesse Staden, John Span, and the
' 3.2-13
•
Fairgrounds properties--should not be aggregated because they are
not reasonably related to one another. He stated that no
combination of any of these properties was ever operated as a
single enterprise. He remarked that no evidence of record exists
to establish commonality of ownership, operation, or waste
constituents between GELS and the additional properties (other
than Shepherd Farm). He also stated that EPA had failed to
collect sufficient information for establishing a release of
hazardous substances at actionable levels at the Seldon Clark
property. Furthermore, he stated that the additional five sites
are noncontiguous, separately owned and operated, share no common
geography or threat to the environment, and, because of the
physical diversities of the various properties, they cannot be
remedied meaningfully as a single site.
Mr. Vineyard also commented that since GELS is eligible for
corrective action under the RCRA deferral policy, aggregation of
these six properties is improper and EPA has misused its
aggregation authority by attaching one potentially NPL eligible
site to other unrelated sites not otherwise eligible for listing.
In. response, CERCLA Section 104 (d) (4) states that "[w) here
two or more noncontiguous facilities are reasonably related on
the basis of geography, or on the basis of the threat, or
potential threat, to the public health or welfare or the
environment," they may be treated as one for the purposes of
response. In promulgating the first NPL (48 FR 40663, ·september
8, 1983), the Agency indicated that in most cases such sites
should be scored individually for NPL purposes, because HRS
scores "more accurately reflect the hazards associated with a
site if the site is scored individually." The Agency
acknowledged, however, that in some cases "the nature of the
operation that created the sites and the nature of the probable
appropriate response may indicate that two noncontiguous sites
should be treated as one." As noted in the previous comment
3.2-14
)
• •
response (Section 3.2.3.4), EPA interprets CERCLA to authorize
combining non-contiguous facilities in appropriate circumstanc~s
as valid.
As cited by the commenter, in combining two or more
noncontiguous facilities, the Agency considers several relevant
factors (49 FR 37076, September 21, ·1984), including:
Whether the facilities were part of the same operation,
with the result that the substances deposited and the
means of disposal are likely to be similar.
Whether potentially responsible parties generally are the
same for these facilities, indicating that similar
enforcement or cost-recovery efforts would apply.
Whether contamination from the facilities threatens the
same ground water or surface water resource.
The distance between the locations or facilities and
whether the target population is essentially the same or
substantially overlapping.
As stated previously, listing two or more noncontiguous
facilities as one combined site may serve as a guide for
subsequent response actions, or the Agency may decide that
response efforts should be distinct and separate at the different
facilities.
Also, EPA may decide to coordinate the response to ·several
sites through a single action when it is appropriate under CERCLA
Section 104(d) (4), regardless of whether the sites were listed
separately or as a combined site. Taking an area-wide approach
to response may be more cost-effective.
The courts recently upheld EPA's use of aggregation and the
Agency's flexibility to determine aggregation on a case-by-case
3.2-15
basis (see Linemaster Switch Corp. v. EPA, 938 F.2d 1299, 1308
[DC Cir. 1991) ) .
Regarding the necessity for calculating an individual HRS
score for each property, one reason for EPA's aggregation policy
is to prevent a PRP from redu~ing the score for any particular
site by distributing wastes at a variety of sites. Instead, the
Agency requires only that the individual properties are linked by
at least one of the common characteristics discussed above. In
this case, similar PRPs, similar contaminants, similar targets,
and the same underlying aquifer link these properties. The
details of these similarities are discussed in the following
sections of this document.
The following paragraphs detail the comments and responses
regarding each of the aggregated properties. For reasons stated
below, EPA has decided that GELS, Seldon Clark, and Shepherd Farm
properties are appropriate for aggregation under EPA's policy.
Existing evidence on the other sites does not indicate they are
appropriate for aggregation. During analysis of remediation
options, however, this determination may change, if further
evidence is acquired.
Seldon Clark and Shepherd Farm Properties
Mr. Vineyard commented that EPA has failed to establish any
meaningful linkage between GELS and the Seldon Clark property.
He acknowledged that one subsurface sample and one sediment
sample at the Seldon Clark property did reveal PCB compounds in
concentrations exceeding background levels; however·, he stated
that these data alone were insufficient to establish CERCLA
jurisdiction over the Seldon Clark property. He further stated
that EPA's failure to calculate an HRS score for the Seldon Clark
property invalidates any proposed listing of the property on the
NPL.
3.2-16
• •
Mr. Vineyard also commented that, until the public meeting
held on March 6, 1991, EPA had considered the GELS plant and the
Shepherd Farm property to be separate properties and treated them
as such. EPA conducted separate site investigations for each and
issued separate press releases on each property.
Mr. Vineyard offered the following reasons why the Shepherd
Farm property could not properly be aggregated with the GELS
plant:
These properties are not contiguous.
The properties are underlain by separate aquifers.
The PRPs for all of the properties are different and
Shepherd Farm has several PRPs.
The GELS plant is an operating manufacturing facility,
whereas the Shepherd Farm property is a residence and
inactive trash dump.
GELS has been regulated under RCRA, whereas the Shepherd
Farm property has not been operated as a regulated
facility.
The Shepherd Farm property has never been owned or
operated or in any way been an integral part of the GELS
operation.
Remediation studies at the GELS plant site are well
advanced over those at the other properties.
Mr. Vineyard also stated that. by aggregating these two
properties, EPA has .failed to calculate separate HRS scores for
the GELS plant and the Shepherd Farm property. He further
contends that EPA would endure no significant administrative
burden in scoring separately the GELS and the Shepherd Farm
property.
In response, as discussed previously, EPA's aggregation
policy states that properties may be aggregated if they meet one
3.2-17
of four criteria. The GELS, Shepherd Farm, and Seldon Clark
properties have the following in common:
As shown in Figure 1 on page 2a of the HRS documentation
record at proposal, the Seldon Clark, Shepherd Farm, and
GELS properties are located in close proximity to one
another. In fact, the Seldon Clark property and the GELS
property are adjacent to one another and are only
separated by a two-lane road and the Shepherd Farm
property is within one mile of the GELS facility;
All three properties are underlain by the same aquifer as
shown in the HRS documentation record on page 28 and
References 14, 15, and 17 at the time of proposal;
therefore releases at these properties threaten similar
targets. Ground water in the area is described as an
interconnected residual soil/crystalline-rock aquifer
system. The areal extent of the aquifer and aquifer
interconnection between these two hydrologic units has
been shown by local studies, monitoring well logs, and
soil borings. These records indicate that not only is
there no intervening confining layer but that fractures
and faults further connect these two hydrologic units.
(In addition, Mr. Vineyard has provided no rationale or
data to support his allegation that these properties are
underlain by separate aquifers.)
All three properties contain similar hazardous substances
(cadmium, cobalt, copper, chromium, manganese, nickel,
lead, zinc, and PCBs) and may require the same response
action. All of these substances are known to have been
used or produced at the GELS facility. In addition, the
attribution paragraph on page 36 of the HRS documentation
record further explains that 1,2-dichloroethene,
trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene were found in
monitoring wells on-site and in nearby private wells at
both the GELS and Shepherd Farm properties.
3.2-18 )
(
!I •
All three properties share at least one PRP: the GELS
plant. Evidence indicates that GELS deposited various
wastes at the Seldon Clark property as documented in the
HRS documentation record at proposal on page 20 (with a
citation to Reference 10, page 15). Wastes were brought
to the Shepherd Farm property from the GELS plant as
documented on page 22 of the HRS documentation record
(References 12, 24, and 28).
Regarding Mr. Vineyard's comments that EPA did not establish
a release at actionable levels for the Seldon Clark property, the
Agency assumes that actionable levels are equivalent to
regulatory levels. EPA addressed this on July 16, 1982, when
responding to public comments on the proposed (original) HRS (47
FR 31188), and again on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40665). The
Agency rejected the idea that releases within regulatory limits
should not be considered releases under the HRS. As the Agency
( noted in 1982, ·, <,
emission or effluent limits do not necessarily
represent levels which cause no harm to public
health or the environment. These limitations are
frequently established on the basis of economic
impacts or achievability.
By contrast, a release represents a 100 percent likelihood that
substances can migrate from the site (47 FR 31188, July 16,
1982) .
The HRS does consider whether releases are above regulatory
limits in evaluating target populations, increasing by a factor
of 10 the weight assigned populations exposed to contaminants
above the limits. Where the contamination levels at the
GE/Shepherd Farm site are higher than regulatory levels, the
associated targets (approximately 24 people) were elevated as
Level I.
3.2-19
•
Furthermore, the concentration of a substance in a release,
does not necessarily reflect the hazard presented by the
particular release.
approximated by the
Instead, the hazard of the site is
total HRS
observed release factors with
score, which incorporates the
other factors such as waste
characteristics (including waste quantity, toxicity, and
persistence) and targets. This total HRS score reflects the
hazard of the site relative only to the other sites that have
been scored. The actual degree of contamination and its effects
are more fully determined during the remedial investigation that
typically follows listing.
Jesse Staden, Span/Grandview Memorial
and Fairgrounds Properties
Mr. Vineyard commented that information in the docket
concerning the Jesse Staden property is limited to a statement
made by Mr. Staden indicating that he had a "G.E. dump" on his
property and that this statement alone is grossly inadequate to
support an NPL listing. _Also, Mr. Vineyard stated that the
Span/Grandview Memorial Gardens property evaluation is based on
unverified statements and that such paucity of data cannot
support an NPL listing. He further commented that EPA does not
even know the actual location of what it refers to as t:ie "John
Span" property.
In response, these properties were listed in the HRS
documentation record at the time of proposal for informational
purposes only. They were not considered part of the site for HRS
scoring purposes. All mention of these properties has been
removed from the HRS documentation record at the time of
promulgation. However, these are all areas where wastes from
GELS were reportedly deposited. These properties are currently
being evaluated by the Agency. During the RI/FS, it will be
decided whether these or other areas should be aggregated with
the rest of the site. Removing the mention of these properties
3.2-20
• •
. {. from the HRS documentation record has no effect on the site score
\ since all sources and contaminants that score are located on the
GELS, Shepherd Farm, and Seldon Clark properties.
(
Evidentiary Standard
Mr. Vineyard argued that EPA must demonstrate evidence of
record sufficient to establish CERCLA jurisdiction over these
properties and has not done so. Mr. Vineyard further commented
that "to the extent that Eagle-Picher Industries v. EPA, 759 F.2d
922 (DC Cir. 1985); Eagle-Picher .Industries v. EPA, 759 F.2d 905
(DC Cir. 1985), or any other authority suggests a lesser
evidentiary standard for NPL listing, er obviates the necessity
for calculating an individual HRS score for each discrete
noncontiguous property proposed for listing on the NPL, such
authority is erroneous and invalid." Therefore, he states that
EPA fails to satisfy the statutory and regulatory criteria for
the NPL with respect to these additional properties.
In response, EPA does not consider there to be any question
as to the correctness of the holding in the Eagle-Picher
decision. EPA does not wish to belabor the Agency's argument in
that case, which the court found persuasive, that evidence needed
to list on the NPL must show "some degree of confidence that the
site may someday be eligible for Fund-financed remedial action"
(Eagle-Picher Industries v. EPA 759 F.2d at 932). "The NPL is
simply a rough list of priorities assembled quickly and
inexpensively to comply with Congress' mandate for the Agency to
take action straightaway" (id.).
In summary, as demonstrated above, the aggregation of the
GELS facility, the Shepherd Farm property, and the Seldon Clark
property is appropriate. The Agency has a valid aggregation
policy which was followed for this site. These properties have
been shown to have similar PRPs, similar contaminants, and
similar targets and are underlain by the same aquifer. However,
3.2-21
• •
all mention of the Jesse Staden, John Span, and Fairgrounds
properties has been removed from the HRS documentation record at
promulgation. This change has no effect on the site score since
these properties were not included in the HRS scoring.
3.2.3.7 RCRA Policy Issues
Several aspects of EPA's RCRA policy were commented on,
including the various portions of the RCRA deferral policy, GELS
willingness to participate under RCRA criterion and active versus
inactive sites criterion.
RCRA Deferral
Carl D. Taylor requested that EPA allow GELS to clean up the
site under RCRA rather than CERCLA. The signed petition
submitted by Senator Helms stated that, in cases such as this,
where the owner/operator is willing to proceed under RCRA
corrective action, the site should be subject to the RCRA
deferral policy and not listed. A form letter sent by 140
commenters also requested that GELS be allowed to clean up under
RCRA.
Mr. Vineyard commented that the proposed listing of the GELS
plant violates EPA's established RCRA deferral policy. He
supported his comments with a discussion of EPA's RCRA deferral
policy and included a summary of the history of the RCRA program
at the GELS plant.
In his discussion of RCRA policy, Mr. Vineyard interpreted
EPA's RCRA deferral policy to mean that an operating factory
subject to RCRA corrective action jurisdiction but also eligible
for NPL listing should be remedied under RCRA; the only exception
he acknowledged is when evidence exists that RCRA corrective
action would not succeed or occur promptly owing to the inability
or unwillingness of the owner/operator to pay for or to guarantee
completion of corrective action at the site. Mr. Vin'eyard stated
3.2-22
)
)
• •
-,f~ that the deferral policy acknowledges natural advantage of RCRA
'•... corrective action over CERCLA remediation and that Congress has
indicated a preference for RCRA corrective action over CERCLA
remediation. He also asserted that this policy specifically
applies to "converters" such as the GELS plant when the converter
agrees to corrective action under a unilateral or consent RCRA
corrective action order.
(
In his discussion of GELS RCRA compliance history, Mr.
Vineyard commented that the GELS's converter status arose
directly from EPA's 1982 exclusion of GELS's lime treatment
sludge. Mr. Vineyard stated, "For EPA to use its own exclusion
of the treatment sludge as a basis for refusing to allow RCRA to
address environmental conditions at the Plant, and for listing
the Plant on the NPL, is inconsistent with the law, EPA's own
deferral policy, and the facts."
According to Mr. Vineyard, the history of RCRA at the site is
as follows: since the inception of the RCRA program, the GELS
plant has complied with the applicable elements of RCRA. In
November 1980, GELS submitted to EPA a "Part A" application to
operate as an interim status treatment, storage, and disposal
facility (TSDF) under RCRA. The application was required at that
time because GELS's lime-based process water treatment system
sludge was then considered to be hazardous waste No. F006. In
November 1980, EPA exempted by rule from listed waste F006, waste
water treatment sludges from certain processes. As a result of
these regulatory actions, GELS's treatment sludge remained a
listed hazardous waste owing solely to rinse water flow which I
accounted for less than one percent of the total flow to the lime
treatment process.
In December 1981, because of further regulatory changes and
upon review of the GELS's water treatment process, the Department
of Human Resources (DHR) recommended that GELS resubmit its Part
3.2-23
• •
A application deleting the treatment sludge. GELS instead
petitioned in November 1981 and again in February 1982 to exclude
or delist the treatment sludge from the F006 waste category. On
April 30, 1982, EPA granted GELS a preliminary informal exclusion
. for the treatment sludge. In October 1982, DHR delisted the GELS
F006 waste and advised GELS that DHR expected EPA's concurrence
in the delisting.
On August 23, 1983, GELS withdrew its Part A application from
DHR after state hazardous waste authorities, with EPA
recognition, delisted the treatment sludge. GELS requested that
its plant be allowed to continue to operate under RCRA as a
generator and transporter of hazardous wastes only. The State
notified GELS in the following month that GELS would no longer be
required to pursue its Part_B application and that GELS interim
status as a storer of hazardous waste under RCRA would be
terminated. Mr. Vineyard stated that GELS remains a
converter/generator subject to RCRA controls and therefore is
eligible for remediation under the RCRA deferral policy.
In response, EPA disagrees that NPL listing of GELS is
contrary to the Agency's policy of deferring sites that could be
addressed under RCRA corrective action authorities. Employing
RCRA corrective action for this site would be contrary to the
intent of the policy.
The underlying basis of the RCRA corrective action policy is
that "it is generally more desirable to deal with RCRA facilities
under RCRA authorities than under CERCLA authorities .... If
facilities being deferred from listing do not ultimately have to
be addressed under CERCLA, the policy is likely to reduce
duplication of effort and save time and resources" (51 FR 21060,
June 10, 1986). These principles do not apply to GELS:
3.2-24
)
)
. _,
•
First, EPA does not regulation GELS as a treatment, storage,
or disposal facility (TSDF) under RCRA and has not done so for
over 10 years. Consequently, the Agency has not been reviewing
the facility under its RCRA corrective action authorities. Thus,
there is no reason to believe RCRA will be more efficient than
CERCLA in dealing with the three aggregated sites listed under
the name of GE/Shepherd Farm. Use of CERCLA on the other hand
allows a comprehensive cleanup of not only GELS, but also
Shepherd Farm and Seldon Clark, neither of which are RCRA sites.
This avoids piecemeal actions under different statutes and
separate negotiations for each site.
GELS requested deferral to RCRA based on the Agency's policy
with respect to converters--those facilities that at one time
treated or stored RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste but have since
converted to generator-only status. There are a number of
reasons the converter policy does not apply to GELS. Primarily,
the Agency's general policy is to list converters if the HRS
score is sufficiently high. This is because the RCRA corrective
action program focuses on TSDFs and does not have the time or
resources to routinely review converters. See 53 FR 23978,
23981, (June 24, 1988) and 54 FR 41000, 41010 (October 4, 1989).
GELS's primary reliance on the converter policy is based on
EPA's indication that it should generally defer to RCRA if a
converter agrees to corrective action (54 FR 41010, October 4,
1989). However, this general policy does not apply to GELS since
GELS has not made any kind of binding commitment other than to
express a vague willingness, well after EPA focused on the site
under CERCLA, to conduct RCRA corrective action.
Further, GELS does not even appear to be a converter within
the meaning of the policy. GELS is claiming converter status not
because it once treated hazardous waste and decided to stop
handling it. Rather, the wastes in question were determined not
3.2-25
to be subject to RCRA Subtitle C. Those wastes are not even the
subject of the current cleanup. Thus, it is not clear whether
EPA has authority under RCRA to order corrective action at GELS.
(EPA does not have corrective action authority over generator-
only facilities.) Even if GELS were to "agree" to a corrective
action order, th_erefore, it may not be enforceable.
If GELS were actually a RCRA site, many of these issues would
have been discussed, and perhaps resolved, earlier. However, _it
does not appear that GELS was intending to undertake RCRA
corrective action in the absence of pending action under CERCLA.
Moreover, nothing in CERCLA has prevented GELS from negotiating
various remedial activities with State or Federal authorities
while the NPL listing determination was proceeding.
Also, EPA has been studying the GE/Shepherd Farm release
under CERCLA for a number of years and has several ongoing
activities under that statute. To switch to RCRA authorities now
would most likely_ cause delay since RCRA would lead to additional
issues being raised and to further negotiations. For example,
much of the pollution plume is offsite and, under RCRA corrective
action authorities, releases that have migrated beyond the
facility boundary require permission of the property owner in
order to be addressed. These new problems, not present under
CERCLA, could only lead to further delay.
GELS's primary concern in being listed may stem from the
incidental costs that may be associated with being placed on the
NPL. There may be public perception that an NPL listing creates
a type of stigma from the site and prevents development and use.
However, listing on the NPL is not a dete_rmination of liability
or any party and does not determine the nature and extent of
cleanup. The RCRA deferral policy is not designed to protec_t the
financial integrity of the .owner/operat_or of a site, but to
develop _a framework for effectively addressing release that may
3.2-26 _).
• •
affect public health and the environment (see 51 FR 21060, June
10, 1986).
The courts have held that uncertainty regarding EPA's ability
to enforce RCRA corrective action authorities at a site justifies
EPA's decision not to apply the RCRA deferral. See Apache Powder
Co. v. EPA, 968 F.2d 66 (DC Cir. 1992). EPA need not resolve
this uncertainty in an NPL listing decision. This uncertainty
provides additional justification for EPA's decision not to apply
to the RCRA deferral policy to GELS, especially considering the
clear ability of the Agency to remediate the site under CERCLA,
the substantial progress already made under CERCLA authorities,
the inefficiencies of switching to a new statute which should
raise new issues, and the vagueness of GELS "commitment" to RCRA
corrective action.
In addition, because releases have occurred at different
properties (Shepherd Farm and Seldon Clark) in addition to the
GELS facility itself, there is no clear RCRA authority for
corrective action over the entire site. As stated in Mr.
Vineyard's comments, Shepherd Farm was never operated as a
regulated treatment, storage or disposal (TSD) facility.
Similarly, the disposal that occurred on the Seldon Clark
property was not regulated by RCRA. Therefore, only a portion of
the site could even be considered eligible-for RCRA corrective
action. Consequently, this site does not satisfy the criteria
for deferring to corrective action, that is, when the entire site
may be addressed under RCRA authority.
GELS's Willingness and Financial Ability to
Undertake Remediation under RCRA
Mr. Vineyard commented that the GELS plant has always
operated in substantial compliance with the letter and spirit of
Federal, State, and local environmental laws and that GELS
management has responded expeditiously in full cooperation with
3.2-27
• •
State and local authorities when issues of environmental concern
have arisen. He noted that GELS has consistently expressed and
demonstrated its willingness and financial ability to undertake
remediation under a RCRA consent agreement but that EPA has
failed to acknowledge GELS's willingness to remediate under RCRA
by pressing forward with its proposed NPL listing of the
facility.
Mr. Vineyard also commented that EPA's threatened NPL listing
of the GELS facility means that the status of the ground water
remediation plan approved by the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, formerly DHR) is in doubt.
Because of this doubt, he stated that GELS sought EPA's review
and certification of the remediation plan. However, he remarked
that EPA failed to comment or even recognize the ground water
remediation plan, and therefore nullified GELS's efforts to
remedy ground water conditions prior to a CERCLA proceeding. He
added that, "as a consequence, both GELS and DEHNR recognized the
futility of pursuing the approved remedial efforts in face of
EPA's proposed listing."
