Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0001-0086
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2002-09-01T04:00Z

This
document
consists
of
descriptions
of
the
7
proposed
sites
and
19
final
sites
added
to
the
National
Priorities
List
(NPL)
in
September
2002.
The
size
of
the
site
is
generally
indicated,
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
scored
using
the
Hazard
Ranking
System
(HRS).
The
size
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
Sites
are
grouped
according
to
proposed
or
final
status,
and
are
arranged
alphabetically
by
site
name
within
those
groups.

CLEANING
UP
UNDER
SUPERFUND
The
Superfund
program
is
managed
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA).
It
is
authorized
by
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.
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
Substance
Response
Trust
Fund
set
up
by
CERCLA
as
amended
pays
the
costs
not
assumed
by
responsible
parties
for
cleaning
up
hazardous
waste
sites
or
emergencies
that
threaten
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment;
Superfund
also
pays
for
overseeing
responsible
parties
conducting
cleanup.

Two
types
of
responses
may
be
taken
when
a
hazardous
substance
is
released,
or
threatens
to
be
released,
into
the
environment:

°
Removal
actions
­­
emergency­
type
responses
to
imminent
threats.
SARA
limits
these
actions
to
1
year
and/
or
$2
million,
with
a
waiver
possible
if
the
actions
are
consistent
with
remedial
responses.
Removal
actions
can
be
undertaken
by
the
private
parties
responsible
for
the
releases
or
by
the
Federal
government
using
the
Superfund.
°
Remedial
responses
­­
actions
intended
to
provide
permanent
solutions
at
uncontrolled
hazardous
waste
sites.
Remedial
responses
are
generally
longer­
term
and
more
expensive
than
removals.
A
Superfund­
financed
remedial
response
can
be
taken
only
if
a
site
is
on
the
NPL.
EPA
published
the
first
NPL
in
September
1983.
The
list
must
be
updated
at
least
annually.

EPA's
goals
for
the
Superfund
program
are
to:

°
Ensure
that
polluters
pay
to
clean
up
the
problems
they
created;
and
°
Work
first
on
the
worst
problems
at
the
worst
sites,
by
making
sites
safe,
making
sites
clean,
and
bringing
new
technology
to
bear
on
the
problem.

REMEDIAL
RESPONSES
The
money
for
conducting
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
State
legal
action.
United
States
Office
of
September
2002
Environmental
Protection
Solid
Waste
and
Agency
Emergency
Response
Descriptions
of
7
Proposed
Sites
and
19
Final
Sites
Added
to
the
National
Priorities
List
in
September
2002
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response
Intermittent
Bulletin
State
&
Site
Identification
Center
(5204G)
Internet
Volume
5,
Number
2
2
°
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
party
or
parties.

A
remedial
response,
as
defined
by
the
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan,
the
Federal
regulation
by
which
Superfund
is
implemented,
is
an
orderly
process
that
generally
involves
the
following
steps:

°
Take
any
measures
needed
to
stabilize
conditions,
which
might
involve,
for
example,
fencing
the
site
or
removing
above­
ground
drums
or
bulk
tanks.

°
Undertake
initial
planning
activities
to
scope
out
a
strategy
for
collecting
information
and
analyzing
alternative
cleanup
approaches.

°
Conduct
a
remedial
investigation
to
characterize
the
type
and
extent
of
contamination
at
the
site
and
to
assess
the
risks
posed
by
that
contamination.

°
Conduct
a
feasibility
study
to
analyze
various
cleanup
alternatives.
The
feasibility
study
is
often
conducted
concurrently
with
the
remedial
investigation
as
one
project.
Typically,
the
two
together
take
from
18
to
24
months
to
complete
and
cost
approximately
$1.
3
million.

°
Select
the
cleanup
alternative
that:

­­
Protects
human
health
and
the
environment;

­­
Complies
with
Federal
and
State
requirements
that
are
applicable
or
relevant
and
appropriate;

­­
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"
­­
that
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
might
involve,
for
example,
constructing
facilities
to
treat
ground
water
or
removing
contaminants
to
a
safe
disposal
area
away
from
the
site.

EPA
expects
the
implementation
(remedial
action)
phase
to
average
out
at
about
$25
million
per
site
(plus
any
costs
to
operate
and
maintain
the
action),
and
some
remedial
actions
may
take
several
years
to
complete.