In response, Mr. Vineyard's comments imply that EPA should
have considered various remedial factors. Remedial actions are
further discussed in section 3.2.3.13 of this support document.
The Agency is not required to consider these factors, especially
where these remedial actions have not been taken and their
effectiveness and ultimate success are unknown. Consistent with
CERCLA, the Agency has in place an orderly procedure for
identifying sites where releases of substances addressed under
CERCLA have occurred or may occur, placing such sites on the NPL,
evaluating the nature and extent of the threats at such sites,
responding to those threats, and deleting sites from the NPL.
EPA makes final decisions during all stages of the procedure.
PRPs may affect remedy selection, as can any other member of the
public, through the public comment process. PRPs may undertake
3.2-28
.(
• • the RI/FS and/or remedial design/remedial action stages under EPA
supervision and pursuant to appropriate agreements with
governmental authorities (under enforcement authorities of CERCLA
or those of other statutes). The listing process does not
encumber or preclude PRPs from entering into these agreements.
The Agency has entered into many such agreements between proposal
and promulgation, and such an alternative is available to the
commenter. Ultimately, if responsible parties undertake the
response action, the site's placement on the NPL serves the
purpose of ensuring that EPA oversees the privately funded action
and allows EPA a mechanism to complete the response action if the
responsible party becomes unable or unwilling. Also, EPA will
consider all previously conducted rem~dial efforts if they meet
Agency criteria when determining what future actions, if any, are
needed.
Active Sites
Eight commenters maintained that CERCLA was only intended to
address inactive and abandoned waste sites, not active facilities
such as the GELS plant.
In response, the commenters have misunderstood the intent of
CERCLA. CERCLA applies to uncontrolled releases regardless of
whether the facilities are active, inactive or abandoned, as
demonstrated by the large number of listed active facilities
currently involved in cleanups. EPA believes that listing active
facilities having releases with an HRS score of 28.50 or above is
consistent with the purpose of the NPL; that is, to identify for
the States and the public those sites that appear to warrant
remedial actions (see 56 FR 35842, July 29, 1991). The Agency
can then assess the nature and extent of the public health and
environmental risks associated with the site, and determine what
CERCLA-financed remedial actions, if any, may be appropriate.
3.2-29
• Listing of a site does not preclude use of the Agency's
authority under CERCLA Section 106 to compel remedial action by a )·
responsible party nor does it compel expenditure of Superfund
monies. Often, private parties agree to undertake the CERCLA
response action themselves. Therefore, this listing is not
inconsistent with the Administrator's commitment to maximizing
the use of privately funded responses. The commenter's concern
about unnecessary expenditures of public funds is therefore
unwarranted. CERCLA Section 105(a) (8) (B) simply directs the
President to list "national priorities among known releases and
threatened releases throughout the United States," based on
enumerated criteria and other factors that are appropriate "in
the judgment of the President." Here again, the Agency has broad
discretion in determining.which sites are priorities and should
be listed. More importantly, listing allows the Agency to retain
oversight control of actions taken by other parties to ensure
that a site (in this case, three sites aggregated into one, as
discussed in Section 3.2.3.6 of this document) is being
adequately addressed and to initiate CERCLA-financed remedial
action at an NPL site if other parties prove either unwilling or
unable to complete planned response actions.
In summary, the Agency has concluded that the GE/Shepherd
Farm site should not be deferred to RCRA. As demonstrated above,
the GELS facility is not eligible for "converter" status. In
addition, although GELS is currently an active facility, CERCLA
authority is still applicable. Another consideration is that the
GELS facility is the only portion of the site which could even be
considered under RCRA. The Shepherd Farm and Seldon Clark
properties would not be covered under RCRA corrective action.
For these reasons, the Agency will not defer GE/Shepherd Farm to
RCRA.
3.2-30
(
(
. I • •
3.2.3.8 Dumping Co111111on in the Past
Four commenters asserted that the dumping of wastes was a
common practice in the past and that GELS did not knowingly cause
the contamination.
In response, the NPL serves primarily as an informational
list. Inclusion of a site or facility on the list does not in
itself reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or
operator, but rather reflects EPA's. judgment that a significant
release or threat of release has occurred, and that the site is a
priority for further investigation under CERCLA. Furthermore,
the focus of the CERCLA program is to identify and, where
necessary, address hazardous substance releases that may pose a
threat to health or the environment. Dumping that may have been
a common practice in the past, can, nonetheless, constitute a
current or future hazard.
3.2.3.9 State or PRP Deferral
Four commenters expressed opposition to allowing GELS to
clean up the site without Federal oversight. They were concerned
that GELS would not adequately address all areas of contamination
at the GELS plant and related sites. The commenters insisted
that there must be a proper, complete, and permanent cleanup.
The commenters stated that they do not believe that the State of
North Carolina alone can effectively oversee the cleanup of the
site. They contended that the NCDEM is more receptive to the
needs of GELS than to the community. Some of the commenters
asserted that, under North Carolina's Superfund program, GELS
would only be responsible for a portion of the total cost of the
cleanup. They also indicated that the State fund does not have
the adequate resources to clean up the site.
Ten commenters questioned GELS's actions and its plans to
clean up the site. These commenters asserted that GELS, the
State, and the County Health Department have known about the
3.2-31
•
contamination at the site since 1984 but have done little to
remediate the problems. The commenters also charged GELS with a
lack of cooperation with community groups and individuals,
releasing information that the community believes to be
misleading, and withholding information.
Four of these commenters expressed concern with the method of
cleanup proposed by GELS. Ms. Evelyn Nichols stated that the
proposed air-stripping method is appropriate for small areas of
contamination but will not adequately address ·areas offsite.
An additional concern expressed by the commenters in
opposition to a non-Federal cleanup was that a RCRA cleanup would
result in lost taxpayer money because of unreimbursable funds
expended on Federal oversight activities. Additionally,
commenters noted that such a course of action would deny
concerned citizens an active role in the decision process. Ms.
Nichols commented in favor of listing, noting that under CERCLA,
the community would have input on the cleanup program and can
receive Technical Assistance Grants. She also stated that under
Superfund, the community would have a detailed health risk
assessment.
Including those commenters who signed a petition and the form
letters, 258 were opposed to listing and strongly requested that
GELS be allowed to clean up _the site under its own plan with
State oversight. Some of these commenters pointed out that GELS
already has a State-approved remediation plan and would be
willing and able to implement it but for the uncertainty caused
by the pending lis_ting action.
Mr. Vineyard stated that GELS has worked on a continuous
basis for many years with DEHNR (the State of North Carolina) to
remedy all matters that might present a threat to human health or
the environment and has consistently expressed a willingness to
3.2-32
)-
(
(
• •
remedy the environmental conditions at GELS under the North
Carolina "mini-Superfund" law.
In response, the Agency has interpreted these comments as a
request for deferring site cleanup to State authority. Regarding
this interpretation and the other deferral comments, the preamble
to the proposed revisions to the NCP (53 FR 51418, December 21,
1988) requested comments on whether (and if so, under what
conditions) to defer placing sites on the NPL when States have
their own response programs in place. However, the preamble to
the NCP (55 FR 8667,_ March 8, 1990) states that the Agency will
not implement any part of the expanded deferral approach until
the significant public and congressional concerns have been fully
reviewed, and a final decision made on expanding the deferral
policy. Thus, EPA will not consider deferring the GELS site to
the State of North Carolina at this time.
3.2.3.10 Economic Impact, Needless Expenditures/Delayed
Remediation
Ten commenters stated that the presence of the contamination
has caused adverse economic impacts, including loss of property
values and an unwillingness of banks to make loans in the area.
One of these commenters, Ms. Nichols, noted that having
contaminated wells in the community can have exactly the same
effect as the perceived "Superfund stigma" associated with an NPL
listing. She did not think that listing the site would have any
greater or lasting effect on the community's economy.
Nine additional commenters stated that listing the
GE/Shepherd Farm site will slow down cleanup activities due to
the procedural complexities of Superfund and time-consuming
litigation. An additional three commenters asserted that listing
would waste GELS's and taxpayers' money and that the site should
be cleaned up under RCRA in order to save oversight and
transaction costs associated with Superfund.
3.2-33
• •
Nine more commenters also expressed concern about the
potential economic impacts of Superfund "stigma," including
decreased property values, loss of tourism, and loss of jobs at
GELS.
Mr. Vineyard commented that an NPL listing of the GELS plant
compels needless expenditures of public resources on procedural
requirements not applicable under RCRA. Therefore the listing
delays and increases the cost of remediation needlessly, because
RCRA and CERCLA adhere to the same health standard. In addition,
he stated that a consent corrective action order would produce
the identical public benefit as CERCLA remediation at a
substantial cost savings to the taxpa:,e.i:s.
In response, commenters have expressed opinions concerning
the economic impact of NPL listing and the economic impact of the
site contamination. Regarding the adverse economic impact of
listing, the NPL serves primarily as an informational list.
Inclusion of a site or facility on the list does not in itself
reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or operator,
but rather reflects EPA's judgment that a significant release or
~hreat of release has occurred, and that the site is a priority
for further investigation under CERCLA. The underlying reason
for any impacts including economic, to the area from this site is
the actual and threatened contamination of property and the
environment due to releases from the site, not the act of
listing.· Any "stigma" that may exist is not based on whether a
site is placed on the NPL, but is based on why a site is on the
NPL. The reason this site has been placed on the NPL, that
actual and threatened adverse impacts to human health or the
environment exist, is not within the Agency's control. Moreover,
the focus of the CERCLA program is to identify and, where
necessary, address hazardous substance releases that may pose a
threat to health or the environment. In specifying the criteria
for listing sites (Section lOS(a) (8) (A) of CERCLA), Congress did
3.2-34
)
• •
not identify the possibility that listing may have adverse
, economic impacts as a factor to be considered; accordingly the '··
listing process does not use that as a factor in identifying
sites for the NPL.
Regarding the possible adverse economic impacts of the
contamination at the site, the Agency agrees with Ms. Nichols
that having contaminated wells in the community can have exactly
the same effect as the perceived "Superfund stigma" associated
with an NPL listing. As stated above, economic impacts are not
considered during the listing process, however economic impacts
can be a factor when selecting what remedial action, if any, at
the site is needed. As stated previously, the Agency has added
the GE/Shepherd Farm site to the NPL. Listing makes the site
eligible for remedial action funding under CERCLA and EPA will
examine the site to determine what response, if any, is
appropriate.
Regarding the potential for litigation to slow down cleanup,
it is not inevitable that litigation will occur and, even if it
does, it will most likely occur after remediation efforts are
underway.
should be
Concerning the commenter's assertion that the site
cleaned up under RCRA, EPA has previously addressed the
various RCRA/CERCLA issues relating to which statute would allow
for the most expedient cleanup. Regarding the potential to slow
down cleanup because of CERCLA procedural requirements, although
these requirements may appear excessive, EPA follows them by law
to ensure due process.
Mr. Vineyard further commented that there is no basis for
concern that EPA might someday lose RCRA corrective action ' jurisdiction over GELS prior to completion of remedial
activities~ Mr. Vineyard also charged that, had EPA reviewed and
certified the GELS/DEHNR ground water remediation plan, the
ground water remediation at GELS would already be nearing
3.2-35
• •
completion, allowing both DEHNR and EPA to apply limited CERCLA
resources elsewhere.
In response, Mr. Vineyard's comments on what might have
occurred if EPA had used RCRA authority are without merit.
Regarding Mr. Vineyard's point about EPA's concern over RCRA
corrective action jurisdiction, as discussed in Section 3.2.3.7
of this support document, RCRA authority for corrective action
does not exist for the entire site. Under RCRA, only a portion
of the site would be remediated. The concept that partial
remediation under RCRA and complete remediation under CERCLA
produce the identical public benefit is erroneous. Regarding the
ground water remediation plan, it is not appropriate to initiate
ground water remediation ·before all sources of the ground water_
contamination have been discovered, characterized, and, if
necessary, remediated. Otherwise the effectiveness and
practicality of the remediation cannot be predicted. Without
EPA's supervision of the remedial investigation which covers all
possible sources of ground water contamination, furthermore, EPA
could not ensure that complete remediation would occur.
Furthermore, the existence of a ground water remediation
plan, even if it had been reviewed and certified by EPA under
RCRA, is not pertinent to the inclusion of sites on the NPL. As
noted in the preamble to the first NPL update (49 FR 37071,
September 21, 1984), "the Agency believes that including sites on
the NPL until appropriate cleanup actions have been completed
will provide more incentives for early and effective actions than
the alternatives such as excluding sites where responsible
parties have agreed to begin cleanup. Another consideration is
that the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of such agreements
will vary considerably among States, and in some cases agreements
may be completely inconsistent with the standards of the NCP."
This comment has no impact on the HRS site score.
3.2-36
)
_J
l
3.2.3.11
• •
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR)
Four commenters declared that State, local, and EPA
representatives have repeatedly stated that there is no immediate
health risk to the local community from contamination at the GELS
site. Three commenters stated that there was only one drinking
water well contaminated beyond the minimum safe level set by EPA.
Mr. Vineyard commented that the ATSDR originally concluded
that conditions at the GELS plant and the Shepherd Farm property
presented no immediate health hazards. He stated ATSDR did not
plan to assess the other properties and that "such statutorily
mandated health assessments are essential to a determination of
whether these properties present the degree of public health
hazard warranting inclusion on the NPL." He concluded that the
listing of additional properties without corresponding health
assessments would be unsupported by substantial evidence and
plainly contrary to law.
In response, according to Section 105 of CERCLA, there are
three mechanisms for identifying sites for listing on the NPL; by
each state designating a single site as its top priority, by
ATSDR action, or by evaluation using the HRS. Section 105 of
CERCLA does not require a site to qualify under each option
before listing. EPA in this case has chosen to use the HRS
option.
Furthermore, the HRS is not limited to considering only
immediate risks. Instead, it considers the potential threat to
actually and potentially contaminated targets when evaluating a
site. Therefore, regardless of whether there is evidence of
immediate health threat, a site may still pose long-term threats
for which listing is warranted.
3.2-37
•
Regarding Mr. Vineyard's comments about ATSDR, CERCLA Section
104(i) describes the responsibilities of the ATSDR. ATSDR action
can be involved with a site or a release at any time during the
discovery of a site or during the listing process. The ATSDR is
required to do a full health assessment on sites proposed on the
NPL not later than one year after proposal. However, this action
is separate from the listing process and is.not intended to
provide information to or support for the listing actions of
sites scored using the HRS criteria. ATSDR will also do a health
assessment or consultation regarding a site/release prior to
proposal upon request from the EPA or the general public.
In response to the comments that only one drinking water well
was contaminated at levels above the minimum safe level set by
EPA, actually three private drinking water wells were identified
in the HRS documentation record at the time of proposal that were
contaminated at levels which exceeded an HRS benchmark for cancer
risk. The Hill, Maybin, and #900562 private wells exceeded the
cancer risk benchmark for tetrachloroethene (References 20, 39
and 40 to the HRS documentation record at proposal).
3.2.3.12 Due Process
Mr. Vineyard commented that the inclusion of "[a]ny nearby
locations subsequently discovered to have received hazardous
materials from the GELS plant" into the aggregation for NPL
listing is unwarranted, arbitrary, and capricious. He stated.
that this declaration gives EPA the authority to incorporate into
the NPL listing without procedural review or public comment any
piece of land where any wastes from GELS may have been
transported. He asserted that this statement exceeds EPA's
statutory authority by presuming that any GELS hazardous waste
would be improperly disposed of and present in concentrations
dangerous to public health. Mr. Vineyard concluded that this
presumption was unfairly prejudicial to GELS.
3.2-38 )
• •
In response, as discussed earlier in Section 3.2.3.5 of this ,· l support document, the John Span, Fairgrounds, and Jesse Staden
(
(
properties are not now and never have been included in the site
proposed for the NPL. However, as proposed, the Seldon Clark and
Shepherd Farm properties are included in the site aggregation.
If EPA obtains more information on the deleted properties or on
any additional properties after this site is listed, EPA has the
authority to include these properties in this site as appropriate
(see CERCLA (104) (d) (4)). On March 31, 1989 (54 FR 13298), EPA
stated:
HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a
release merely represent the initial [emphasis
added] determination that a certain area may need
to be addressed under CERCLA. Accordingly, EPA
contemplates that the preliminary description of
facility boundaries at the time of scoring will
need to be refined and improved as more
information is developed as to where the
contamination has come to be located; this
refining step generally comes during the RI/FS
stage.
Until the site investigation process has been completed and a
remedial action (if any) selected, EPA can neither estimate the
extent of contamination at the site nor describe the ultimate
dimensions of the NPL site. Even during a remedial action (e.g.,
the removal of buried waste) EPA may find that the contamination
has spread further than previously estimated, and the site
definition may be correspondingly expanded. In addition, if
another, unrelated release of contamination is discovered
elsewhere on the property, EPA may decide to evaluate that
release.
Site Name
Mr. Vineyard stated that "EPA failed to identify in the
published notice each of the properties actually proposed for NPL
listing and that this action has deprived the public and parties
3.2-39
•
potentially responsible for remediation of such properties of
adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to NPL
listing.''
In response, EPA notes that the Federal Register identifies
sites by name only. Since the name for this site is "GE/Shepherd
Farm," the additional properties (Seldon Clark, Jesse Staden,
etc.) identified within the HRS documentation record would not
appear in the Federal Register to be included in the site. EPA
therefore has interpreted Mr. Vineyard's comments as referring to
the site name of "GE/Shepherd Farm." Although this site name
does not include the names of all of the properties comprising
this site, the Agency sees no reason for changing the site name
to include all properties, which additionally would make the site
name long and cumbersome. EPA prefers names that accurately
reflect the location or nature of the problems at a site and that
are readily and easily associated with a site by the general
public. EPA believes the site's present name reflects the
primary source(s) of the problem at the site. Further, it may be
inferred from the comments received that the public should have
been aware that GELS and five additional sites were under
consideration for proposal on the NPL by EPA. A total of 265
comment letters were received for this site. In addition, a
public meeting was held regarding these properties. The
possibility of an NPL listing of these properties was discussed.
The minutes to this meeting are included as Reference 43 of the
HRS documentation record at proposal. The Jesse Staden, John
Span, and Fairgrounds properties, which were not included in the
site name, have been deleted from the HRS documentation record.
The Seldon Clark property was not included in the site name
because of its relative size and lesser significance as compared
to GELS and Shepherd Farm. However, because of its status as a
potential source area, it is appropriately included in the site
designation.
3.2-40
• •
Publicity and Listening to Local Citizens
( Seven commenters questioned EPA's motives in proposing to
list the GE/Shepherd Farm site, suggesting that EPA was listing
primarily for publicity value.
The 263 commenters who signed the petition submitted by
Senator Helms believed that EPA has refused to give the
sentiments of local citizens serious consideration, choosing
instead to cater to a small group of critics. Five commenters in
favor of listing expressed their concerns that their views were
not being heard. They stated that GE employees were conducting a
letter writing campaign that would outweigh the relatively fewer
local citizens. Patricia Dimsdale suggested that EPA visit the
local residents and talk with them directly.
In response, while one of the purposes for listing is to
inform the public of the actual and/or potential threat a site
might pose, EPA neither needs nor seeks publicity for itself from
{ listing sites. Consistent with CERCLA, the Agency has in place
an orderly procedure for identifying sites where releases of
hazardous substances have occurred or may occur, placing such
sites on the NPL, evaluating the nature and extent of the threats
(
at such sites, responding to those threats as necessary, and
deleting sites from the NPL.
This process encourages and relies on the participation of
the public, including potentially responsible parties. The
public can comment during the comment period after a site is
proposed for listing and during the time the Agency is evaluating
and selecting a remedy (the Agency may also hold several public
meetings during the remedial decision making period). If private
parties conduct remedial action under a consent decree between
EPA and the parties, the decree is also subject to public
comment. The Agency believes that the above process offers·the
3.2-41
• •
public sufficient opportunity to present facts and opinions
germane to its decision making.
The Agency regrets that it cannot meet individually with
every person seeking to submit or obtain information on a site
proposed for listing. However, as explained above, any member of
the public may submit written comments, and the public docket
supporting the site listing as well as the Administrative Record
supporting the remedy selection are available for public review.
The basis for the Agency initial scoring is reflected in this
public record. The Agency carefully considers every written
comment, including late comments
before adding a site to the NPL.
to the extent practicable,
The Aqency responds to all
site-specific comments in a "Support Document" such as· this,
which is available in the EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket in
Washington, DC, and the appropriate Regional Superfund Docket
when the final rule is published in the Federal Register.
In addition, EPA's· final decision is not based on a "poll" of
residents. Rather the Agency weighs the requirements of the
statute, regulations, the evidence available, and its own
judgment as to how the relevant factors should be considered.
These matters are reflected in the entire record for this
listing.
3.2.3.13 Consideration of Remedial Actions
Mr. Vineyard commented that the proposed listing of the site
failed to consider various remedial and other activities that
have been undertaken at the General Electric facility. He also
commented that "to the extent that the Agency construes the NCP
and the revised HRS to foreclose consideration of remedial
activity and significant changes in site conditions, such lack of
consideration violates SARA, is arbitrary and capricious, and is
an abuse of discretion."
3.2-42
• •
Mr. Vineyard cited numerous activities including both
remedial and removal actions. These activities include the
following:
Ground water monitoring;
Ground water studies;
Remedial design;
Installation of alternative water supplies;
Removal of underground storage tanks and surrounding
soils;
Elimination of a permitted process water discharge to Bat
Fork Creek;
Elimination of a process water discharge to local POTW;
Removal of PCB-containing transformers; and
Waste reduction efforts.
Mr. Vineyard asserted that these remedial activities must be
taken into account prior to any final listing determination.