The
State
government
can
participate
in
a
remedial
response
under
Superfund
in
one
of
two
ways:

°
The
State
can
take
the
lead
role
under
a
cooperative
agreement,
which
is
much
like
a
grant
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
implementation
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.
3
National
Priorities
List
Proposed
Rule
#38
Narrative
Summaries
Site
Name
and
Location
Falcon
Refinery,
Ingleside,
Texas
Gulfco
Marine
Maintenance,
Freeport,
Texas
Harbor
Oil,
Portland,
Oregon
Lammers
Barrel,
Beavercreek,
Ohio
Pesticide
Warehouse
III,
Manati,
Puerto
Rico
United
Metals,
Inc.,
Marianna,
Florida
Ward
Transformer,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina
4
National
Priorities
List
Final
Rule
#33
Narrative
Summaries
Site
Name
and
Location
Ashland/
Northland
States
Power
Lakefront,
Ashland,
Wisconsin
Atlantic
Resources
Corporation,
Sayreville,
New
Jersey
Brine
Service
Company,
Corpus
Christi,
Texas
Callahan
Mine,
Brooksville,
Maine
Cayuga
County
Ground
Water
Contamination,
Cayuga
County,
New
York
Crown
Cleaners
of
Watertown,
Inc.,
Carthage,
New
York
Curtis
Bay
Coast
Guard
Yard,
Anne
Arundel
County,
Maryland
Del
Amo,
Los
Angeles,
California
Diamond
Head
Oil
Refinery
Div.,
Kearny,
New
Jersey
Ellenville
Scrap
Iron
and
Metal,
Ellenville,
New
York
Eureka
Mills,
Eureka,
Utah
Franklin
Slag
Pile
(MDC),
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Hatheway
and
Patterson
Company,
Mansfield,
Massachusetts
McGaffey
and
Main
Groundwater
Plume,
Roswell,
New
Mexico
Oak
Grove
Village
Well,
Oak
Grove
Village,
Missouri
Patrick
Bayou,
Deer
Park,
Texas
Quanta
Resources,
Edgewater,
New
Jersey
Railroad
Avenue
Groundwater
Contamination,
Des
Moines,
Iowa
Reasor
Chemical
Company,
Castle
Hayne,
North
Carolina
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
FALCON
REFINERY
Ingleside,
Texas
The
Falcon
Refinery
site
occupies
approximately
104
acres
in
San
Patricio
County,
Texas,
and
is
located
1.7
miles
southeast
of
State
Highway
361
on
FM
2725
at
the
northwest
and
southeast
corners
of
Farm
to
Market
2725
and
Bishop
Road.
The
site
is
bordered
by
wetlands
to
the
northeast
and
southeast,
residential
areas
to
the
north
and
southwest,
an
abandoned
refinery
to
the
northwest,
and
a
construction
company
to
the
southwest.
The
site
is
being
proposed
to
the
NPL
based
on
evidence
that
hazardous
substances,
including
arsenic,
barium,
chromium,
copper,
lead,
manganese,
mercury,
nickel,
selenium,
vanadium,
zinc
and
polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(PAHs)
have
migrated
or
could
potentially
migrate
from
the
facility
to
active
fisheries
and
sensitive
environments
within
the
adjacent
wetlands,
Redfish
Bay,
Aranas
Bay,
and
Corpus
Christi
Bay.

The
Falcon
Refinery
facility
consists
of
a
refinery
that
has
operated
intermittently
since
1980
and
is
currently
inactive.
When
in
operation,
the
refinery
operated
at
a
40,000
barrels
per
day
capacity
with
primary
products
consisting
of
naphtha,
jet
fuel,
kerosene,
diesel,
and
fuel
oil.
Another
portion
of
the
site
includes
a
dock
facility
on
Redfish
Bay
where
materials
were
transferred
between
barges
and
storage
tanks.
The
refinery
processed
material
that
consisted
of
not
only
crude
oil
but
also
contained
hazardous
substances
including
K048
(dissolved
air
flotation
float),
K049
(slop
oil
emulsion
solids),
K050
(heat
exchanger
bundle
cleaning
sludge),
and
K051(
API
separator
sludge)
wastes.
Other
wastes
at
the
site
include:
(1)
vinyl
acetate
detected
inside
tanks
during
a
EPA
Criminal
Investigation
Division
(CID)
criminal
investigation
and
a
TNRCC
Region
14
sampling
event,
(2)
cooling
tower
sludges
containing
chromium,
(3)
non
crude
oil
constituents
detected
in
a
pipeline
spill,
(4)
untreated
wastewater
release
inside
tank
berms,
and
(5)
leaking
drums.