Four commenters also noted that GELS has performed several
remedial actions at the site, including extending city water
mains and individual hook-ups to a£fected areas, removing
underground storage tanks, and upgrading their wastewater
treatment system.
In response, the Agency is aware of these activitie.s and
considers them as response actions which can be viewed as either
remedial or removal actions. Remedial actions are those actions
which may involve the planning stages of cleanup and/or measures
taken to abate contamination. Removal actions are those actions
in which the sources of contamination are actually removed from
the site. As explained in the preamble to the HRS (55 FR 51567,
December 14, 1990), the Agency will not consider remedial actions
but will consider some removal actions when evaluating a site for
the NPL. EPA has established three general requirements that
3.2-43
•
must be met before a removal action can be considered in the
scoring of the site.
The first requirement is that the waste actually be
transported from the site. This requirement ensures that the
waste and its associated risks are not simply moved to another
portion of the same site. Nor does a removal qualify for HRS
purposes if the removal actions involve only stabilizing or
containing waste on-site through engineering controls, measures
to limit access, providing alternate water supplies, or other
actions defined in CERCLA Section 101(23) for Superfund's
emergency response program.
Secondly, EPA requires that the removal must have occurred
prior to the site inspection (SI). As the preamble to the HRS
states, the Agency's experience is that the SI is the primary
source of most of the data collected to score a site. Because
response actions may be ongoing at a site, it would be burdensome
to recalculate scores continually to reflect such actions.
Therefore, EPA has decided that the SI is an appropriate time to
evaluate site conditions.
The third requirement is that the waste must be properly
disposed or destroyed in a facility permitted under RCRA, the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), or by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. This requirement encourages disposal that will
prevent (or minimize) any further release of hazardous substances
and any associated risks to public health or the environment.
Further guidelines on scoring a hazardous waste quantity that
qualifies as a waste removal for HRS purposes have been provided
in The Revised Hazard Ranking System: Evaluating Sites After
Waste Removals (OERR Publication 9345.l-03FS, October 1991).
3.2-44 !
(
• •
Regarding the GE/Shepherd Farm site, upon review of the
commenter's information concerning its response actions, EPA has
determined that the removal of underground storage tanks and
surrounding soils, the elimination of a permitted process water
discharge to Bat Fork Creek, the elimination of a process water
discharge to local POTW, and the removal of PCB-containing
transformers may be considered removals under the CERCLA
definition (CERCLA Section 101(23) and (24)). However, the
sources associated with these removals were not included in the
HRS site evaluation, therefore these particular removals, even if
they met the criteria to be considered qualifying removals, have
no bearing on the site score as proposed. GE has performed no
cleanup of sources which serve as the basis for the HRS score.
The Agency will consider GELS studies and remedial actions
after NPL listing when determining what CERCLA action, if any, is
warranted at the site.
3.2.3.14 Fairgrounds Property
Mr. Vineyard stated that EPA has failed to apply the
petroleum exclusion to the Fairgrounds property and that the
docket contained only a paucity of information on this property.
He maintained that the testing at the Fairgrounds property merely
confirms the presence of petroleum wastes used by volunteer fire
departments in firefighting training activities. Therefore, he
concluded that the data collected plainly establish that any
possible constituents of concern present at the Fairgrounds
property are not hazardous substances within the meaning of
CERCLA.
In addition, he stated that based on the petroleum exclusion,
the Fairgrounds property is not subject to CERCLA remediation and
therefore cannot be listed or aggregated with other properties.
3.2-45
•
In response, since the Fairgrounds property has been removed
from the HRS site evaluation (see Section 3.2.3.5 of this·suppo~t
document), this comment has not been addressed. The SI
(Reference 12) primarily identified organic contaminants at this
site which could be attributed to burning fuels. However ground
water sampling also identified contaminants not subject to the
petroleum exclusion such as chromium and copper, above maximum
contaminant levels.
3.2.3.15 Contaminated Soil and Observed Contamination:
Background Soils
Mr. Vineyard commented that EPA improperly calculated
background soil parameters for the GELS manufacturing plant and
other properties because they were based on a single soil sample
samples from the rather
area.
than a grouping of more
He presented a table of
representative
values derived from the site
screening and listing site investigations which he asserted
represents a more accurate range of background inorganic
concentration values at the GELS plant and other aggregated
properties.
In response, contrary to the commenter's statement, as
discussed on pages 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, and 52 of the HRS
documentation record at proposal, three soil samples were
designated as background samples: GE-SS-01 for the GELS plant
area (see Reference 1 [SI Report for GELS], page 82), and SF-SS-
01 and SF-SS-17 for the Shepherd Farm area [see Reference 12 (SI
Report for Shepherd Farm], page 27). These background samples
were used for identifying hazardous substances associated with
sources and determining areas of observed contamination. On page
55 of the HRS Guidance Manual, background levels are defined as
follows:
The concentration of a hazardous substance that
provides a defensible reference point that can be
3.2-46
• •
used to evaluate whether or not a release from the
site has occurred. The background level should
reflect the concentration of the hazardous
substance in the medium of concern for the
environmental setting on or near the site.
Background level does not necessarily represent
pre-release conditions, nor conditions in the
absence of influence from source(s) at the site ...
Page 58 of the HRS Guidance Manual states that "Many hazardous
substances may be widespread in the environment in the vicinity
of the site ... the background level for widespread substances
should account for local variability. Several background samples
may be required to establish variability in background
conditions."
At proposal, one or two samples in each medium (soil,
subsoil, and sediment) were designated as background samples.
These samples were designated as background during the site
investigations because they were near the sites but not subject
!-to site-related deposition or hazardous substance migration ~,
(
(References 1 and 12). All samples designated as contaminated
for the purposes of HRS scoring were found to be significantly
above these background levels according to the rules specified in
the HRS (Section 2.3, "Likelihood of Release," 55 FR 51589,
December 14, 1990).
Although these three samples were appropriate for background,
EPA has reviewed the commenter's data, the background data cited
in the HRS documentation record at proposal, and other sampling
data ·contained in the site inspection reports (References 1 and
12 in the HRS documentation record at proposal). Based on this
review, EPA has determined that some of the inorganic background
levels might be higher than those originally proposed.
3 .. 2-4 7
•
Since inorganic metals can be found widespread in the
environment, additional data found in the SI reports which might
be considered representative of background have been added to the
HRS documentation record. These samples have been selected from
the highest concentrations among all of the SI samples considered
useable for background. Page 68 of the HRS Guidance Manual
states that "using the sample with the highest concentration is
always defensible in a legal sense (i.e., the background level
based on available samples could not be higher than the value
selected) .... " These new data have been used to redefine
background levels. These additional samples meet the definition
of background level as specified on pages 68-69 and page 77 of
the HRS Guidance Manual. It states that the following are
examples of the information needed to establish similarity
between background and release samples include:
Type of samples (e.g., soil, sediment, air);
Time and location at which samples were
collected;
Physical condition under which samples were
collected (e.g., meteorological conditions,
season) ;
Sampling, handling, and analytical chemistry
procedures used, and
Environmental setting for each sample (e.g.,
topography, land use in the vicinity of the
sampling locations, streamflow).
Both background and release samples collected from the
GE/Shepherd Farm site are from the same medium (surface soil,
subsoil, etc.) and same soil type (loam). These samples were
also collected and analyzed during the same sampling event.
3.2-48
• •
The additional data from the EPA ESI (References 1 and 12 of
(_ the HRS documentation record at proposal) which has been added to
the HRS documentation record at promulgation include the
following samples:
l
(
To represent background surface soil conditions at the
GELS plant area, samples GE-SS-02, GE-SS-04, GE-SS-05
through GE-SS-08, GE-SS-13 and GE-SS-14 have been
included in addition to sample GE-SS-01.
To represent background sediment conditions at the GELS
plant area, samples GE-SD-02, GE-SD-03, GE-SD-06 and GE-
SD-08 have been included in addition to sample GE-SD-01.
To represent background subsoil conditions at the GELS
plant area, samples GE-SB-02, GE-SB-08 through GE-SB-10
have been included in addition to sample GE-SB-01.
To represent background surface soil samples at the
Shepherd Farm area, samples SF-SS-02, SF-SS-06 through
SF-SS-08 have been included in addition to samples SF-SS-
01 and SF-SS-17.
To represent background subsoil conditions at the
Shepherd Farm area, samples SF-SB-02, SF-SB-05 and SF-SB-
06 have been included in addition to samples SF-SB-01 and
SF-SB-17.
The following tables are a summary of the concentrations of the
relevant substances in these samples. Please note that the page
numbers given have been numerated.
3.2-49
•
General Electric--Surface Soil Samples
Background Samples: GE-SS-01, GE-SS-02, GE-SS-04 through GE-SS-
08, GE-SS-13, and GE-SS-14 (See Reference 1, Appendix G, pages
20, 58, 68, 74, 80, 86, 92, 97, and 105.)
Substance Range Background Level
Chromium 11 -43 mg/kg 43 mg/kg
Copper <DL -30UJ mg/kg 30UJ mg/kg
Lead l0J -47J mg/kg 47 mg/kg
Manganese l0J -610J mg/kg 610 mg/kg
Nickel <DL -l0U mg/kg l0U mg/kg
Zinc <DL -ll0J mg/kg 110 mg/kg
<DL = Less than detection limit
J = Qu.alified Data (Value is an estimate.)
U = Not Detected (Value preceding is the detection limit.)
General Electric--Sediment Samples
Background Samples: GE-SD-01 through GE-SD-03, GE-SD-06, and
GE-SD-08 (See Reference 1, Appendix G, pages 4, 14, and 278-
280.)
Substance . Range Background Level
Chromium 13 -21 mg/kg 21 mg/kg
Copper <DL -20UJ mg/kg 20UJ mg/kg
Lead 2.5J -24J mg/kg 24 mg/kg
Manganese 38J -ll0J mg/kg 110 mg/kg
Zinc <DL -45J mg/kg 45 mg/kg
<DL = Less than detection limit
J = Qualified Data (Value is an estimate.)
U = Not Detected (Value preceding is the detection limit.)
3.2-50
(
• •
General Electric -Subsoil Samples
Background Samples: GE-SB-01, GE-SB-02, GE-SB-08 through GE-SB-
10 (See Reference 1, Appendix G, pages 28, 32, 38, 39, and 276.)
Substance Range Background Level
.
Chromium 5.1 -16 mg/kg 16 mg/kg
Cobalt <DL -7.2 mg/kg 7.2 mg/kg
Copper <DL <DL
Lead 3.9J -24J mg/kg 24 mg/kg
Manganese 19J -160J mg/kg 160 mg/kg
Nickel . <DL -3U mg/kg 3U mg/kg
Vanadium 8.8J -22J mg/kg 22 mg/kg
Zinc <DL -9UJ mg/kg 9UJ mg/kg
<DL = Less than detection limit
J = Qualified Data (Value is an estimate.)
U = Not Detected (Value preceding is the detection limit.)
Shepherd Farm--Surface Soil Samples
Background Samples: SF-SS-01, SF-SS-02, SF-SS-06 through SF-SS-
08, and SF-SS-17 (See Reference 12, Appendix C, pages 6, 7, 103,
and 106 -108.)
Substance Range Background Level
Barium 31 -96 mg/kg 96 mg/kg
Chromium 9.8 -60 mg/kg 60 mg/kg
Cobalt 2.4 -22 mg/kg 22 mg/kg
Copper <DL -·3oUJ mg/kg 30UJ mg/kg
Lead llJ -40J mg/kg 40 mg/kg
Manganese 79 -520 mg/kg 520 mg/kg
Nickel 4.5 -21 mg/kg 21 mg/kg
Zinc 13 -78 mg/kg 78 mg/kg
Vanadium 17 -74 mg/kg 74 mg/kg
<DL = Less than detection limit
J = Qualified Data (Value is an estimate.)
U = Not Detected (Value preceding is the detection limit.)
3.2-51
• •
Shepherd Farm--Subsoil Samples
Background Samples: SF-SB-01, SF-SB-02, SF-SB-05, SF-SB-06, SF-
SB-17 (See Reference 12, Appendix C, pages 1, 3, 10, 185 and
186.)
Substance Range Background Level
Barium 40 -210 mg/kg 210 mg/kg
Chromium 13 -24 mg/kg· 24 mg/kg
Cobalt 3.3 -8.8 mg/kg 8.8 mg/kg
Copper <DL -200J mg/kg 200 mg/kg
Lead <DL -14J mg/kg 14 mg/kg
Manganese 44 -220 mg/kg 220 mg/kg
Nickel 6.3 -13 mg/kg 13 mg/kg
Zinc 13 -34 mg/kg 34 mg/kg
Vanadium 17 -34 mg/kg 34 mg/kg
<DL; Less than detection limit
J ; Qualified Data. (Value is an estimate.)
U ; Not Detected (Value preceding is the detection limit.)
Using these higher background levels, several samples
identified in the HRS documentation record at proposal as
contaminated might not be considered significantly above
background. Some sample results have therefore been deleted from
the HRS documentation record as proposed. See the following
section of this support document for details. According to HRS
Section 5.01, "General Considerations" for the soil exposure
pathway (55 FR 51646, December 14, 1990), observed contamination
is present· at sampling locations where "a hazardous substance
attributable to the site is present at a concentration
significantly above background levels for the site." This
section also refers to Table 2-3 in Section 2.3 of the HRS (55 FR
51589, December 14, 1990) for the criteria for determining
analytical significance.
3.2-52
j
• •
Regarding the data provideu by the commenter, these data
could not be compared to the data in the HRS documentation record
at proposal or the SI report due to a lack of sample location
identification, specific references to the source of the data,
and a lack of rationale for supplanting the data used with these
new data. In addition, according to pages 68-69 of the HRS
Guidance Manual, similarity needs to be established between
background and release samples. The commenter has not provided
the adequate documentation to support similarity. Even assuming,
however, that the data provided by the commenter are appropriate
to be used for background levels, they would in all but a few
cases yield the same result as the data now used in the HRS
documentation record at promulgation to determine that there is a
release from the site and using Mr. Vineyard's data would not
affect the site listing decision.
Deletions of Release Samples
Based on the new background levels, the following paragraphs
indicate the release samples which have been deleted (page
numbers listed below refer to those in the HRS documentation
record at proposal). These deletions have no impact on any
factor values used to score the site or on the overall site score
since many other release samples are unaffected by the new
background levels.
Page 10 : Section 2.4.1 Hazardous Substances--Source 1
Large waste treatment pond
Sample GE-SD-05 for lead.
Sample GE-SD-04 for manganese.
Sample GE-SD-05 for zinc.
Small waste treatment pond
Samples GE-SD-06 and GE-SD-07 for lead.
Sample GE-SD-07 for manganese.
3.2-53
•
Page 14: Section 2.4.1 Hazardous Substances--Source 2
Sludge impoundment
Sample GE-SS-11 for zinc.
Page 18: Section 2.4.1 Hazardous Substances-Source 3
Landspreading Plots
Samples GE-SB-02, GE-SB-03, GE-SB-04, GE-SB-06,
GE-SB-07, GE-SB-09, and GE-SB-10 for lead.
Samples GE-SB-02, GE-SB-04, GE-SB-06, and GE-SB-07
for cobalt.
Samples GE-SB-02, GE-SB-04, GE-SB-06, GE-SB-10,
and GE-SS-03 for manganese.
Page 23: Section 2.4.1 Hazardous Substances--Source 5
Shepherd Farm--Landfill
Sample SF-SB-10 for chromium.
Sample SF-SB-09 for cobalt.
Samples SF-SB-06, SF-SB-09, SF-SB-11, and SF-SB-13
for manganese.
Samples SF-SB-10, SF-SB-13, SF-SB-14, and SF-SB-15
for vanadium.
Sample SF-SS-13 for nickel.
Samples SF-SB-03 and SF-SS-14 for zinc.
Samples SF-SB-06, SF-SB-08, and SF-SB-09 for
copper.
Samples SF-SB-06 and SF-SB-13 for barium.
Page 45: Section 5.0.1 Soil Exposure Pathway
Sample GE-SD-04 for manganese for Area A.
Page 52: Section 5.0.1 Soil Exposure Pathway
Sample SF-SS-13 for nickel for Area C.
Sample SF-SS-14 for zinc for Area C.
3.2-54
(
I! • •
Redefinition of Source 5
On page 25 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, the
deletions of samples SF-SB-06, SF-SB-10, SF-SB-14, and SF-SB-15
as release samples have resulted in new lower area calculations
for Source 5, the Shepherd Farm landfill. The new landfill area
is 101,250 square feet. This value results in a reduction of the
source hazardous waste quantity from 38.15 to 29.78. The overall
. site hazardous waste quantity value remains unchanged.
3.2.3.16 Attribution
.Mr. Alexander and Shirley Pace questioned the attribution of
the contamination solely to the GELS facility. They suggested
that the contamination may be coming from off-site underground
storage tanks or from the Shell or Federal Paperboard sites.
In response, the contaminants associated with the Federal
Paperboard Inc. site are not the same as those used to score the
GE/Shepherd Farm site. A State SI was conducted on the Federal
Paperboard Company, Inc. site (NCD003155405) in 1989. This site
is located across the street from the GELS facility to the north
and east of the Seldon Clark property. The wastestream generated
from 1962 to 1982 came from washing and rinsing printing ink
carriers with alcohol and mineral spirit base solvents. It was
piped outside the plant building and allowed to run onto the
ground. Soil samples identified carbon disulfide, bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate, methylene chloride, and toluene. Water
from an effluent ditch beside the discolored soil area ·showed
benzene, toluene, xylene, and acetone. No ground water
contamination was identified. Contaminated soils were removed
under a State agreement on consent (AOC). Remediation started in
1991. The remediation has been completed and all conditions of
the AOC were met. The above information can be found in a record
of a telephone conversion between EPA Regional representatives
and State representatives. This record has been added as
Reference 48 to the HRS documentation record at promulgation.
3.2-55
• •
The Shell gas station is °located at the corner of Tabor Road
and Oak Grove Road and was part of an underground storage tank
(UST) removal action in 1988. Ground water contamination was
detected at a.private residence located diagonally across Oak
Grove Road from the station. The residential well sample
detected 1,2-dichloroethane, isopropyl ethene, and methyl turic
butyl either (MTBE). Another private well across from the Shell
station on Tabor Road also·contained low levels of MTBE. None of
these contaminants except 1,2-dichloroethane are the same as the
contaminants found at the GE/Shepherd Farm site. Although 1,2-
dichloroethane may be attributable to the GE/Shepherd Farm site,
at the present time there is some uncertainty as to the exact
source of this contaminant, therefore an observed release of this
substance has been deleted from the HRS documentation record at
promulgation. As part of the RI/FS for the GE/Shepherd Farm site
and during ongoing investigations at the Shell gas station, the
source and extent of this contaminant will be further assessed.
The above information can be found in a record of a telephone
conversion between EPA Regional representatives and State
representatives. This record has been added as Reference 49 to
the HRS documentation record at promulgation.
3.2.3.17 Waste Characteristics: Use of Outdated PCB data
Mr. Vineyard stated that recent studies demonstrate that the
risk associated with PCB compounds has been overstated and that
EPA has relied on outdated data to establish the toxicity and
persistence of PCBs. Mr. Vineyard presented numerous documents
commenting on other regulatory proceedings related to PCB risk
which call into question various aspects of the data record on
PCB fate and health effects. Mr. Vineyard asserted that EPA must
consider these new data prior to listing the site.
In response, it is unclear what portions of the HRS
evaluation the commenter is addressing. However, EPA has
reviewed all portions of the HRS documentation record involving
3.2-56 )
• •
PCBs and determined that any changes in the toxicity factor value
for PCBs would have no effect on the overall site score. As
shown in Section 3.2.1 of the HRS documentation record at
proposal for the ground water migra~ion pathway, the hazardous
substances with the highest combined toxicity/mobility scores
were lead, nickel, chromium, and manganese, all with
toxicity/mobility factor values of 10,000. By comparison, the
PCB toxicity/mobility factor valJe was 1. As stated in Section
2.4.1.2 of the HRS (55 FR 51590, December 14, 1990), for the
ground water migration pathway "select the hazardous substance
with the highest combined [toxicity/mobility] factor value and
use that substance in evaluating the waste characteristics factor
category." Thus, lead, nickel, chromium, and manganese, equally,
form the basis for the waste characteristics evaluation of the
ground water migration pathway for this site, not PCBs.
In Section 5.1.2.1 of the HRS documentation record for the
soil exposure pathway, both lead and PCBs are assigned toxicity
factor values of 10,000. As stated in Section 2.4.1.2 of the HRS·
(55 FR 51590, December 14, 1990), "for the soil exposure pathway,
select the hazardous substance with the highest human toxicity
factor value ... and use that substance in evaluating the waste
characteristics factor category." Thus, lead would support the
score even if the PCB toxicity value were lower.
Regarding the persistence of PCBs, hazardous substance
persistence data are only used in the HRS in the surface water
migration pathway (see Section 4.1.2.2.1.2 of the HRS, 55 FR
51612, December 14, 1990). The surface water migration pathway
was not scored at this site; thus, any change in the assigned
persistence factor value for PCBs would have no affect on the
site score.
3.2-57
•
To be fully responsive to the commenter, the following is an
explanation of the use of PCB toxicity and persistence data in
this listing.
First, toxicity and persistence values used to evaluate this
site are contained in the Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM)
(Reference 2 of the HRS documentation record at proposal). As
explained in Section 2 of SCDM, the values in this matrix were
derived from other EPA databases, such as the Integrated Risk.
Information System (IRIS) and the.Health Effects Assessment
Summary Tables (HEAST) when such data are available. When the
EPA's databases do not contain the necessary information, EPA
relies on other databases or uses dat;, f:::-om surveys conducted by
EPA specifically to develop a database for use with the HRS. The
procedure used to convert the information in these sources into
the corresponding factor values is identified in the HRS (55 FR
51532, December 14, 1990).
For this site, the data used to develop the PCB toxicity
factor value were obtained from IRIS, the "Identification of
Health Effects Data for Chemicals Contained in the Clean Air Act
Amendments: Final Report to Dr. John Vanderburg" report (C-E
Environmental Inc., 1990, prepared under EPA contract), and the
EPA "Methodology for Evaluating Potential Carcinogenicity in
Support of Reportable Quantity Adjustments Pursuant to CERCLA
Section 102" report (EPA 600/8-89/053). IRIS values consistently
undergo peer review within the Agency and often are used in
Agency rulemaking activities.
The IRIS va~ue for a cancer slope factor for PCBs is 7.7.
The HRS states, "If either the RfD [reference dose] 6r slope
factor is available, but not both, assign the hazardous substance
an overall toxicity factor value from HRS Table 2-4 based solely
on the available value (RfD or slope factor)." Using HRS Table
3.2-58
• •
2-4, a cancer slope factor of 7.7 gives an assigned toxicity
factor value of 10,000. A reference dose is not available.
Regarding the assertion that EPA should use GELS information
in determining the toxicity and persistence factor values, this
option was.considered and rejected. GELS provided no information
demonstrating that the values EPA used in evaluating the site
were improperly developed or that the study from which the data
were obtained was faulty. Therefore, EPA has no reason to
consider the original values as faulty. In addition, the data
presented by GELS would yield lower toxicity and persistence
factor values which may not be as protective of human health and
the environment as EPA's values. The value EPA chose to reflect
the potential threat posed by PCBs is governed by the Agency's
directive to protect human health and the environment. Hence,
the Agency chose the most conservative value from peer-reviewed
study. Therefore, EPA has not changed the toxicity and
persistence factor values for PCBs in its evaluation of this
site.
3.2.3.18 Targets: Change in Drinking Water supply
Mr. Vineyard commented that EPA pursued its NPL listing of
the GELS plant on the basis of drinking water supply conditions
that were no longer in existence at the time of listing. The
Agency assumes that Mr. Vineyard is referring to the alternative
water supply provided by GELS to the neighboring community.
Three comment letters were received which stated that some
individuals did not accept the GELS offer to be hooked up to city
water supplies and that this offer was not extended to everyone.
In response to Mr. Vineyard's comments, it would appear from
the other comments received that the GELS offer was not extended
to or accepted by all of the potentially affected population.
Thus the inclusion of individuals who are using contaminated
3.2-59
wells or used wells closed due to site related contamination in
the HRS target population was appropriate. Therefore, this
comment has no effect on the HRS site score. Further, Section Q
of the preamble of the HRS (55 FR 51568, December 14, 1990)
states that
HRS scoring will not consider the effects of
responses that do not reduce waste quantities such
as providing alternate drinking water supplies to
populations with drinking water supplies
contaminated by the site. In such cases, EPA
believes that the initial targets factor should be
used to reflect the adverse impacts caused by
contamination of drinking water supplies;
otherwise, a contaminated aquifer could be
artificially shielded from further remediation.
This decision is consistent with SARA Section
118(a), which required that EPA give high priority
to sites where coritamination from the site results
in closed drinking water wells.
3 .2 .4 Conclusion
The original HRS score for this facility was 70.71. Based on
the above response to comments, the score remains unchanged. The
final scores for the General Electric Co./Shepherd Farm site are:
Ground Water:
Surface Water:
Air:
Soil Exposure:
·HRS Score:
100.00
Not Scored
Not Scored
100.00
70.71
3.2-60
··t-.iPL··F/l..lA 1,-z-)(-~f
SB
Name c-: Site:
Ccntact·Persons
General Electric Comparly, Lighting Systems
Department (LSD)/Shepherd FaI"II\·
NCD079044426
U.S. En·:ironmental ?ro~ecticn Agency, Re9:.on IV: . Deborah _vaughn-;.;r:right
Docum~ntation Record: Belinda,Brock, HALLIBURTON NUS Environmental ·corporation-
Pathways, Components~ or Threats Not Evaluated
Preliminary scores of the air and surface water pathways ·indicate very little
contribution to the.overall site score. Due to its size and loCation, no
known fishing has occUrred in Bat F6rk Creek at the G.E./Shepherd Farm site
area (Ref: 19, Appendix B, p. 5). · The area around the.G.E./Shepherd .Farm site
is primarily._ rural and no ·observed release to air has been documented (~efs·.
l; 12; 21).
Aggregation Rationale
The site consists of releases of contaminants resulting from disposal of-G.E.
wastes such as wastewater, wet and dry sludges, and solid wastes. KnoWil.a:r;eas
of contamipatiori are the General Electric plant,. Shepherd F~I1Tl and Seldon
Clark property (evaluated herein)'. · '
The shepherd ~arm sit~ is located approxi~t'ely 2500 feet southwest of the
General Electric plant. Wastes wei:e brought tO this area from G.E.·and
deposited, burned, then bulldozed. The General Electric and Shepherd Farm
sites have significantly overlapping target populations ·and similar waste
characteristics (Refs. l, Volume 2, Appendix G, pp. 1-16, 21-26, 29-39; 12,
p. 2, Appendi"x C, pp. 1-32, 41; 21;. 24, pp. 6, 7; 32; 36, p. ·3). . . '
·1
• •
HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD
Name of Site: General Electric Company -LSD/Shepherd Farm
NCD079044426
EPA Region: Region 4 Date Prepared: December 12, 1994
Street Address of Site: (General Electric) Spartanburg Highway
(Shepherd Farm) Roper Road
County and State: (General Electric) East Flat Rock, North Carolina
(Shepherd Farm) Flat Rock, North Carolina
General Location in the State: Southwest
Topographic Map: Hendersonville, North Carolina, 7.5 minute series 1965 (PR
1978)
(General Electric) Latitude: 35 16' 20" Longitude: 82 24' 40"
(Shepherd Farm) Latitude: 35 16' 11"
Scores
Air Pathway
Ground Water Pathway
Soil Exposure Pathway
Surface Water Pathway
HRS SITE SCORE
•NS= Not Scored
NS*
100.00
100.00
NS
70. 71
2
Longitude: 82 25' 13"
. .,,...-.,,,.---. ~-/r✓ .•
: ,( 111~,
~~")
~.'
' . M,..,;_'-', . •
• -/,' ' :=::---... ·.-.. /; · .. ~_-,, ' '/. • _. :.•o I ,. ~-~~~ ~~. . .
. •. i ;;;-.,,_·_. ··~ ~~J!Sl~ -✓~--/ ! '
,. .. -

•

711' • ~-..:__v
. ~ . ~._'J.;~,11 ;;.-.:• ~f/4i ' ..
-a, ........ =~ '\
--__)
~ 0 ai •~~ \ ~ --~
1000 0
SCAU: PDT
2000 4000
BASE MAP 18 A PORTION OF TIE U.9.G.S. 7.5 IMNUTI! QUADAAHOU! IENDER8()NVIUI! 111115, NOflTM CAIIOUMA.
SITE LOCATION MAP
SHEPHERD FARM
FLAT ROCK, HENDERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA FIGURE 1
GENERAL ELECTRIC
EAST FLAT ROCK, HENDERSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA 2A
·.:DRNUS -Lu cx:A=CAATCN
\\ SELDON CLARK ~ PROPERTY
LEGEND
■ ~ SWDOI!. IMPOUNOIIENT
•
PLANT
·1£1-WASTEWATER TReATMENT PONDS
11ZJ-FORMER LANDFILLS, A,11
'--TABOR ROAD
--,_~1u,-:=::---:-; ;; :--. ------
" ., ••
-
•
J
..oe& DISCHAAGI! OUTFALL POINT
OURCI! : MONITORING WELL LDC.tll'ION PLAN,
SCALI!,
0 150' 300' ~ ;_LANDSPRl!ADINO PLOTS , A,8,CAD . JOB NO. ·Gv-1841 B LAW ENGINEERING
SITE DISPOSAL FEATURES, PAST AND PRESENT
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY -LSD
EAST FLAT ROC~, HENDERSON
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
2B
.FlGURE 2-3
i
;VGl!•SD-011
TIIDT
III.UIIUIII' i •
SELDON CLARK
PROPERTY
~.,..,.,_ -· 1 1--•LE•G"'E..;Na,,;D._,_.
l~ -V Sl!DIMENT
i0. StlAPACI! SOIL
6. SUBSUAFACI! SOL
SCALE.
O 1110' 300'
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP (SECTION A-A) 1. SURFACE SOIL,
SUBSURFACE SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMl-'LES
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY -LSD
EAST FLAT ROCK, HENDERSON COU~TY,
NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 4-15
2C
•
TIIDT PONO
oe-9a-1•
~~,l...--7"'--Q11•8S-11
(01'1'81Tl!I 601!·88-01
· · \ •oE-88-01 '701!•80-01
01!•88-10 01!•8 • LEGEND
V Sl!OIMl!NT
6 SURl'ACI! SOL
• 8U8SUAl'ACI! SOIL
o 200· •oo·
. SCALE: FEl!T
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP (SECTION B;..B)
SURFACE SOIL, SUBSURFACE SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES
EAST FLAT ROCK, HENDERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 4-16 ·
20
HILL HOUSE
DEAD TREES
DISPOSAL AREA
SF•SS-03.:-------1
1--1----! L.--1-"----I
♦ LEACHATE SOIL
D. SURFACE SOIL
A SUBSURFACE SOIL .
SITE LAYOUT AND SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION MAP ·
SHEPHERD .FARM
0 1ocr ZDO'
. SCALI!: Fl!l!T
FLAT ROCK, HENDERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DISPOSAL AREA BASED UPON FIT LSI SAMPLING RESULTS
2E GRNJBS
~-I { I CRAILN
• •
WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITB SCORB
1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw)
(from Table 3-1, line 13)
2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component
(from Table 4-1, line 30)
2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Compoilent
(from Table 4-25, line 28)
2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw)
Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b
as the pathway score.
3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss)
(from Table 5-1, line 22)
4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa)
(from Table 6-1, line 12)
5. Total of Sgw2 + Ssw2 + Ss2 + Sa2
6. HRS Site Score Divide the value on line 5
by ,j and take the square root
3
s
100
NS
100
NS
S2
10,000
NS
NS
NS
10,000
NS
20,000
70.71
General Electric Company -LSD/Shepherd Farm
Henderson County, North.olina
:.!.!LE J-1
Factor Categories and Factors
Likelihood of Release to an Aquifer
1. Observed Release
2. Potential to Release
2a. Containment
2b. Net Precipitation
·2c. Depth to Aquifer
2d. Travel Time
2e. Potential to Release
[lines 2a x (2b + 2c + 2d)]
3. Likelihood of Release (higher of
line• land 2e)
Yaste Characteristics
4. _Toxicity/Mobility
s. HazardoWI Yute Quantity
6. Yute Characteristics
Targets
7. Nearest Yell
8. Population
Sa .. Level I Concentrations
Sb.··• Level II Concentrations
Sc. Potential Contamination
Sd. Population (lines Sa+ Sb+ Sc)
9. Resources
._10. Yellhead Protection Area
11. Targets (line• 7 + Sd + 9 + 10)
•
Maximum Value
sso
10
10 s
35
500
550
a
a
100
so
b
b
b
b
5
20
b
Ground Yater Migration Score for an Aquifer
12. Aquifer Score
[(lines 3 x 6 x ll)/82,S00]c
Ground Vater Migration.Pathway Score
13. .Pathway Score (Sp), (highest value from
11.m 12 for all aquifers evaluated)c
100
100
aMaxUl\1111 value applies to waste characteristics category.
~imml value not applicable.
cDo not round to nearest integer.
3A
Value Assigned
550 -
--
-
550
10,~00 ~o 100
50
238
29
~ 328
5 ---r m_
100 -
100
i General Electric Comp&illY -LSD/Shepherd Henderson County, Nor'9Carolina
Farm •
TA.BU: 5-l
SOIL EXPOSURE PATlWAY SCORESHEET
Factor Categoriea.and Factors Maximum Value
llESIDEHT POl'tJL\TIOR 'n!lW.T
Uke Uhood of Elq:,oaure
l. Ukalihood. of Elq:,oaura .550
Vuta Characteristic•
2. Toxicity a 3. Hazardous Vute Quantity a 4. Vute Characteriatica 100
Targeu
5. R.eaidenc Individual so 6. · ~eaident Population
6a: Leval I Concencrationa b 6b. Level II Concentrations b 6c. 'R.eaidant Population b ·,: (11.naa 6a + 6b)
7. Vorkara 15 a. R.eaourcea 5 9. Terreatri&l. Senaitiva
Environmanta C 10. Targata (11.naa 5 + 6c + 7 + 8 ·+ 9) b
R.aaidant Populacion Threat Score
11. R.Hident Population Threat
(linea l x 4 x 10) .b
BEAUT POPUUTIOR 'l'BIUT
.Ukelihoad of Elq:,oaura
12. _Attr~ctivanaaa/Accaaaibility 100 13. ·Area of Ccwlt•n1n•cion 100 14. Ukalihood of Expoaura 500
Vuce Cbaracceriaciu
15. Toxicity a 16 • . Hazardoua Vuce Quantity a 17. Vuce Cbaraccariaciu 100
38
Value Assigned
550 -
l.Q.&Q.O
l.Q...QQO
100 -
50 -
214 -,
.....ill
5
Q
0
.l2L
14,795,000
10
20 ·-5
~~ -la
• • TABLE 5-1 (Concluded)
Factor Cacagoriea and Factors
NEAUT POPUUTIOR TBllU.T (Concluded)
Targeca
18. Nearby Individual
19. Population li'i thin l Mile
20. Targets (lines 18 + 19)
Nearby Popul.ation Threat Score
21. Nearby Population Threat .
(lines 14 x 17 x 20)
son EXl'OS1lU PATINAT scou
22. Soil Exposure Pathway Scored·
(S~). (line■ [11+21) + 82,500,
subj ec:c co a maximum of 100)
Maximum Value
l
b
b
b
100
.Value Assigned
0
2
180
100 -
aM&ximua value applies to vuce characteristics category. bii&ximu!-value not applicable • . eNo · specific ma:l1-value appli~I! c~ factor. However, pathway score ' bued solely on cilrreacrial sensitive environmenca 1s limited co ·iauimma of 60.
doo not round co nearest integer.
JC
• •
REFERENCES
Reference
Number Description of the Reference
1. NUS Corporation, Superfund Division, "Interim Final Report, Listing Site
Inspection, Phase II, General Electric Company, Lighting Systems
Department (LSD), East Flat Rock, Henderson County, North Carolina,"
Revision 0, Prepared under TDD No. F4-9005-36 for the Waste Management
Division of EPA (January 25, 1991), Volumes 1 and 2. Volume 1: text
107 pages, appendices A-F 152 pages; Volume 2: appendix G 318 pages.
2. NUS Corporation, Field Logbook No. F4-2270
at General Electric, TDD No. F4-9005-36.
Logbook, May 14-18, 1990. 9 pages.
for Listing Site Inspection
HRS Project Manager's
3. Law Engineering, Greenville, South Carolina, Monitoring Well Location
Plan, General Electric Facility, Hendersonville, North Carolina, Job No.
·GV~l841B, :·Figure 1 · (no date). 1 map. Additional information added to
map· by ··HALLIBURTON NUS Environmental Corporation (sample locations for
GE-SB-02 and GE-SB-04 and explanation of private wells).
4. Mike Bush, General Electric Facilities Engineer -Environment, Safety,
and Industrial Hygiene, telephone conversation with Mitch Cohen, NUS
Corporation, August 21, 1990·. Subject: Additional waste disposal
information for General Electric. 2 pages.
s. Law Environmental, -Inc. 11 Report of PCB-Contaminated Sediment
Assessment,11 General Electric Company, Hendersonville, North Carolina,
February 1990. 436 pages.
6. Michael
Safety,
Dooley,
pages.
Bus~, General Electric Facilities Engineer -Environment,
and Industrial Hygiene, telephone conversation with Robert
NUS Corporation, April 14, 1989. Subject: Plant operations. 2
7. Belinda Brock, HRS Project Manager, NUS Corporation, project note to
General Electric Company file, April 30, 1991. Subject: Waste quantity
calculation sheet.-large wastewater treatment pond, small wastewater
treatment pond, sludge impoundment. 4 pages.
8. Hazard Ranking System, Final Rule, December 14, 1990, 55 FR 241: 51532-
51667.
9. Law Engineering, "Report of. Assessment of Superfund Screening
Investigation",.General Electric Facility, Hendersonville, North
Carolina, Job No. GV-1841C, February 15, 1989. 193 pages.
10. NUS Corporation, Field Logbook No. F4-2271 for Listing Site Inspection
at General Electric, TDD No. F4-9005-36. Project Manager's Logbook, May
14-23, 1990. 33 pages.
11. NUS Corporation, Field Logbook No. F4-2273 for Listing Site Inspection
at Shepherd Farm, TDD No. F4-9005-37. Sampling Logbook, May 18-19,
1990. 12 pages.
4
• •
12. NUS Corporation, Superfund Division, "I_nterim Final Report, Listing Site
Inspection, Phase II, Shepherd Farm, Flat Rock, Henderson County, North
Carolina" Revision 2, prepared under TDD No. F4-9005-37 for the Waste
Management Division of EPA (July 8, 1991), Text 53 pages, Appendix B 8
pages, Appendix C 302 pages.
13. Michael J. Bush, General
Environmental, letter to
Branch, January 9, 1989.
pages.
Electric, Support
Grover Nicholson,
Subject: Onsite
Operations Engineer -
North Carolina Superfund
landfill information. 3
14. H. E. LeGrand, "Groundwater of the Piedmont.and Blue Ridge .Provinces in
the Southeastern States," U.S. Geological Survey·Circular 538, 1967,
Washington, D.C. pages 1-11.
15. Charles c. Daniel, III, "Statistical Analysis Relating Well Yield to
Construction Practices and Siting of Wells in the Piedmont and Blue
· Ridge Provinces of North Carolina," 1987, U;-S. Geological Survey Water
Resourc~s -.Investigations Report 86-4132·, prepared in cooperation with
the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Raleigh North Carolina. pages 1-21.
16. Henry Trapp, Jr., "Geology and Groundwater Resources of the Asheville
Ju:ea, North Carolina," prepared cooperatively by the Geological Survey,
U.S. Department of the Interior and the North Carolina Department of
Water and Air Resources, Ground Water Bulletin No. 16, Raleigh, North
Carolina 1970. pages 90-93.
17. Law Engineering, "Report of
General Electric Facility,
GV-1841B, April 13, 1989.
B 83 pages.
Phase II-A Contamination Assessment,11
Hendersonville, North Carolina, Job No.
Text 47 pages, Appendix A 4 pages, Appendix
18. Charles _H. Hooper, Chemist, .Laboratory Evaluation/Quality Assurance
Section, U.S. EPA, memorandUm to Deborah A. Vaughn-Wright, Region IV NPL
Coordinator, March 21, 1991. Subject: Data Qualifers. 9 pages.
19. Law Environmental, Inc.
Contamination", General
Facility, August 1990.
22 pages.
"Risk Assessment Related to Ground-Water
Electric Company, .Hendersonville, North Carolina
Text 38 pages, Appendix A 146 pages, Appendix B
20. Hazardous Substance Reference Table, Assigned HRS Factor Values and
Hazardous Substance Benchmark Table, June 24, 1994. Pages Bl-B55.
21. U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5 minute series Topographic Quadrangle Maps of
North Carolina: Cliffield Mountain 1946, Hendersonville 1965 (PR 1978),
Zirconia 1959 (PR 1978), Saluda 1983 (Provisional Edition), scale
1:24,000. 1 map.
22.
23.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Proof
1: Summary Population and Housing
the Census, (April 1991), excerpt.
Copy of table generated for 1990 CPH-
Characteristics, issued by Bureau of
1 page.
Rick Durham, Manager, Mid-South Water Department,
with Belinda Brock, NUS Corporation, May 8, 1991.
information. 1 page.
telephone conversation
Subject: Supply well
5
• •
24. NUS Corporation, Field Logbook No. F4-2266 for Listing Site Inspection
at Shepherd Farm, TDD No. F4-9005-37. Project Manager's Logbook, May
14-23, 1990. 30 pages.
25. F.R. Hayes, Engineer, Hendersonville Water Department, telephone
conversati6ri with· Belinda Brock, NUS Corporation, October 16, 1990.
Subject: Clarification of water supply for the City of Hendersonville.
1 page.
26. Charles H. Hooper, Chemist, Laboratory Evaluation/Quality Assurance
Section, U.S. EPA, memorandum to Deborah A. Vaughn-Wright, Region IV NPL
Coordinator; May 7, 1991. Subject: DiscusSion of Data Qualifiers for
General Electric Company, East Flat Rock, North Carolina, ·case 14091,
Region IV Project No. 90-560. 3 pages.
27. Gary Bennett, Chemist, Laboratory Evaluation and Quality Assurance
Section, U.S .. EPA, memorandum to Deborah A. Vaughn-Wright, Region IV NPL
Coordinator, May 6, 1991. Subject: Analytical Data, CRDLs (excerpt). 2
pages.
28. NUS Corporation, Field Logbook No. F4-2267 for Listing Site Inspection
at Shepherd Farm, TDD No. F4-9005-37. HRS Manager's Logbook, May 18,
1990. 5 pages.
'
29. Charles H. Hooper, Chemist, Laboratory Evaluation/Quality Assurance
Section, U.S. EPA, memorandum to Deborah A. Vaughn-Wright, Region IV NPL
Coordinator, May 7, 1991. Subject: Discussion of Data Qualifiers for
Shepherd Farm, Flat Rock, North Carolina, Case 14090, Region IV Project
No. 90-559. 2 pages.
30. Charles H. Hooper, Chemist, Laboratory Evaluation/Quality Assurance
Section, U.S. EPA, memorandum to Deborah A. Vaughn-Wright, Region IV NPL
Coordinator, April 29, 1991. Subject: Data Qualifers. 11 pages.
31. Belinda Brock, HRS Project Manager,
Shepherd Farm file, June 26, 1991.
calculation sheet. 3 pages.
NUS Corporation, project note to
Subject: Source waste quantity
32 .. Deborah A. Vaughn-Wright, U.S. EPA Region IV NPL Coordinator, memorandum
to General Electric Site File, July 15, 1991. Subject: Aggregation of
General Electric Company -Lighting Systems Department, East Flat Rock,
North Carolina (NCD079044426) 'and Shepherd Farm Site, Flat Rock, North
carolina (NCD986170686), with attachments. 29 pages, 1 map.
33. Belinda Brock, HRS Project Manager, NUS Corporation, project note to
Shepherd Farm file, July 2, 1991. Subject: Soil exposure area of
contamination. 3 pages.
34. Joyce Harris, Manager, Spring Haven Development, telephone conversation
with Belinda Brock, NUS Corporation, July 3, 1991. Subject:
Verification of occupied homes. 1 page.
35. U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5 minute series Topographic Map of North
carolina: Hendersonville 1965 (PR 1978), base map for 0-1 mile
population count. 2 pages.
6
• •
36. Potential Hazardous Waste Site Preliminary Assessment (EPA Form 2070-12)
and narrative for Shepherd Farm, filed by Edward Wallingford,
Environmental Chemist, Noith Carolina Department of Human Resources,
Division of Health Services, Superfund Branch, Solid Waste Management
Section, June 1989. 12 pages.
37. Grover Nicholson, North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division
of Health Services, Superfund Branch, interoffice memorandum to Shepherd
Farm File, December·20, 1988. Subject: Trip Report, Gene Shepherd
Farm. 2 pages.
38. Lee Crosby, Department Head, Superfund Branch, North Carolina Department·
of Human Resollrces, Di vision of Heal th Ser_vices, memorandum to Dr. John
Freeman, D.V.M., M.P.H.,·o·ep_artrnen~ Head·, ·Environmental Epidemiology.
Branch, April 10, 1989. Subject: Shepherd Farm property health
assessment, private drinking water well contamination. 2 pages.
39. North ~aro~i~a Department of_ Human Resources, Division of Health
.Servic'es, Superfund Branch, Sample Analyses Request for the Gene
Shepherd Farm, samples collected November 30, 1988. 9 pages.
40. Grover.Nicholson, North Carolina Superfund Branch,
memorandum to Shepherd Farm File, April 10, 1989.
Farm property, private well. 1 page.
interoffice
Subject: Shepherd
41. North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division of Health
Services, Superfund Branch, Sample Analyses Request for the Shepherd
Farm site, sample collected March 6, 1989. 6 pages.
42. Thomas L. Lammons, Environmental Services Manager, Law Engineering,
submittal letter to Robert Morris, U.S. EPA, July 31, 1989. Subject:
Chemical analysis of ground-water samples for Shepherd Property Project,
Law Engineering Job Number GVE-2231, with attachments. 55 pages.
43. United States Environmental Protection Agency Public Meeting, General
Electric/Shepherd Farm Assessment Site, March 21, 1991, excerpt. 3
pages.
44. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, EPA record of
discussion between EPA representatives and Gene and Ruth Shepherd, July
9, 1991. 4 pages.
45. Grover Nicholson, Head, CERCLIS Branch Superfund Section of the North
Carolina·Departm"ent of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division Of So.lid waSte Managemeri.t, letter to Robert Morris, U.S. EPA,
February 26, 1990. · Subject:· General Electric Company and related
sites, He"ndersonville, North ·carolina, with attachment. 2 pages.
46. Martin Richmond, State of North Carolina, memorandum to Grover
Nicholson, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resource·s, Division of Solid Waste Management, CERCLIS Branch,
Superfund Section, November 7, 1989. Subject: Site screening,
Henderson County. 1 page.
47. Diane M.A. Eskenasy, P.G., Hydrogeological Technician, State of North
Carolina, Department Of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
letter to· Grover Nichorson, Superfund Section, November 2, 1989.
Subject: Report of buried drums, Henderson County, North Carolina. 2
pages.
7
• •
48. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, EPA record of
discussion between EPA representative, Debbie Vaughn-Wright and EPA
representative, Jack Butler, Superfund Branch Solid Waste Management
Section, North Carolina. 1 page.
49. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, EPA record of
discussion between.EPA representative, Debbie Vaughn-Wright and State of
·North Carolina representative, Diane Eskanasy, Hydrologist Groundwater
Section North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources. 1 page.
8
• •
SD-Characterization and Containment
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
2.2 Source Characterization
Number of the source: 1
Name and description of the source: Surface Impoundments -Two wastewater
treatment pOilds; T~ese·~lined po~ds' receive wastewater generated as a result
of plant processes. Wastewater initially enters the large pond for settling.
The. small.pond receives overflow from the large pond (Refs. 1, pp. 4, 5; 2, p.
4; 4; 6) .
Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site: The large pond
·is-located in _the southwest portion of the facility property, north of Bat
Fork Creek·. The small pond is located south of the -large pond and south of
Bat Fork Creek (Ref. 3; also see site layout map, p. 2B of this documentation
record).
Containment
Release to ground water: These ponds are not lined (Refs. 2, p. 5; 6, p. 2).
9
•
2.4.1 Hazardous Substances
Hazardous substance
(Large Waste Treatment Pond)
PCB
Total xylenes
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Cadmium
Chromium***
Copper•••
Lead***
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc•••
Cyanide
(Small Waste Treatment Pond)
Carbon disulfide
PCB
Cadmium
Chromium•••
Nickel
Zinc•••
Evidence
SD-04++
SD-05*
SD-04*
SD-04*
SD-04*
SD-04*
SD-04*
SD-04*
SD-05
SD-04 & 05
SD-04**
SD-04+
SD-04++
SD-04
SD-04++
SD-04 & 05
SD-06*
SD-07
SD-07
SD-07
, SD-07
SD-07 ++
•
SD-Hazardous Substances
Source No. : l
Reference
1, pp. 82, 86
1, pp. 82, 84
"
"
"
1, pp. 82, 85
"
"
1, pp. 82, 88
"
"
" "
"
1, pp. 82, 89
"
1, pp. 82, 84
1, pp. 82, 86
1, pp. 82, 88
"
" 1, pp. 82, 89
SB=Subsurface soil sample, SS=Surface soil sample, LS=Surficial leachate
sample.
The preceding data was from a Listing Site Inspection (LSI) conducted by the
Region IV Field Investigation Team (FIT) in May 1990 (Ref. 1). The samples
were collected from.the large and small waste treatment ponds and were at
least.3 times above background (Ref. 1, p. 82). Background values are shown
on the cited tables in Ref. 1. Alternately, CRDL's can be found in Ref. 27.
Analytical data.sheets can be found in Ref. 1, Volume 2, Appendix G, pp.
6-16. Analytical data sheets for samples SD-01, SD-02, SD-03, SD-06, and SD-08
(background) can be found· in Ref. 1, Volume 2, Appendix G. pp. 1-5, 14, 278-
280. PCBs were also found in the large and small ponds during an
investigation conducted by Law Environmental for the General Electric Company
(Ref. 5, p. 1).
Please refer to Ref. 26 for information concerning J-qualified dat·a. The bias
predictions for the following hazardous substances were low: total xylenes,
phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, •bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-
octylphthalate, benzo(b.and/or k)fluoranthene, lead, and manganese.
*Internal Standard Areas Low. Predicted bias would be low.
**Copper - J flag no longer used.
***The value used to reflect background was the highest reported concentration
for this substance.
+Matrix Spike Recovery Low. Predicted bias would be low.
++Zinc -Precision of matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate was outside the
acceptable criteria. No bias can be predicted.
Mercury -Response factors of calibrations were outside the criteria for
precision.• No bias can be predicted.
PCB -Matrix interferences. No bias can be predicted.
10
•
2.4.2. Hazardous Waste Quantity
2.4.2.l.l. Hazardous Constituent Quantity
No coristituent information.
Hazardous Substance
Constituent
Quantity (pounds)
(Mass -S)
sum: (pounds)
•
SD-Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Source No. : l
Reference
Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (S):
SD-Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Source No. : 1
2.4.2.l.2. Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Hazardous
Wastestream
No·complete wastestream
Quantity
(pounds)
information.
Reference
sum: (pounds)
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W):
11
• •
SD-Volume
source No. : l
2.4.2.1.3. Volume
No complete volume information. A study was completed by Law Environmental to
obtain volume information on the PCB waste. Cross-sections of the large and
.small ponds were made showing the extent of water and sediments in the ponds.
The exterit a;. s~dirnents Was base_d on lithol6gic changes in core samples and
analysis of composite samples for PCBs (greater than 50 ppm). Data indicates
PCBs we:t'e also found in the "indigenous soil", and since the ponds were
·dredged, it is not known if this is due to migration or disposal .. (Ref. 5, pp.
1, 4-5, 7-11, Figures 1-19). Therefore, the lower extent of the impoundments
is not believed to be completely.defined and the area of the ponds has been
used ·to evaluate waste quantity.
Dimension of source (yd3 or gallons):
References(s):
Volume Assigned Value:
2.4.2.1.4. Area
The area of each pond was measured from Ref. 3, a scaled site layout map, and
digitized as described in Ref. 7.
Large Wastewater Treatment Pond -206,400 sq. ft.
Small Wastewater Treatment Pond -19,600 sq. ft.
Area of source (ft2): 226,000
Reference(s): 3; 7; 8
Area Assigned Value: 226,000/13 = 17,384.62
SD-Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source No. : 1
2.4.2.1.5. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 17,384.62
12
•
SD-Characterization and Containment
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
2.2 Source Characterization
Number of the source: 2
Name and description of the source: Sludge Impoundment -The sludge
impoundment was .constructed in the mid-late 1970' s to dispose of solids
dredged from.the large and small wastewater treatment ponds. According to
General Electric, dredging fir.st occurred in about 1978-1979 and again in
1983. The sludge impoundment is currently dry (Ref. 5, p. 1) .
. Location of the source, with reference to a mao of the site: The sludge
impoundment is lo.cated northeast of the large wastewater treatment pond (Ref.
3; also see site layout map, p. 2B of this documentation record).
Containment
Release to ground water: The sludge impoundment has no liner (Ref. 2, pp. 4,
5).
13
• •
SD-Hazardous Substances
Source No.: 2
2.4.1 Hazardous Substances
Hazardous substance Evidence Reference
PCB SS-11 & 12 l, pp. 58, 62, 70, 77
SB-11
Nickel*** SS-11 & 12 l, pp. 58, 66, 68,70,
SB-11 79
Zinc*** SS-12++ l, pp. 58, 67, 68, 70
SB-11 80
Cadmium SS-11 & 12 l, pp. 58, 66, 68, 70,
SB-11 79
Chromium••• SS-12 " SB-11
Lead*** SS-11 & 12 " SB-11+
Copper••• SS-12** l, pp. 58, 66, 68
cyanide SS-11 l, pp. 58, 67
Pyrene SS-12* l, pp. 58, 60
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate SS-12* l, pp. 58, 61
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene SS-12* "
The prec.eding data was from a Listing Site Inspection (LSI) conducted by the
Region Iv. Field Investigation Team (FIT) in May 1990 (Ref. l). The samples
were collected from the sludge impoundment and were at least 3 times above
ba.ckground (Ref. l, pp. 5·0, 70). Background sample values are shown on the
cited tables in Ref·. l. Alternately, CRDL's can be found in Ref. 27.
Analytical data sheets can be found in Ref. l, Volume 2, Appendix G, pp. 21-
26, 29-30. _Analytical data sheets for SS-01, SS-02, SS-04, SS-05, SS-06, SS-
07, SS-08, SS-13, SS-14, SB-01, SB-02, SB-08, SB-09, and SB-10 (backgrounds)
can be found in Ref. l, Volume 2, Appendix G, pp. 17-20, 27-28, 32, 38-39,
58, 68, 74, 80, 86, 92, 97, 105, and 276. PCBs were also found in the sludge
impoundment during an investigation conducted by Law Environmental for the
General Electric Company (Ref. 5, pp. l, 12, 13).
Please refer to Ref. 26 for information concerning J-gualified data.
predictions for the_ following hazardous substances were low: pyrene,
etheyhexyl)phthalate, benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene, and lead.
*Internal Standard Areas Low. Predicted bias would be low.
**Copper - J flag no longer used.
The bias
bis(2-
***The value used to reflect background was the highest reported concentration
for this substance.
+Matrix Spike Recovery Low. Predicted bias would be low.
++Zinc -Precision of matrix spike and matrix duplicate was outside of the
acceptable criteria. No bias can be predicted.
14
•
2.4.2. Hazardous Waste Quantity
2. 4. 2 .1 .. 1. Hazardous Constituent Quantity
No constituent information.
Hazardous Substance
Constituent
Quantity (pounds)
(Mass -S)
•
SD-Hazardous Constituent
Source No. : 2
Reference
sum: (pounds)
Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (S):
SD-Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Source No. : 2
2.4.2.1.2. Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Hazardous
Wastestream
No complete wastestream
2.4.2.1.3. Volume
Quantity
(pounds)
information.
Reference
sum: (pounds)
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W):
SD-Volume
Source No. : 2
,No,comp:Lete volume information. A study was completed by Law Environmental to
obtain. volume information on the PCB was_te. Cross-sections of the sludge
impoundment were made'.to show the .exten_t _of sediments ·in the impoundment. The
determination of extent of ·sediments was based on observed lithologic changes
in core samples and analysis of composite samples for PCBs (greater than SO
ppm). pata indiciites PCBs Were alSo found in the "indigenous soil". It is
not know if this is due to disposal or migration. (Ref. 5, pp. 1, 5-6,
12-13, Figures 20-37). The area of the sludge impoundment has been used to
evaluate waste quantity. ·
Dimension of source (yd3 or gallons):
References(s):
Volume Assigned Value:
15
• •
2.4.2.1.4. Area
The area of the impoundment was measured from Ref. 3, a scaled site layout
map, and digitized as described in Ref. 7.
Sludge Impoundment = 47,600 sq. ft.
Area of source (ft2): 47,600
Reference(s): 3; 7; 8
Area Assigned Value: 47,600/13 = 3661.54
SD-Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source No.: 2
2.4.2.1.5. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 3661.54
16
• •
SD-Characterization and Containment
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
2.2 Source Characterization
Number of the source: 3
Name and description of the source: L.andspreading plots -Land Treatment.
Between· 19.77 and 1980, wet and dry sludges generated at the General Electric
Facility were cc>.lle.cted for application· on landspreading plots. ·Approximately
26 acres were. delineated for disposal of the sludges. These sludges conta.ined
lime, water, various heavy metals (lead, chromium, arsenic, nickel, etc.) and
possibly solvents (Refs. 4; 6; 9, p. 1).
Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site: The
landspreading plots.are located on the east and south portions of the facility
and are adjacent to Bat Fork Creek (see site layout map, p. 2B of this
documentation record).
Containment
Release to ground water:
functioning, maintained,
p. 3).
The landspreading plots do not have a
run-on control and runoff management system (Ref. 2,
17
Name of Site:
Contact Persons
• '
HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD--REVIEW COVER SHEET
General·Electric Company, Lighting Systems
bepartinent (LSD)/Shepherd Farm
NCD079044426
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV: Deborah Vaughn0Wright
Documentation Record: Belinda Brock, HALLIBURTON NUS Environmental Corpora.tion
Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Evaluated
:.P.reliminary scores of the air and surface water pathways indicate very little
cont'r1butiori to the overall site score. Due to its size and location, no
known fishing. has occurred in Bat Fo.rk Creek at the G.E./Shepherd Farm site
area (Ref. 19, Appendix B, p. 5). The area around the G.E./Shepherd Farm site
is primarilY rural and no observed release tO air·has been documented (Refs.
1;12;21).
Aggregation Rationale
The site ·consists of releases of contaminants resulting from disposal of G.E.
·wastes such·'as wastewater,· wet and dry sludges, and solid wastes. Known areas
of contamination are the.General Electric.plant, Shepherd Farm and Seldon
Clark property (evaluated herein).
The Shepherd Farm site is located approximately 2500 feet southwest of the
General .Electric plant. Wastes were brought to this area from G.E. and
deposited, burned, then bulldozed. The General Electric and Shepherd Farm
sites hav:e significantly overlapping target populations and similar waste
characteristics (Refs. 1, Volume 2, Appendix G, pp. 1-16, 21-26, 29-39; 12,
p. 2, Appendix C, pp. 1-32, 41; 21; 24, pp. 6, 7; 32; 36, p. 3).
1
2.4.1 Hazardous Substances
Hazardous substance Evidence
Lead*** SB-05
Cobalt••• SB-OS
Chromium*** SB-07
Nickel*** SB-07
Zinc••• SB-04
SB-06
Manganese*** SB-05
SB-07
SS-03
•
SD-Hazardous Substances
Source No.: 3
Reference
l, pp. 70, 79
"
"
"
1, pp. 70, 80
"
"
" l, pp. SB, 66, 68
The preceding data was from a Listing Site Inspection (LSI) conducted by the
Region IV.Field Investigation Team (FIT) in May 1990 (Ref. l). The samples
were collected from the landspreading plots with both surface and subsurface
soil samples being collected at each location (Ref. l, pp. 58, 70). However,
with the exCepti6~ of manganese in SS-03, surface soils were found not to be
contaminated significantly above background. Subsurface soils were shown to
be contaminated at least 3 times above background. Background values are
shown on the cited tables in Ref. l. Alternately, CRDL's can be found in Ref.
27'. Analytical data sheets can be found in Ref. l, Volume 2, Appendix G., pp.
3la39. Analytical data sheets for SS-01, SS-02, SS-04, SS-05, SS-06, SS-07,
SS-08, SS-13, SS-14, SB-01, SB-02, SB-08, SB-09, and SB-10 (backgrounds) can
be found in Ref. 1, Volume 2, Appendix G, pp. 17-20, 27-28, 32, 38-39, SB,
68, 74, BO, 86, 92, 97, 105, and 276. Sludges that were deposited in these
areas contained heavy metals (Ref. 9, p. l).
Please refer to Ref. 26 for information concerning J-qualified data. Lead and
manganese -The matrix spike recovery was low. The predicted bias for lead
and manganese would be low. Zinc -Precision of matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate was outside the acceptable criteria. No bias can be predicted.
***The value used to reflect background was the highest reported concentration
for this substance.
18
•
2.4.2. Hazardous .Waste Quantity
•
SD-Hazardous Waste Quantity
source No. : 3
The following is a summary of CLP samples collected in the landspreading
plots:
Plot A SS-02 & SB-02 (same sample location)
SS-03 & SB-03 "
Plot B SS-04 & SB-04 " ss-os & SB-05 " SS-06 & SB-06 "
Plot C SS-07 & SB-07 "
SS-08 & SB-08 "
SS-09 & SB-09 " SS-10 & SB-10 "
There were only 2 CLP sample locations in Plots A, C, and D; 3 CLP sample
locations were in Plot B. Based upon the location and number of CLP samples
taken from Plots A, C, and D, an area·ot:waste deposited cannot be determined.
In Plot B there were 3 sample _locations; however, this plot is irregularly
shaped and with the location.of the samples an area of waste quantity cannot
be determined. (Ref. l, pp. 58, 70; also see pages 2B-2D of this documentation
record.)
SD-Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source No. : 3
2.4.2.1.5. Source Hazardous Waste quantity Value
Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: N/A
19
• •
SD-Characterization and Containment
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
2.2 Source Characterization
Number of the source: 4
Name and description of the source: Seldon Clark.Property -Landfill. This
prop_erty was used by General Electric to bury concrete, wood, drums of
aluminum paint and cleaning fluid (Ref. 10, p. 15).
Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site: The Seldon Clark
property is located at the intersection of Tabor Road and U.S. 176, northwest
of the General Electric facility (Ref. 10, p. 15; also see site layout map, p.
2B of this documentation record).
Containment
Release to ground water: No documentation of a liner has been found.
20
•
2.4.1 Hazardous Substances
Hazardous substarice
Chromium
Cobalt
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Evidence
SB-19
"
"
" "
•
SD-Hazardous Substances
Source No. : 4
Reference
1, pp. 71, 81
"
"
"
"
This sample taken at the Seldon Clark property was in conjunction with a
Listing Site Inspection (LSI) conducted in May 1990 by the Region IV Field
Investigation Team (FIT) (Ref. 1, p. 71) .· Analytical data sheets can be found
in Ref. 12, Appendix C, pp. 1-2.
2.4.2. Hazardous Waste Quantity
Due to the'difficulty in obtaining samples in this
collected. A waste quantity cannot be determined.
SD-Hazardous Waste Quantity
Source No. : 4
area, only l CLP sample was
(Ref. 11, pp. 8, 9.)
SD-Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source No. : 4
2.4.2.1.5. Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value, N/A
21
• •
SD-Characterization and Containment
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
2.2 Source Characterization
Number of the source: 5
Name and description of the source: Shepherd Farm (Landfill) -Wastes were
brought to .this area··from the General Electric facility and deposited, burned,
and bulldozed. The area is being considered a landfill as the majority of the
disposal area_. was covered and is heavily wooded. There were a few areas that
had no cover with some drums visible. During development of the trailer park,
sOme drums were uncovered and reburied (Refs. 12, p. 2; 24, p. 6; 28, p. 4).
Mr .. Shepherd indic.ates · he deposited wood, drums, electrical parts, paper,
. metal,_ cardbo_ard, and· buffing compound at the site. A G.E. representative
stated that waste solvents.were probably disposed of there. Analysis of
contents from a·arum onsite indicates PCB, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and toluene
were present (Refs. 24, p. 6; 36, pp. 2, 3; 44, p. 3).
Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site: The landfill is
located off Roper Road between the.Shepherd and Hill residences. A portion of
the landfill is also located in the Spring Haven Trailer Park (Ref. 12, p. 2;
also see pages 2A and 2E of this documentation record).
Containment
Release to ground water: The landfill has no liner (Ref. 28, p. 3).
22
•
2.4.1 Hazardous Substances
Hazardous substance
Chromium***
Copper***
Vanadium***
Lead***
Nickel***
Zinc•••
Cadmium
Tetrachloroethene
PCB
Mercury
Evidence
SB-09
SB-13, SS-04, SS-10,
SS-13, SS-14, LS-01
SB-09
SB-08, SB-11, SB-13,
SS-04, SS-10, SS-13,
LS-01
SB-13
SB-13, SS-04,
SS-10, SS-13,
LS-01
SB-13, SS-04*, SS-14*,
LS-01*, SS-10*, SS-13*
SB-02
SB-03, SB-13, SS-04,
SS-10, SS-13, SS-14,
LS-01
SS-10*, SS-13*
•
SD-Hazardous Substances
Source No. : 5
Reference
12, pp. 22-23, 31-32,
App. C, pp. 8-9
12, pp. 20-24, 27-28, 31-32,
App. C, pp. 8, 10-11, 13-18
12, pp. 21-24, 31-32,
App. C, pp. 8-9, 13,
17, 19, 41
12, pp. 20-24, 27-28, 31-32,
App. C, pp. 11-16, 18
12, pp. 20, 22-23, 27-28,
31-32, App. C, pp. 13, 16
12, pp. 20-24, 27-28, 31-32,
App. C, pp. 13-18, 20
12, pp. 22-23, 31-32,
App. C, pp. 13-18,
12, pp. 21, 23, 29-30,
App. C, p. 21
12, pp. 20-27, 29-30,
App. C, pp. 26-32
12, p. 20, 23
App, C, pp. 15-16
•contaminant not detected in background. Sample concentration greater than
quantitation limit in background.
***The value used to reflect background was the highest reported concentration
for this substance.
SB=Subsurface soil sample, SS=Surface soil sample, LS=Surficial leachate
sample.
See page 2E of this documentation record for background sample locations.
The preceding data is from a Listing Site Inspection (LSI) conducted at
Shepherd Farm by the Region IV Field Investigation Team (FIT) in May 1990
(Reif. 12). The. samples were collecte·d from the source area and were at least
3 times above background (except where noted) (Ref. 12, pp. 20-24).
Background values-are shown_ on the cited tables in Ref. 12. Page numbers in
the table·above include background and source samples. Analytical data sheets
from the background -samples (SB-01, SB-02, SB-05, SB-06, SB-17, SS-01, SS-02,
SS-06, SS-07, SS-08, and SS-17) can be found in Ref. 12, Appendix C., pp. 1,
3-7, 10, 22-25, 103, 106-108, and 185-186. Alternately, CRDL's can be found
in Refs. 27 and 30.
23
• •
The wastes found at the Shepherd Farm property are similar to those found at
the G.E. plant. Sludges generated at the. General Electric plant were known
to contain heavy metals ·(lead, nickel, etc. and possibly solvents).
Tetrachloroethene was found in groundwater near a corroded drainline that
empties into the large surface impoundment at the plant (Refs. 9, p. l; 17, p.
26).
Please refer to Ref. 29 for information concerning J-qualified data. Copper -
serial dilutions outside the acceptable criteria. No bias can be predicted.
Lead -low matrix spike recovery. Predict.ed bias would be low. PCB (LS-01
and SS-14) -results fell.below the minimum quantitation limit (it is assumed
this refers to the sample-specific limit). No bias can be predicted. The PCB
concentrations in these samples are much.higher than the background and the
CRQL (Ref. 30, p. C-6). · Even though· these samples have a "J" qualifer, th.ese
concentr~ti6ns indici:l_te the presence of this hazardous substance.
Tetrachloroethene (SB-02) -the results were higher than the highest standard
in the calibration curve. Predicted bias would be low.
24
•·
2.4.2. Hazardous Waste quantity
2.4.2.1.1. Hazardous Constituent Quantity
No constituent information.
Hazardous Substance
Constituent
Quantity (pounds)
(Mass -S)
sum: (pounds)
•
SD-Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Source No. : 5
Reference
Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (S):
SD-Hazardous Waatestream Quantity
Source No. : 5
2.4.2.1.2. Hazardous Wastestrearn Quantity
Hazardous
Wastestream
No complete wastestream
2.4.2.1.3. Volume
Quantity
(pounds)
information.
Reference
sum: (pounds)
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W):
SD-Volume
Source No. : 5
No complete volume information (i.e., at some sample locations, a minimum
lower depth of contamination was identified, but the upper extent of the fill
was not).
Dimension of source (yd3 or gallons):
References(s):
Volume Assigned Value:
25
• •
2.4.2.1.4. Area
The area of the landfill was based upon sample results from the LSI at
Shepherd Farm (Ref. 12), and was measured using a digitizer and Generic Cadd
Software (Ref. 31).
The boundaries of the fi.11 area were defined by the following samples, based
on the presence of· contaminat_ion ( see proceeding sections for discussion) :
LS-01, SB-02,. SB-03, SS-04, SB-08, SB-09, SS-10, SB-11, SS-13, SB-13, and
SS-14 (Ref. 31; also see page 2E of this documentation record). The fact that
some locations exhibit contaminatioil above background in the subsurface but
not at the surface is believed tO be dUe· to varying thicknesses of cover,
and/or disturbance by more recent post-disposal activities.
Area of source (ft2): 101,250
Reference(s): 8, Table 2-5; 31
Area Assigned Value: 101,250/3400 = 29.78
SD-Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Va1ue
Source No. : 5
2.4.2.1.5. Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 29.78
26
• •
SD-Swmnary
SITE SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS
Source
Hazardous
Waste Containment Attractiveness/
Source Quantity Accessibility-
No. Value Ground Surface Gas Air Soil Exposure Water Water Particulate
l. l.7384.62 l.O NS NS NS 0
2 366l..54 l.O NS NS NS 0
3 unknown l.O NS NS NS 0
4 unknown .J.Q NS NS NS 0
5 29.78 l.O NS NS NS 0
27
•
3.0 GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY
·3. 0 .1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Aquifer/Stratum 1 (shallowest)
•
GW-General
Aquifer/Stratum Name: Residual Soil/Crystalline Rock (Interconnected)
Description: The groundwater in the area of the General Electric facility is
characterized by a residual soil/crystalline rock aquifer system. Metamorphic
and igneous rocks.are chemically weathered in place to form a saprolite
residual soil on top of crystalline bedrock. Bedrock may be exposed at land
surface on steep slopes, rugged hilltops, or in stream valleys. Water in the
crystalline rock occurs in fractures and faults and is fed by downward
percolation of precipitation through the overlying residual soil. Residual
soils are comp6Sea of sand, silts, and clay in varying proportions. The water
t~ble in.a crystalline rock.aquifer gerierally resides both in the residual
soil and within·rock fractures .and joints. Residual soils beneath the
facility range in thickness from less than 1 to 88 feet (Refs. 14, pp. 1, 8;
15, pp. 9, 10; 17, pp. 14, 15, 32, 41, Appendix B, pp. 3-5, 43; monitor wells
and soil boring locations are shown more clearly on Ref. 3).
Groundwater in the area is available from springs and wells. The average
depth of drilled wells in the area is 118 feet with an average yield of 18.3
gpm. ·c;roundw.ater has been· encountered beneath the facility at depths ranging
from less than 3 to 30.4 feet below land surface (Refs. 16, p. 93; 17, p. 3,
Appendix B, pp. 26, 29; monitor wells and soil boring locations are shown on
Ref. 3).
28
• •
GW-Observed Release
3.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE
3.1.l OBSERVED RELEASE
Aquifer Being Evaluated: Residual Soil/Crystalline Rock (Interconnected)
Chemical Analysis:
Background Concentration
Sam2le ID De2th Date Reference
GE-TW-01 5 ft. * 5-14-90 l, p. 96; 10, pp. 7, 8
WW-16 165 ft.* 10-24-88 17, p. 36
SF-TW-01 5 ft. * 5-18-90 11, p. 3
*Total depth. Depth to water at GE-TW-01 was 4 ft. bls.
GE-TW-01 is a temporary monitor well located approximately 4000 feet southwest
of •the General Electric facility,· installed and sampled during the FIT LSI at
G.E. (See page 30A of this documentation record.)
WW-16 is a private well located north of the General Electric facility on
Maplewood Street (Ref. 3).
SF-TW-01 is a temporary monitor well located approximately 2000 feet southwest
of the Shepherd Farm property and was sampled during the FIT LSI at Shepherd
Farm. (See page 30D of this documentation record.)
Note: The FIT LSis at G.E. and Shepherd Farm were conducted in conjunction
with one another during the week of May 14, 1990 (Refs. land 12). GE-TW-01
and SF-TW-01 were collected at the same location.
Sample
Hazardous Quantitation
Sam2le ID Substance Concentration Limit Reference
WW-16 Teti:-achloroethene <0.03 ug/1 0.03 ug/1 19, p. 101
Trichloroethene <0.12 ug/1 0.12 ug/1 " l,2-dichloroethane <0.03 ug/1 0.03 ug/1 19, p. 99
trans 1,2-dichloroethene <0.1 ug/1 0.1 ug/1 "
GE-TW-01 1,2-dichloroethene <5 ug/1 5 ug/1 1, Appendix G, p. 40
(total)
1,2-dichloroethane <5 ug/1 5 ug/1 " Trichloroethene <5 ug/1 5 ug/1 " Tetrachloroethene <5 ug/1 5 ug/1 " Cobalt <4 ug/1 4 ug/1 l, Appendix G, p. 41
Chromium 15 ug/1 10 ug/1* " Copper <20 ug/1 20 ug/1 " Lead 34J+ ug/1 3 ug/1* " Nickel <6 ug/1 6 ug/1 " Zinc <30 ug/1 30 ug/1 "
Manganese 300J+ ug/1 15 ug/1* "
29
• •
Detection limits for WW-16 are found in Ref. 19, Appendix A, pp. 99, 101.
<=Material analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum
quantitation limit for the specified sample and analysis.
* This number is the contract-required SQL (Ref. 18, p. 2).
J = Estimated value.
+ Matrix Spike Recovery Low. See Ref. 26 for information regarding J-
qualified data. The bias predictions for lead and manganese were low.
Hazardous
Sample ID Substance
· SF-TW-01 Tetrachloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthlate
Barium
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Concentration
<5 ug/1
<5 ug/1
<5 ug/1
<10 ug/1
300 ug/1
<3 ug/1
76 ug/1
43 ug/1
550 ug/1
<0.2 ug/1
66 ug/1
180 ug/1
Sample
Quantitation
Limit
5 ug/1 12,
5 ug/1
5 ug/1
10 ug/1 12,
200 * ug/1 12,
3 ug/1
25 * ug/1
3 * ug/1
15 * ug/1
0.2 ug/1
40 * ug/1
20 * ug/1
Refeience
App. C, p. 33
" "
App. C, p. 34
App. C, p. 35
"
" "
"
"
"
"
*=This number is the contract required detection limit (Ref. 18, p. 2).
<=Material analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum
quantitation limit for the specified sample and analysis.
30
• •
Contaminated Samples
Sam11le ID De11th of screen Date Reference
GE-MW-01 61.9-71.9 ft. bls 5-16-90 1, p. 93; 10, p. 22; 17, App. B, p.
GE-MW-02 48.5-58.5 ft. bls " 1, p. 93; 10, p. 22; 17, App. B, p.
GE-MW-03 30.5-40.5 ft. bls " 1, p. 93; 10, p. 22; 17, App. B, p.
GE-MW-04 9.2-14.2 ft. bls 5-17-90 1, p. 93; 10, p. 22; 17, App. B, p.
GE-MW-05 49.8-59.8 ft. bls 5-16-90 1, p. 93; 10, p. 22; 17, App. B, p.
GE-TW-03 13 ft. bls 5-17-90 1, p. 96; 10, pp. 25, 26
SF-TW-02 ** 5-18-90 12, p. 36
SF-TW-03 7 ft. bls 5-18-90· 12, p. 36; 24, p. 15
SF-TW-04 3 ft. bls 5-18-90 12, p. 36; 24, p. 17
SF-TW-06 3 ft. bls 5-18-90 11, p. 6; 12, p. 36
**depth not recorded in field logbook, but expected to be the in the same
range as other temporary wells due to local conditions and standard field
protocol.
77
59
60
62
76
The above samples were collected during the 1990 FIT LSis at G.E. and Shepherd
Farm (Refs. 1, 12).
MW-16 28.5-38.5 ft.
MW-17 33-43 ft. bls
MW-18 33.6-43.6 ft.
MW-19 32.3-42.3 ft.
WW-7 unknown
WW-13 unknown
WW-1 21-85 ft. bls
WW-3 57-180 ft. bls
WW-4 0-20 ft. bls
WW-6 unknown
WW-8 unknown
WW-10 38-145 ft. bls
WW-11 unknown
WW-15 250 ft.*
WW-17 160 ft.*
WW-19 41-66 ft. bls
WW-20 unknown
WW-21 165 ft.*
WW-22 unknown
WW-23 unknown
WW-24 40-108 ft. bls
WW-29 50-350 ft. bls
WW-33 unknown
bls 10-27-88
10-28-88
bls 11-3-88
bls 11-4-88
10-11-88
10-24-88
10-11-88
10-11-88
10-11-88
10-11-88
10-24-88
10-24-88
10-24-88
10-24-88
10-24-88
10-25-88
10-25-88
10-25-88
10-25-88
10-25-88
10-25-88
10-25-88
10-25-88
17,
17,
17,
17,
17,
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
38, App. B, p. 68
39, App. B, p. 69
39, App. B, p. 70
39, App. B, p. 71
36
*total depth. The above samples were collected by Law Engineering (Ref. 17).
Sa!!!llle ID De11th Date Reference
Hill Well unknown 11-30-88 36, pp. 2-3; 37
Maybin Well n n n
Private Well Sample n 3-6-89 38; 40 **
No. 900562
**State and local agencies were contacted to get information regarding well
owner's name. They could not locate this information. Ref. 42, pp. 48-49
indicates this could possibly be the Ragland well.
31
• •
The samples were collected by the Henderson County Health Department and the
State of North Carolina, Superfund Section (Ref. 38) . Since no confining
units have been documented (Ref. 17, pp. 4, 15, Appendix B), all wells
described herein are considered to be in the aquifer of concern.
Contract
Required
Hazardous Quantitation
Sam!lle ID Substance Concentration Limit* Reference
GE-MW-01 . Tetrachloroethene 100 .ug/1 5 ug/1 1, App .. G, p. 42
GE-MW-02 1,2-dichloroethene 830 ug/1 5 ug/1 1, App. G, p. 43
(total)
1,2-dichloroethane 150 ug/1 5 ug/1 "
Trichloroethene 41 ug/1 5 ug/1 "
Tetrachloroethene 3300 ug/1 5 ug/1 " GE-MW-03 1,2-dichloroethene 250 ug/1 5 ug/1 1, App. G, p. 44
(total)
1,2-dichloroethane 340 ug/1 5 ug/1 " Trichloroethene 62 ug/1 5 ug/1 "
Tetrachloroethene 1200 ug/1 5 ug/1 "
GE-MW-04 Tetrachloroethene 180 ug/1 5 ug/1 1, App. G, p. 45
GE-MW-05 1,2-dichloroethene 44 ug/1 5 ug/1 1, App. G, p. 46
(total)
. 1,2-dichloroethane 59 ug/1 5 ug/1 " Trichloroethene 33 ug/1 5 ug/1 " Tetrachloroethene 460 ug/1 5 ug/1 "
Cobalt 120 ug/1 50 ug/1 1, App. G, p. 47
GE-TW-03 1,2-dichloroethene 17 ug/1 5 ug/1 1, App. G, p. 48
(total)
1,2-dichloroethane 29 ug/1 5 ug/1 " Chromium 670 ug/1 15** ug/1 1, App. G, p. 49
Cobalt 180 ug/1 50 ug/1 "
Copper 1200 ug/1 25 ug/1 " Lead 380J+ ug/1 34J** ug/1 " Manganese 6000J+ ug/1 300J** ug/1 " Nickel 250 ug/1 40 ug/1 "
Zinc 800 ug/1 20 ug/1 "
SF-TW-02 cis-1,2-dichloroethene 51 ug/1 5 ug/1 12, App. C, p. 36
Trichloroethene 50 ug/1 5 ug/1 "
Tetrachloroethene 170 ug/1 5 ug/1 "
bis(2-ethylhexyl) 140 ug/1 10 ug/1 12, App. C, p. 37
phthalate
SF-TW-03 Barium 1200 ug/1 300** ug/1 .12, App. C, p. 38
Lead 190 ug/1 43** ug/1 " Manganese 2800 ug/1 550** ug/1 "
SF-TW-04 Barium 1000 ug/1 300** ug/1 12, App. C, p. 39
Cadmium 30 ug/1 5 ug/1 " Copper 4500 ug/1 76** ug/1 " Lead 2500 ug/1 43** ug/1 "
Manganese 5900 ug/1 550** ug/1 "
Mercury 1. 7 ug/1 0.2 ug/1 "
Nickel 200 ug/1 66** ug/1 " Zinc 6900 ug/1 180** ug/1 "
SF-TW-06 Tetrachloroethene 26 ug/1 5 ug/1 12, App. C, p. 40
32
• •
•contract Required Quantitation Limits were obtained from Ref. 18, pp. 2, 4,
7.
•• Background concentration (see pages 29-30 of this documentation record).
GE-TW-03 was compared to GE-TW-01 (background), SF-TW-03 and SF-TW-04 were
compared to SF-TW-01 (background). These samples were collected during the
1990 FIT LSis (Refs. 1, 12).
GE-MW-01 is located onsite west of the main plant.
GE-MW-02 is located onsite along the buried drainline that enters into the
large wastewater treatment pond.
_GE-MW-03 is also located onsite along the buried drainline.
GE-MW-04 is located onsite"in Landspreading Plot B.
GE-MW-05 .is located onsite west of the large wastewater treatment pond.
GE-TW-03 is located onsite along the buried drainline between MW-02 and MW-03.
SF-TW-02, SF-TW-03, SF-TW-04, SF-TW-06 are located on the Shepherd Farm site.
Refs. 1, pp. 93-95, 97-98, Appendix G, pp. 42-49; 12, pp. 36-37, 40-41, App.
C, pp. 36-40; also see pages 30B, 30C and 30E of this documentation record for
well locations.
+Matrix Spike Recovery Low. See Ref. 26 for _information regarding the J-
qualified data. The bias predictions· for lea_d and manganese were low. Due to
the magnitude of difference between release and background values, these data
are considered appropriate for demonstration of observed release.
33
•
Sample
Hazardous Quantitation
SamQle ID Substance Concentration Limit Reference
MW-l.6 Tetrachloroethene 3l. ug/1 0.03 ug/1 ]. 7 , p. 38
(l.0/27/88) l.9, App. A, p. 38
Trichloroethene l.. l. ug/1 0. l.2 ug/1 ]. 7 , p. 38
l.9, App. A, p. 39
MW-l.7 Tetrachloroethene 54 ug/1 0.03 ug/1 ]. 7, p. 39
(l.0/28/88) l.9, App. A, p. 38
Trichloroethene 0.84 ug/1 0. l.2 ug/1 ]. 7, p. 39
l.9, App. A, p. 39
MW-l.B l.,2-dichloroethane 0.28 ug/1 0.03 ug/1 ]. 7, p. 39
(l.l./3/88) 19, App. A, p. 33
Tetrachloroethene 570 ug/1 0.03 ug/1 17, p. 39
19, App. A, p. 38
Trichloroethene 10 ug/1 0.12 ug/1 17, p. 39
19, App. A, p. 39
Trans 1,2-dichloroethene l.. l ug/1 0.1 ug/1 17, p. 39
19, App. A, p. 33
MW-l.9 1,2-dichloroethane 27 ug/1 0.03 ug/1 17, p. 39
(l.l./4/88) l.9, App. A, p. 44
Tetrachloroethene 340 ug/1 0.03 ug/1 17, p. 39
19, _App. A, p. 51
Trichloroethene 31 ug/1 O.l.2 ug/1 17, p. 39
19, App. A, p. 52
Trans l.,2-dichloroethene l..8 ug/1 0.1 ug/1 17, p. 39
19, App. A, p. 44
MW-16 is located onsite northwest of the sludge impoundment. MW-17 is located
onsite north of MW-16. MW-18 and MW-19 are located onsite between the main
plant and the warehouse. (Ref. 3)
Sample
Sample Hazardous Quantitation
ID Substance Concentration Limit Reference
WW-7 Tetrachloroethene 9.9 ug/1 0.03 ug/1 17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 97
Trichloroethene 5.1 ug/1 O.l.2 ug/1 17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 98
WW-l.3 Tetrachloroethene 5.5 ug/1 0.03 ug/1 17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 97
WW-1 Tetrachloroethene 0.64 ug/1 0.03 ug/1 17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 91
Trichloroethene l..l ug/1 0.12 ug/1 17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 92
l.,2-dichloroethane 0.33 ug/1 0.03 ug/1 17, p. 36
l.9, App. A, p. 87
WW-3 Tetrachloroethene 0.68 ug/1 0.03 ug/1 17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 91
l.,2-dichloroethane 0.77 ug/1 0.03 ug/1 17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 87
WW-4 Tetrachloroethene 0.6l. ug/1 0.03 ug/1 17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 91
34
Sample
ID
WW-6
WW-8
WW-10
WW-ll
WW-15
WW-17
WW-19
WW-20
WW-21
WW-22
WW-23
WW-24
WW-29
WW-33
Hill
Maybin
900562
Hazardous
Substance
•
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
l,2-dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
l,2-dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
l,2-dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Concentration
2.8 ug/1·
l.3 ug/1
0.22 ug/1
0.89 ug/1
0.42 ug/1
0.14 ug/1
0.44 ug/1
0.29 ug/1
0.09 ug/1
2.8 ug/1
4.6 ug/1
l. 3 ug/1
0.21 ug/1
0.20 ug/1
0.47 ug/1
0.13 ug/1
O.ll ug/1
0.37 ug/1
0.43 ug/1
0.10 ug/1
193 ug/1
5 ug/1
237.4 ug/1
•
Sample
Quantitation
Limit Reference
0.03 ug/1 17, p. 36
0.12 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
0.12 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
0.12 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
0.03 ug/1
5 ug/1*
5 ug/1*
1 ug/1*
19, App. A, p. 91
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 92
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 87
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 97
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 97
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 97
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 101
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 101
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 101
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. lOl
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 101
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 99
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 101
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 101
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 101
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 99
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 103
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 103
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 103
17, p. 36
19, App. A, p. 108
39, pp. l, 7
39, pp. 4, 7
40; 41., pp. 2, 5
The Hill, Maybin and 900562 private well samples were compared to private well
sample WW-16 (background) collected 10-24-88 (see page 29 of this
documentation record).
*Minimum Detection Limit
The private wells are located northeast and southeast of the General Electric
facility (Ref. 3), and north and northeast of the Shepherd Farm property
(Refs. 36, p. 8; 38, p. l; 40).
35
• •
Level I Samples
Reference for Benchmarks: 20, pp. B-19, B-25, B-26
Sample Hazardous Concentration of Benchmark
ID Substance Hazardous Substance Concentration Benchmark
WW-7 Tetrachloroethene 9.9 ug/1 0.69 ug/1 cancer
Tr.ichloroethene 5.1 ug/1 3.2 ug/1 Cancer
WW-l.3 Tetrachloroethene 5.5 ug/1 0.69 ug/1 cancer
WW-3 l.,2-dichloroethane 0.77 ug/1 0.38 ug/1 cancer
ww.-6 Tetrachloroethane 2.8 ug/1 0.69 ug/1 Cancer
ww-0· Tetrachloroethene 0.89 ug/1 0.69 ug/1 Cancer
WW-20 Tetrachloroethene 2.8 ug/1 0.69 ug/1 Cancer
Trichloroethene 4.6 ug/1 3.2 ug/1 Cancer
1,2-dichloroethane l..3 ug/1 0.38 ug/1 cancer
WW-1 Tetrachloroethane 0.64 ug/1 0.69 ug/1* Cancer
Trichloroethene l..l. ug/1 3.2 ug/1* Cancer
1,2-dichloroethane 0.33 ug/1 0.38 ug/1* cancer
Hill Tetrachloroethene l.93 ug/1 0.69 ug/1 cancer
Maybin Tetrachloroethene 5 ug/1 0.69 ug/1 Cancer
900562 Tetrachloroethene 237.4 ug/1 0.69 ug/1 cancer
(These samples were previously described and referenced.)
*The Level I concentration in this well has been calculated as follows:
0.64 divided by 0.69 .9
l..l. divided by 3.2 .3
0.33 divided by 0.38 = .868
Total is >2.
Ref. 8, Section 2.5.2
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Attribution: Cobalt, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Zinc, Manganese, Barium,
Cadmium, and Mercury were found in source areas onsite and in temporary
monitor wells onsite. Sludges generated at the G.E. plant contain heavy
metals (Ref. 9, p. l.). l.,2-dichloroethene, l.,2-dichloroethane,
Trichloroethene··and Tetrachloroethene• were found in monitor wells located
onsite and in nearby private wells. A corroded drainline that is connected
to the large wastewater treatment pond at the G.E. plant is believed to be the
primary source of these contaminants (Ref. l. 7, p. 26).
)
Hazardous Substances Released: 1,2-dichloroethene, l.,2-dichloroethane,
ti:'ichlor6ethe:rie, ·tetrachloroethene, cob~lt, chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
zinc,.manganese, barium, cadmium, mercury, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
=------=====-----==-======------------====---=----------------==--=--==---
Ground Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550
36
•
3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
3.2.1 Toxicity/Mobility
Hazardous Source
Substance No.
Lead 1,2,3,5
Nickel 1,2,3,4,5
Cobalt 3,4,S
Chromium 1,2,3,4,5
Copper 1,2,5
Zinc 1, 2, 3, 5
Manganese 1,3,4,5
1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene 5
PCB 1,2,5
Toxicity
Factor Value
10,000
100
1
10,000
10
10,000
100
100
10
100
10,000
•
GW-Toxicity/Mobility
Mobility Toxicity/
Factor Value Mobility Ref.
1 (OR) 10,000 8;20
1 (OR) 100 8;20
1 (OR) 1 8;20
1 (OR) 10,000* 8;20
1 (OR) 8;20
1 (OR) 10 8;20
1 (OR) 10,000 8;20
1 (OR) 100 8;20
1 (OR) 100 8;20
1 (OR) 10 8;20
1 (OR) 100 8;20
0.0001 1 8;20
Water Solubility Distribution Coefficient Mobility
0.0001
Ref.
PCB Deposited as Liquid 80600 8;20
PCBs were handled in liquid form at the General Electric facility (Ref. 5, p.
1). PCBs were deposited into the large wastewater treatment plant via a
drainline (Ref. 5, p. 8).
OR=Observed Release
*The analytical data reports the presence of chromium as total chromium. The
chromium present could therefore be hexavalent and/or trivalent.
Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000
37
• •
GW-Hazardous Waste Quantity
3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity
Source Number
1
2
3
4
5
Source Hazardous
Waste Quantity
Value (Section 2.4.2.1.5)
17384.62
3661.54
N/A
N/A
29.78
Is source hazardous
constituent quantity
data complete? (yes/no)
No
.No
No
No
No
Sum of Values: 21084.31
3.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value
Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value X Hazardous
Waste Quantity Factor Value: l.0E+8
Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000
Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 100
38
• •
GW-Targets
3.3 TARGETS
Level I Level II Potential
Distance Contarn. Contam. Contam.
Well From Source A911ifer (Yi'.Nl (Yi'.Nl (Yi'.Nl Ref.
WW-7 .08 mi. Residual Soil/ y N N 3; 14, pp.
Crystalline Rock 1,8; 21
WW-13 .04 mi. y N N "
WW-1 . 12 mi . " y N N " WW-3 .1 mi. y N N "
WW-6 .1 mi. y N N " WW-8 .1 mi. y N N " WW-20 .13 mi. y N N " WW-4 .1 mi. N y N "
WW-10 .07 mi. N y N "
WW-11 . 05 mi . N y N "
WW-15 .09 mi. " N y N " WW-17 .15 mi. " N y N
WW-19 .12 mi. " N y N
WW-21 .16 mi. " N y N
WW-22 .17 mi. " N y N
WW-23 . 28 mi . " N y N
WW-24 .20 mi. " N y N
WW-29 .21 mi. " N y N
WW-33 .14 mi. " N y N
Source sample locations used for the above distance measurements are shown on
Ref. 3 -
Hill . 04 mi . " y N N 36, p. 8
Maybin .19 mi. " y N N "
900562 unknown " y N N 40; 41, p. 5
Measurements for the Hill and Maybin Wells were made using the topographic map
(Ref. 21). The map in Ref. 36 (page 8) was used. to compare where the wells
were located. Sample No. 900562 is possibly the Ragland well located
approximately 400 feet from the Shepherd ·Farm site (Ref. 42, pp. 48, 49; Ref.
21 used to measure distance).
5 PW 0-.25 mi. " N N y 14, pp. l, 8;
21
49 PW . 25-.50 mi . " N N y " 81 PW . 50-1 mi. " N N y " 406 PW 1-2 mi. " N N y "
475 PW 2-3 mi. " N N y "
747 PW 3-4 mi. " N N y "
MS 3.5 mi. " N N y "
The private wells listed above were counted from Ref. 21 (topographic map).
Are.as that were serviced by community water supplies that do not have wells
within 4 miles were excluded, i.e. Hendersonville, Saluda. The area served by
Mid-South was also excluded from the private well count (Refs. 2, p. 9; 21;
23;25).
PW and WW=Private Wells
MS=Mid-South Wells
39
• •
GW-Nearest Well
3.3.1 Nearest Well
Well: WW-7, WW-13, WW-1, WW-3, WW-6, WW-8, WW-20, Hill, Maybin, and Private
Well No. 900562
Level of Contamination (I, II, or potential): I (see page 36 of this
documentation record.)
If potential contamination, distance from source in miles: N/A
Nearest Well Factor Value: 50
40
•
3.3.2 Population
3.3.2.l Level of Contamination
3.3.2.2 Level I Concentrations
Level I Well
WW-7
WW-13
WW-1
WW-3
WW-6
WW-8
WW-20
Hill
Maybin
900562
Population**
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
•
GW-Level I Concentrations
Reference
17, p. 36; 22
" " " "
"
" 36, p. 3
"
40; 41, p. 5
**U.S. Census Bureau's average population value per household for Henderson
County, North Carolina (Ref. 22).
These above wells were being used for drinking at the time of sampling (Refs.
4, 38, 40).
==========================================================================
Population Served by Level I Wells: 23.8
Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 238
3.3.2.3 Level II Concentrations
Level II Well
WW-4
WW-10
WW-11
WW-15
WW-17
WW-19
WW-21
WW-22
WW-23
WW-24
WW-29
WW-33
Population**
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
GW-Level II Concentrations
Reference
17, p. 36; 22
** U.S. Census Bureau's Average population value per household for Henderson
·county, North Carolina (Ref. 22) .The above wells were being used for drinking
at the time of the sampling (Ref. 4).
==========================================================================
Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 29
The above are private drinking water wells located north, northeast and
southeast of the General Electric facility (Refs. 3; 4), and north and
northeast of the Shepherd Farm property.
41
• •
GW-Potential Contamination
3.3.2.4 Potential Contamination
Distance Distance-Weighted
Category Population Reference Population Value
0-.25 mi. ll.9 8; 21; 22 17
.25-.50 mi. 116.62 8; 21; 22 102
.50-1 mi. 192.78 8; 21; 22 52
1-2 mi. 966.28 8· , 21; 22 94
2-3 mi. 1130.5 8; 21; 22 212
3-4 mi. 1938.86 8; 21; 22; 23 131
Sum of Dista~ce-Weighted Population Values: 608
==========================================================================
0-.25 mi.
.25-.50 mi.
.50-1 mi.
1-2 mi.
2-3 mi.
3-4 mi.
Potential Contamination Factor Value:
5 private wells (5) (2.38)=11.9
49 private wells (49) (2. 38) =116. 62
81 private wells (81) (2. 38) =192. 78
406 private wells (406) (2.38)=966.28
475 private wells (475) (2.38)=1130.5
732 private wells -Henderson County (732) (2.38)=1742.16
15 private wells -Polk County (15) (2.32)=34.8
Mid-South Wells (Tuxedo) -(68) (2.38)=161.84
61
Mid-South has 2 wells located in Tuxedo approximately 3.5 miles from the site
(Refs. 21; 23).
The U.S. Census Bureau'.s average population per household value of 2.38 for
Henderson County, North Carolina and 2.32 for Polk County, North Carolina were
used to estimate the population for the private wel_ls (Ref. 22).
The private wells were counted from Ref. 21 (topographic map). Areas that
were serviced by community water supplies that do not have wells within 4
miles were excluded, i.e. Hendersonville, Saluda. The area served by Mid-South
was also excluded from the private well count (Refs. 2, p. 9; 21; 23; 25).
42
•
3.3.3 RESOURCES
Well
Well at Barn
near Hill
residence
Aquifer
Residual Soil/
Crystalline Rock
Resource Use
·used in preparation
of commercial food
(cattle)
•
GW-Resources
Reference
24, p. 9
=---===-====-------=---=----==--------------=---=-------------=--====-----
Resources Factor Value: 5
GW-Wellhead Protection Area
3.3.4 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA
Area Use Reference Value
No known wellhead protection area exists within 4 miles of the site.
==========================================================================
Wellhead Protection Area Factor Value: 0
43
•
5.0 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY
5.0.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
•
SE-General
Area Letter A
Letter (A, B, etc.) by which this area is to be identified: A
Name and description of the area: Surface Impoundments -Two wastewater
... treatment ponds·.· TheSe unlined p6r:ids receive wastewater generated as a result
of plant processes. Wastewater initially enters the large pond for settling.
The"small pond receives overflow from the large pond (Refs. 1, pp. 4, 5; 2, p.
4;4;6).
Location of the area, with reference to a map of the site: The large pond is
located in the··southwest portion of the:General Electric facility property,
north of Bat Fork Creek. The small pond is located south of the large pond
and south of Bat Fork Creek (Ref. 3; also see site layout map, p. 2B of this
documentation record).
Sample GE-SD-01 was used to determine background concentrations for organic
_substances and for metals. Samples GE-SD-02, GE-SD-03, GE-SD-06, and GE-SD-08
were used to determine background ranges for various metals as indicated.
Background Concentration
Sample ID Depth Date Reference
GE-SD-01 2" below bed 5-14-90 10, p, 8
GE-SD-02 2" below bed 5-14-90 10, p, 9
GE-SD-03 2" below bed 5-14-90 10, p, 9
GE-SD-06 2" below bed 5-15-90 10, p.13
GE-SD-08 2" below bed 5-15-90 10, p.15
Sample
Sample Hazardous Quantitation
ID Substance Concentration Limit Reference
GE-SD-01 PCB (1248) <100 ug/kg 100 ug/kg 1, App, G, p, 3
" Total Xylenes <6 ug/kg 6 ug/kg 1, App. G, p, 1
" Phenanthrene <820 ug/kg 820 ug/kg 1, App, G, p, 2
" Fluoranthene <820 ug/kg 820 ug/kg "
" Pyrene <820 ug/kg 820 ug/kg "
" Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate <820 ug/kg 820 ug/kg "
" . Di-n-octylphthalate <820 ug/kg 820 ug/kg "
" Benzo(b and/or k)
fluoranthene <820 ug/kg 820 ug/kg "
" Cyanide <1.3 mg/kg 1.3 mg/kg 1, App, G, p, 5
" Carbon disulfide 4J ug/kg 5 * ug/kg 1, App. G, p. 1
" Cadmium <0.23 mg/kg 0.23 mg/kg 1, App. G, p. 4
" Chromium** 21 mg/kg 2 * mg/kg "
" Copper** <20J mg/kg 20J mg/kg "
GE-SD-03 Lead** 24J mg/kg 0.6 * mg/kg 1, App. G, p.279
" Manganese ** llOJ mg/kg 3 * mg/kg " GE-SD-01 Mercury <0.12J mg/kg 0.12J mg/kg 1, App. G, p, 4
" Nickel <1.1 mg/kg 1.1 mg/kg " GE-SD-03 Zinc** 45J mg/kg BJ mg/kg 1, App, G, p,279
* "This number is the contract-required detection limit (Refs. 18, p. 4;
27). GE-SD-01 was collected near the beginning of Bat Fork Creek during
44
•
the FIT LSI conducted in May 1990 (Refs. 1, p. 82; 10, p. 8). This
sample location and all other sampling locations are presented on page
2D of the documentation record.
** The value presented was selected from a range of background
.concentrations. ·only the highest value was used in the evaluation of
observed contamination.
< ma·terial analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum
quantitation limit for the specified sample and analysis.
See Ref. 26 for information regarding J-qualified data.
Copper -J flag no longer applies.
Lead -matrix spike recovery low. Predicted bias would be low.
Manganese ·-mat~ix spike recovery low. Predicted bias would be ·1ow.
Mercury -response factors of calibrations were outside the criteria for
precision.· No bias can be predicted.
Zinc -precision of matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate was outside the
acceptable criteria. No bias can be predicted.
Carbon disulfide -value reported is less than MQL. No bias can be predicted.
45
• •
Contaminated Samples
Sam12le ID DeQth Date Reference
GE-SD-04 unknown* 5-14-90 10, p.
GE-SD-05 " 5-14-90· 1, p.
10, p.
GE-SD-06 " 5-15-90 10, p.
GE-SD-07 " 5-15-90 10, p.
* Sampling protocol calls for sediment samples to be taken near the
interface of the water and sediments.
Contract
Required
Sample Hazardous Quantitation
ID Substance Concentration Limit** Reference
GE0 SD-04 PCB (1248) 4700J ug/kg 80 ug/kg 1, App. G, p.
" Phenanthrene . 3700J ug/kg 330 ug/kg 1, App. G, p.
" Fluoranthene 4100J ug/kg 330 ug/kg " n Pyrene 2700J ug/kg 330 ug/kg "
" Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate 23000J ug/kg 330 ug/kg "
" Di-n-octyl-
phthalate 2900J ug/kg 330 ug/kg "
" Benzo (band/or kl
fluoranthene 3300J ug/kg 330 ug/kg "
" Chromium 90 mg/kg 21*** mg/kg 1, App. G, p.
" Copper 860J mg/kg 5 mg/kg "
" Lead 360J mg/kg 2. SJ*** mg/kg "
" Mercury lJ mg/kg 0.10 mg/kg "
" Nickel 68 mg/kg 8 mg/kg "
" Zinc 450J mg/kg 4 mg/kg "
" Cyanide 6.8 mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 1, App. G, p.
9
82;
10
13
13
7
6
8
9
** Contract-required detection limits can be found in Refs. 18, pp. 7-9;
27.
*** Background concentration (see page 44 of this documentation record).
GE-SD-04 was collected during the FIT LSI in May 1990, from the. large
wastewater treatment pond (Refs. 1, p. 82; 10, p. 9).
46
• •
Contract
Required,
Sample Hazardous Quantitation
ID Substance Concentration Limit** Reference
GE-SD-05 Total·Xylenes 87J ug/kg 5 ug/kg 1, App. G, p. 10
" Cadmium 1. 8 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 1, App. G, p. 11
" Chromium 65 mg/kg 21*** mg/kg " • Zinc 44J mg/kg 4 mg/kg "
" Cyanide 7.1 mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 1, App. G, p. 12
GE-SD-06 Carbon disulfide 13J ug/kg 4J*** ug/kg 1, App. G, p. 13
GE-SD-07 PCB (1248) 120000 ug/kg 80 ug/kg 1, App. G, p. 15
" Cadmium 11 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 1, App. G, p. 16
" Chromium 99 mg/kg 21*** mg/kg " • Manganese ·150J mg/kg 40J*** mg/kg "
n Nickel 33 mg/kg 8 mg/kg "
" Zinc 270J mg/kg 4 mg/kg "
•• Contract-required detection limits can be found in Refs. 18, pp. 4, 5,
9; 27. ••• Background concentration (see page 44 of this documentation record).
GE-SD-05, GE-SD-06 and GE-SD-07 were collected during the FIT LSI in May 1990.
GE-SD-05 was collected from the large wastewater treatment pond. GE-SD-06 and
GE-SD-07 were collected from the small wastewater treatment pond (Refs. 1, p.
82; 10, pp. 10, 13).
See Ref. 26 for information regarding J-qualified data.
PCB (1248) -matrix interferences. No bias can be predicted.
Phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-
octylphthalate, ·and benzo(b and/or k) fluoranthene -internal standard areas
low; Predicted bias would be low.
Copper c J flag no longer applies.
Lead and Manganese -matrix spike recovery low. Predicted bias would be low.
Mercury - · response factors of calibrations were outside the criteria for
precision. No bias can be predicted.
Zinc -precision of matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate was outside the
aceptable criteria. No bias can be predicted.
Total xylenes -internal standard areas low. Predicted bias would be low.
Bas.ed on the magnitude of difference between the background/CRQL values and
the cont'aITl.inant levels shown above, these data are considered to be
appropriate for use.
r Attribution: All of the hazardous substances were found in the source areas
(large and small wastewater treatment pond) at concentrations at least 3
times above background (Ref.l, pp. 84-86, 88-89, App. G, pp. 1-16).
47
• •
SE-Characterization of Area of Observed Contamination
Area Letter A
Area Hazardous Waste Quantity
Constituent Quantity
Hazardous Substance
Constituent Quantity
(pounds) (Mass-SJ Reference
No· constituent information.
Sum:
Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (S)
Are the data complete for hazardous constituent quantity for this area? No
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity {pounds) References
No complete wastestream information.
Sum:
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W)
Are the data complete for hazardous wastestream quantity for this area? No
Volume
No complete volume information.
Area
Dimension of source (yd3 or gallons)
References(s)
Volume Assigned Value:
The area of each pond was measured from Ref. 3, a scaled site layout map, and
digitized as described in Ref. 7.
Large Wastewater Treatment Pond
Small Wastewater Treatment Pond=
206,400 ft.2
19,600 ft.2
Area of area of observed contamination (ft2): 226,000
Reference(s): 3; 7; 8
Area Assigned Value: 226,000/13 = 17384.62
Area Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
========================================================================= Area of Observed Contamination Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 17384.62
48
•
5.0 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY
5.0.l GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
•
Letter (A. B. etc.) by which this area is to be identified: B
SE-General
Area Letter B
Name and description of the area:, Sludge Impoundment -The sludge impoundment
was constructed in the mid-late l970's to dispose of solids dredged from the
large and small' wastewater. treatment ponds. According to General Electric,
dredging first occurred in about 1978-1979 and again in 1983. The sludge
impoundment is currently dry (Ref. 5, p. l).
Location of the area, with reference to a map of the site: The sludge
impoundment is· located northeast. of _the large wastewater treatment pond (Ref.
3; also see site layout map, p. 2B 6f this documentation record).
Sample GE-SS-01 was .used .to determine background concentrations for organic
substances and .for metals. Samples GE-SS-02, GE-SS-04, GE-SS-05, GE-SS-06,
GE-SS-07, GE-SS-08, GE-SS-13, and GE-SS-14 were used to determine background
ranges for various metals as indicated.
Background Concentration
Sample ID
GE-SS-01
GE-SS-02
GE-SS-04
GE-SS-05
GE-SS-06
GE-SS-07
GE-SS-08
GE-SS-13
GE-SS-14
Hazardous
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
9"
12 11
12 11
12 11
Depth
below
below
below
below
below
below
below
-2411
-24 11
Date
grade 5-14-90
grade 5-15-90
grade 5-15-90
grade 5-15-90
grade 5-15-90
grade 5-15-90
grade 5-15-90
below grade 5-17-90
below grade 5-17-90
Sample
Quantitation Sample
ID Substance Concentration Limit Reference
GE-SS-01
" GE-SS-08
GE-SS-01
" n
" GE-SS-14
GE-SS-14
GE-SS-01
"
n
PCB (1248) <150 ug/kg
Nickel** <10 mg/kg
Zinc•• llOJ mg/kg
Cadmium <0.35 mg/kg
Cyanide <l.8 mg/kg
Chromium ** 43 mg/kg
Copper** <30J mg/kg
Manganese** 47J mg/kg
Lead** 610J mg/kg
Pyrene <1300 ug/kg
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthlate <1300 ug/kg
Benzo(b and/or k)
fluoranthene <1300 ug/kg
49
150 ug/kg l, App. G,
10 mg/kg 1, App. G,
4 * mg/kg 1, App. G,
0.35 mg/kg 1, App. G,
l.8 mg/kg l, App. G,
2 * mg/kg l, App. G,
30J mg/kg " l, App. G,
"
1300 ug/kg 1, App. G,
1300 ug/kg "
1300 ug/kg "
Reference
l, p. 58;
10, p. 7
l, p.58;
10, p.14
l, p. 58;
10, p.14
l, p.58
l, p.58
l, p. 58;
10, p.16
l, p.58;
10, p.16
l, p. 59
l, p. 59
p. 18
p. 20
p. 92
p. 20
p. 19
p. 20
p.105
p. 17
• •
** The value presented was selected from a range of background
concentrations. Only the highest value was used for in the evaluation
of observed contamination.
< material analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum
quantitation limit for the specified sample and analysis. * Contract-required detection limit (Ref. 27) .
. GE-SS-01 was collected approximately 1 mile southwest of G.E. during the FIT
·LSI conducted in May 19.90 (Refs. 1, p. 58; 10, p. 7). This sample and all
other sampling locations are located on page 2D of the documentation record.
See Ref. 26 for information regarding J-qualified data.
Zinc -precision of matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate was outside the
acceptable criteria. No bias can be predicted.
Copper - J flag no longer applies.
50
•
Contaminanted Samples
Sample ID
GE-SS-11
GE-SS-12
Sample
ID
GE-SS-11
"
"
" •
GE-SS-12
" " " " " " •
"
Hazardous
Substance
PCB (1248)
Nickel
Zinc
Cadmium
Cyanide
PCB (1248)
Nickel
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Pyrene
Depth
6 11 below land surface
6 11 below land su'rface
Concentration
400000C ug/kg
45 mg/kg
180J mg/kg
7 mg/kg
22 mg/kg
120000 ug/kg
82 mg/kg
520J mg/kg
18 mg/kg
270 mg/kg
330J mg/kg
5800J ug/kg
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate 9200J ug/kg
Benzo(b and/or k)
fluoranthene 6600J ug/kg
•
Date
5-16-90
5-16-90
Contract
Required
Quantitation
Limit**
80 ug/kg
8 mg/kg
46J*** mg/kg
1 mg/kg
0.5 mg/kg
80 ug/kg
8 mg/kg
46J*** mg/kg
1 mg/kg
43*** mg/kg
5 mg/kg
330 ug/kg
330 ug/kg
330 ug/kg
Reference
Reference
2, p. 7
2, p. 7
1, App. G, p. 21
1, App. G, P·. 23
"
"
1, App. G, p. 22
1, App. G, p. 25
1, App. G, p. 26
"
"
"
"
1, App. G, p. 24
"
"
** Contract-required detection limits can be found in Refs. 18, pp. 7-9;
27.
••• Background concentration (see page 48 of this documentation record).
C Confirmed by GC/MS.
GE-SS-11 and GE-SS-12 were collected during the FIT LSI conducted in May 1990,
from the dry sludge impoundment (Refs. 1, p. 58; 2, p. 7).
See Ref. 26 for information regarding J-qualified data.
Zinc -precision of .matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate was outside the
acceptable criteria. No bias-can be predicted.
Copper - J flag no longer applies.
Pyrene: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene -internal
standard areas l'ow. Predicted bias would be low.
Based on.the magnitude of difference between the background/CRQL values and
the coritaminant levels shown above, these data are considered to be
appropriate for use.
Attribution: All. the hazardous substances were found in the source area (dry
sludge impoundment) at concentrations significantly above background (Ref. 1,
pp. 60-62, 66-67, App. G, pp. 21-26).
51
• •
SE-Characterization of Area of Observed Contamination
Area Letter B
Area Hazardous Waste Quantity
Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Hazardous Substance
No complete hazardous
Constituent Quantity
(pounds) (Mass-S)
constituent quantity information.
Reference
sum:
Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (S):
Are the data complete for hazardous constituent quantity for this area? No
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity (pounds) References
No Complete hazardous wastestream information.
Sum:
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W):
Are the data complete for hazardous wastestream quantity for this area? No
Volume
No complete volume information.
Dimension of source (yd3 or gallons):
Reference (s) :
Volume Assigned Value:
Area
The area was measured from Ref. 3, a scaled site layout map, and digitized as
described in Ref. 7.
Sludge impoundment -47,600 ft.2
Area of area of observed contamination (ft2): 47,600
Reference(s): 3; 7; 8
Area Assigned Value: 47,600/13 = 3661.54
Area Hazardous Waste Quantity Value ---=----===--==-------===----=----=-----==~-~~-===----~-=-----=-----------Area of Observed Contamination Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 3661.54
52
•
5.0 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY
5.0.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
•
SE-General
Area Letter C
Letter (A. B, etc.) by which this area is to be identified: C
Name and description of the area: Shepherd Farm (Landfill) -wastes were
brought to.·this area from the General Electric facility, then deposited,
burrned, and bulldozed.· · .The area is being considered a landfill as the
majority of the disposal area was covered and is heavily wooded. There were a
few areas that had no cover wit_h some drums visible. During development of
the trailer park, some drums were uncovered and reburied (Refs. 12, p. 2; 24,
p. 6; 28, p.4).
Location of the area, with reference to a niap of the site: The landfill is
located.off Roper. Road between.the Shepherd and Hill residences. A portion of
'•the landfill is also located.in the Spring Haven Trailer Park (Ref. 12, p. 2;
also see pa·ges 2A and 2E of this documentation record) . ·
Samples SF-SS-01 and SF-SS-17 were used to determine background concentrations
for organic substances and for metals. ·samples SF-SS-02, SF-SS-06, SF-SS-07,
and SF-SS-08 were used to determine background ranges for various metals as
indicated.
Background Concentration
Sample ID*** Depth Date Reference
SF-SS-01 6" below land surface 5-18-90 11, p. 2
SF-SS-17 6" below land surface 5-19-90 11, p. 7
SF-SS-02 6" below land surface 5-18-90 24, p.18
SF-SS-06 6" below land surface 5-18-90 11, p. 4
SF-SS-07 .6" below land surface 5-19-90 24, p.25
SF-SS-08' 6" below land surface 5-19-90 24, p.24
Sample
Sample Hazardous Quantitation
ID Substance Concentration Limit Reference
SF-SS-01 PCB (1248) <130 ug/kg 130 ug/kg 12, App. C, p. 22
" PCB (1254) <270 ug/kg 270 ug/kg "
" PCB (1260) <270 ug/kg 270 ug/kg "
" Copper** <30J mg/kg 30J mg/kg 12, App. C, p. 6
• Chromium** 60 mg/kg 2 mg/kg "
SF-SS-17 PCB (1248) <120 ug/kg 120 ug/kg 12, App. C, p. 23
" PCB (1254) <240 ug/kg 240 ug/kg " • PCB (1260) <240 ug/kg 240 ug/kg "
SF-SS-06 Barium** 96 mg/kg 40 mg/kg 12, App. C, p.106
" Cobalt** 22 mg/kg 10 mg/kg "
" Manganese ** 520 mg/kg 3 mg/kg " • Nickel** 21 mg/kg 8 mg/kg " • Vanadium •• 74 mg/kg 10 mg/kg "
SF-SS-02 Lead •• 40J mg/kg 0.6 mg/kg 12, App. C, p.103 .,. Zinc •• 78 mg/kg 4 mg/kg "
53
• •
•• The value presented was selected from a range of background
concentrations. Only the highest value was used for in the evaluation
of observed contamination.
••• Samples SS-07 and SS-08 were used in the evaluation of the background
range, however· did not contain a highest value and are therefore not
reported in this table.
< material analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum
quantitation limit for the specified sample and analysis.
• Contract-required detection limit (Ref. 27).
SF-SS-01 and SF-SS-17 were collected offsite, west and south of the Spring
Haven development, respectively, during the FIT LSI conducted in May 1990
(Refs. 11, pp. 2, 7; 12, p. 20; also see pages 2E and 30D of this
documentation record).
See Ref. 29 for information regarding J-qualified data.
Copper -serial dilutions outside the acceptable criteria. No bias can be
predicted.
Lead -low matrix spike recovery. The predicted bias would be low.
54
• •
Contaminated Samples
Sa!J!tlle ID Dei;ith Date Reference
SF-LS-01 unknown* 5-18-90 24, p. 18
SF-SS-04 " 5-18-90 24, p. 17
SF-SS-14 " 5-18-90 24, p. 16
SF-SS-13 " 5-19-90 24, p. 25
SF-SS-10 n 5-18-90 24, p. 22
* sampling protocol calls for surface soil samples to.be taken within 2
ft. below land surface.
Contract
Required
Sample Hazardous Quantitation
ID Substance Concentration Limit** Reference
SF-LS-01 PCB ( 124 8) 13000 ug/kg 80 ug/kg 12, App. C, p. 32
" PCB (1254) 8400J ug/kg 160 ug/kg "
" Copper 590J mg/kg 5 mg/kg 12, App. C, p. 18
" Lead 200J mg/kg 35J*** mg/kg "
" Zinc 510 mg/kg 52*** mg/kg "
SF-SS-04 PCB (1248) 18000 ug/kg 80 ug/kg 12, App. C, p. 28
" PCB (1254) 17000 ug/kg 160 ug/kg "
" Copper 310J mg/kg 5 mg/kg 12, App. C, p. 14
" Lead 430J mg/kg 35J*** mg/kg "
" Zinc 800 mg/kg 52*** mg/kg "
SF-SS-14 PCB (1248) 1300J ug/kg 80 ug/kg 12, App. C, p. 31
n PCB (1254) 2100J ug/kg 160 ug/kg "
n Copper llOJ mg/kg 5 mg/kg 12, App. C, p. 17
SF-SS-13 PCB (1248) 27000 ug/kg 80 ug/kg 12, App. C, p. 30
" PCB ( 126 0) 21000 ug/kg 160 ug/kg "
n Copper 1400J mg/kg 5 mg/kg 12, App. C, p. 16
" Lead 1300J mg/kg 35J*** mg/kg "
" Zinc 1400 mg/kg 52*** mg/kg "
SF-SS-10 PCB (1260) 9700 ug/kg 160 ug/kg 12, App. C, p. 29
n Copper 250J mg/kg 5 mg/kg 12, App. C, p. 15
n Lead 180J mg/kg 35J*** mg/kg "
" Zinc 470 mg/kg 52*** mg/kg "
** Contract-required detection limit can be found in Refs. 18, p. 9; 27.
*** Background concentration (see page 51 of this documentation record).
SF-LS-01, SF-SS-04, SF-SS-14, SF-SS-13 and SF-SS-10 were collected on the
Shepherd Farm property and the Spring Haven Trailer Park property during the
FIT LSI conducted in May 1990 (Refs. 12, pp. 20-21, 24; 24, pp. 16-18, 22,
25).
See Ref. 29 regarding information on J-qualified data.
Coi;ii;ier -serial dilution outside the acceptable criteria. No bias can be
predicted.
Lead -low ma tr.ix spike recovery. Predicted bias would be low.
PCBs -results below the minimum quantitation limit. No bias can be
predicted. The PCB cOncentrations in these samples are much higher than the
background arid the standard quantitation limit.
Based upon the magnitude.of difference between the background/CRQL values and
the contaminant levels shown above, these data are considered to be
55
• •
Based upon the magnitude of difference between the background/CRQL values and
the contaminant levels shown above, these data are considered to be
appropriate for use.
Attribution: The above hazardous substances were found in the disposal area
onsite and were at least 3 times above background (Ref. 12,-pp. 25-28, App. C,
pp. 14-18, 28-32).
56
• •
SB-Characterization of Area of Observed Contamination
Area Letter C
Area Hazardous Waste Quantity
Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Hazardous Substance
No complete hazardous
Constituent Quantity
(pounds) (Mass-S)
constituent quantity information.
Reference
_sum:
Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (S):
Are the data complete for hazardous constituent quantity for this area? No
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity (pounds) Reference
'No compl'ete hazardous wastestream information.
Sum:
Hazardous Wastestream Quant•ity Value (W)
Are the data complete for hazardous wastestream quantity for this area? No
57
•
Volume
•
SB-Characterization of Area of Observed Contamination
Area Letter C
No complete volume information.
Area
Dimension of source (yd3 or gallons)
Reference(s)
Volume Assigned Value:
The area was measured based upon sample results from the LSI at Shepherd Farm
(Ref. 12), and was measured using a digitizer and Generic Cadd Software (Ref.
33) .
The boundaries of surficial contamination were defined by the following
samples, based of the presence of contamination (see preceeding sections for
discussion): SF-LS-01, SF-SS-04, SF-SS-14, SF-SS-10.
Surficial contamination is 22,748 sq. ft.
Area of area of observed contamination (ft2): 22,748
Reference(s): 8; 33
Area assigned value: 22,748/34,000 = 0.669
Area Hazardous Waste Quantity Value =---===-=--=--==------=--=-==-==-=-==---------------===-----=-------=--=------Area of Observed Contamination Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 0.669
58
• •
SB-Level of Contamination
Summary of Site Contamination
Level I Samples
Sample ID: SF-SS-04, SF-SS-14 (Ref. 12, App. C, pp. 28, 31)
Reference for Benchmarks: Cancer Risk (Ref. 20, p. B-52)
Hazardous
Substance
(SS-04)
PCB (1248)
PCB (1254)
(SS-14)
PCB (1248)
PCB (1254)
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
18000 ug/kg (18 mg/kg)
17000 ug/kg (17 mg/kg)
1300J ug/kg (1.3 mg/kg)
2100J ug/kg (2.1 mg/kg)
Benchmark
Concentration
7.6E-2 mg/kg
"
"
"
Benchmark
Cancer Risk
"
" "
SF-SS-04 and SF-SS-14 were collected from the Spring Haven Trailer Park
property during the FIT LSI conducted in May 1990 (Ref. 24, pp. 16-17).
Level II Samples
The only surficial soil samples collected on trailer park property within 200
feet of homes were the two samples listed under Level I.
59
•
5.1 RESIDENT POPULATION THREAT
5.1.l Likelihood of Exposure
Sample ID
SF-SS-04
SF-SS-14
•
SE-Resident Population Threat
Location of Population
Relative· to Observed Contamination
Located.on·trailer lot number 37
within 200 ft. of home
Located on trailer lot number 35
within 200 ft. of home
(Refs. 12, p. 24; 24, pp. 16-17; also see page 57A of this documentation
record).
Resident Population Threat Likelihood of Exposure Factor Category Value: 550
60
•
5.1.2 Waste Characteristics
5.1.2.1 Toxicity
Hazardous Substance
PCB
Lead
Toxicity Factor Value
10,000
10,000
•
Reference
20, p. B-11
20, p. B-9
SE-Toxicity
-==-==-----=-------=--=--=-----=--=---------=-----==-=-==-==--------------Toxicity Factor Value: 10,000
61
• •
SE-Hazardous Waste Quantity
5.1.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity
Area Letter
A
B
C
Area Hazardous
Waste Quantity Value
17384.62
3661.54
0.669
Constituent Quantity
Data Complete? (Yes/No)
No
No
No
Sum of values: 21046.83
5.1.2.3 Calculation of Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value
Toxicity Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: l.0E+8
=----=-==-------=----=-====-------------=--=-=------------==-=------------Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000
Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 100
62
• •
SE-Resident Individual
5.1.3 TARGETS
5.1.3.l Resident Individual
Area Letter: .C
Level of Contamination: Level I
Surface soil samples SF-SS-04 and SF-SS-14 were collected on trailer park home
lots within 200 feet of the homes and results show Level I contamination.
Reference: 12, pp. 24, 25; 24, pp. 16-17, also see page 57A of this
documentation record.
========================================================================== Resident Individual Factor Value: so
63
• •
SE-Resident Population
5.1.3.2 Resident Population
5.1.3.2.1 Level I Concentrations
Area Letter
C
Resident Individuals
(Residences County Multiplier
9 2 .38
Total)
21.42
This includes homes on lots 33, 34, 36, 37, 46, 47, 64, 66, 67 (Ref. 34).
Reference: 22; 34; also see page 57A of this documentation record.
Sum of individuals subject to Level I concentrations:
5.1.3.2.2 Level II Concentrations
Resident Individuals
Area Letter (Residences County Multiplier Total)
No residences identified subject to LeVel II concentrations.
Sum of individuals subject to Level II concentrations:
==============a===========================================================
Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 214
Level II Concentrations Factor Value: O
64
•
5.1.3.3 Workers
Area Letter Number of Workers
A, B 3
Reference: 2, p. 8; 8, section 5.1.3.3
5.1.3.4 Resources
Resource Descriptor(s) None identified.
65
•
SE-Workers
Total workers: 3
Workers Factor Value: 5
Resources Factor Value: O
• •
SE-Terrestrial Sensitive Environments
5.1.3.5 Terrestrial Sensitive Environments
Terrestrial
Area Letter Sensitive Environment
None identified.
Likelihood of exposure factor category value (LE): 550
Waste characteristics factor category value (WC): 100
Terrestrial sensitive environments value (ES): 0
Product (LE x WC x ES): 0
(LE x WC x ES)/82,500: 0
Value of EC: o
Value
-----=-==-=====------==-====-=---=-=----------==-------=------------=----= Terrestrial Sensitive Environments Factor Value: O
66
• •
SE-Nearby Populaton Threat
5.2 NEARBY POPULATION THREAT
5.2.1 Likelihood of Exposure
5.2.1.1 Attractiveness/Accessibility
Area Letter
A
B
C
Descriptor(s) for Area Value
2 Surface Impoundments at the General 0
Electric facility, in a fenced area with 24-hour
security
1 Sludge Impoundment at the General Electric 0
facility, in a fenced area with 24-hour security
Shepherd Farm property, accessible, wooded, no 10
known public recreational use.
(Refs. 2, p. 5; 10, p. 3; 28, pp. 3, 4)
========-=------==---==----=----=----=-===-------=---------=-------=------
Attractiveness/Accessibility Factor Value: 10
67
• •
SE-Area of Contamination
5.2.1.2 Area of Contamination
Area Letter
C
Size of Area of Observed
Contamination (sq ft)
18,876 sq. ft. (Ref. 33)
Note: only the area on Shepherd Farm property used (excluded area on Spring-
Haven Trailer Park). Spring Haven Trailer Park area was used for the resident
population. (Ref. 8, section 5.2.1.1)
Total Area of Observed Contamination: 18876 sq. ft.
5.2.1.3 Likelihood of Exposure Factor Category
Area of Contamination Factor Value: 20
Nearby Population Threat Likelihood of Exposure
Factor Category Value: 5
68
•
5.2.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
5.2.2.1 Toxicity
Hazardous Substance
PCB
Toxicity Factor Value
10,000
•
SE-Waste Characteristics
Reference
20, p. B-11
========================================================================== Toxicity Factor Value: 10,000
69
• •
SB-Hazardous Waste Quantity
5.2.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity
Area Hazardous
Area Letter Waste Quantity Value
C 0.669
Constituent Quantity
Data Complete? (Yes/No)
No
Sum of values: 0.669
5.2.2.3 Calculation of Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value
Toxicity Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: l.0E+S
Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10
Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 18
70
•
5.2.3 TARGETS
5.2.3.1 Nearby Individual
Area Letter
Resident population identified.
Distance to
Residence or School
•
SE-Nearby Targets
Reference
========================================================================= Nearby Individual Factor Value: O
71
5.2.3.2 Population Within 1 Mile
Travel Distance
Category (miles)
>0 to 1/4
>l/4 to 1/2
>1/2 to 1
Number of
People
195.16
304.64
1061.48
Reference
22; 35
"
"
•
SE-Population Within l Mile
Distance-Weighted
Value (Table 5-10)
4
7
10
Sum of Distance-weighted Values: 21
========================================================================== Population Within 1 Mile Factor Value: 2
The above were counted from the topographic map and.multiplied by the county
population (2.38) (Refs. 22; 35). Only the area of surficial contamination on
the Shepherd property was used, it is the only area that is >0 for the
attractiveness/accessibility value.
o-.25 mile (21 homes) (2.38)= 49.98
There are 70 occupied trailers in the Spring Haven Trailer Park (Ref. 28, p.
4), 9 of these have been used for resident population.
70-9=61 (61 trailers) (2. 38) = 145 .18
49.98 + 145.18 = 195.16
.25-.50 mile --(128 homes) (2.38)= 304.64
.50-1 mile --(446 homes) (2.38)= 1061.48
72