The
history
of
this
site
is
marked
by
the
numerous
complaints
by
nearby
residents
as
early
as
1978
concerning
the
construction
of
the
facility
along
Redfish
Bay,
odors
allegedly
produced
from
processing
impure
crude
in
1985­
86
and
then
to
odors
associated
with
a
spill
in
2000.
On
March
12,
1986,
an
inspection
conducted
by
the
Texas
Water
Commission
revealed
that
the
company
had
disposed
of
cooling
tower
sludges
on­
site
and
untreated
wastewater
in
tankage
was
discharged
into
sandy,
unlined
containment
structures.
On
November
15,
1995,
during
a
hydrostatic
pipeline
test,
a
spill
of
approximately
eight
barrels
of
a
crude
oil
mixture
occurred
in
the
wetlands
adjacent
to
the
facility.
During
a
January
2000
compliance
inspection,
TNRCC
observed
a
leak
from
a
tank
in
a
naptha
stabilizer
unit.
TNRCC
estimated
that
approximately
220
gallons
of
industrial
waste
had
leaked
from
the
tank.
In
response,
TNRCC
conducted
soil
and
sediment
sampling
activities
in
May
2000.

During
the
2000
Expanded
Site
Inspection,
TNRCC
documented
the
presence
of
fluoranthene,
pyrene,
benzo(
a)
anthracene,
chrysene,
benzo(
b)
fluoranthene,
benzo(
k)
fluoranthene,
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
indeno(
1,2,3­
cd)
pyrene,
benzo(
g,
h,
i)
perylene,
dibenz(
a,
h)
anthracene,
barium,
manganese,
and
mercury
in
sediment
samples
collected
from
the
nearby
wetlands
and
Redfish
Bay.
Redfish
Bay
supports
an
active
finfish
and
shellfish
fishery,
and
potential
habitat
areas
for
several
State
and
Federal
threatened
or
endangered
species,
including
the
brown
pelican
and
reddish
egret,
and
Kemp's
ridley
sea
turtle.
The
Redfish
Bay,
Aranas
Bay,
Corpus
Christi
Bay
system
is
a
designated
National
Estuary.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
GULFCO
MARINE
MAINTENANCE
Freeport,
Texas
The
Gulfco
Marine
Maintenance
(Gulfco),
facility
encompasses
40
acres
in
Freeport,
Brazoria
County,
Texas.
The
facility
historically
was
used
as
a
barge
cleaning
and
servicing
facility.
The
Gulfco
site
encompasses
three
buried/
backfilled
surface
impoundments
that
received
contaminated
wash
water
from
the
barge
cleaning
operations,
areas
of
contaminated
soil,
and
releases
to
surface
water
and
ground
water.
The
site
is
being
proposed
to
the
NPL
based
on
evidence
that
hazardous
substances,
including
semivolatile
organic
compounds,
lead,
zinc,
and
pesticides,
have
migrated
from
the
facility
to
the
Intracoastal
Waterway,
pose
a
threat
to
nearby
drinking
water
supplies
and
downstream
sensitive
environments,
and
have
impacted
fisheries
downstream
of
the
facility.

Gulfco
operated
as
a
barge
cleaning
and
waste
disposal
facility
from
1971
through
1979.
Operations
at
the
facility
involved
the
cleaning,
servicing,
and
repair
of
various
chemical
barges.
Chemical
barges
were
drained
and
pumped
to
remove
product
heels,
which
then
were
stored
in
tanks
and
sold
as
product.
Each
barge
was
washed
with
water
or
a
detergent
solution.
Generated
wash
waters
were
stored
either
in
surface
impoundments,
a
floating
barge,
or
on­
site
storage
tanks.
The
barges
were
allowed
to
air
dry
and
certified
as
safe
prior
to
initiating
repair
work
such
as
welding
and
sandblasting.

The
surface
impoundments
received
wash
water
from
the
cleaning
of
barges
and
other
transport
vessels
that
carried
organic
substances
including
alcohols,
ketones,
and
crude
oil.
Waste
wash
water
generated
during
the
cleaning
of
chemical
barges
and
other
vessels
was
hardpiped
to
the
surface
impoundments
for
evaporation
and
separation.
The
maximum
inventory
of
waste
at
any
given
time
was
5.5
million
gallons.
The
surface
impoundments
were
certified
closed
in
August
1982,
following
removal
of
the
liquids
and
sludges,
solidification
of
the
remaining
sludge
with
soil,
and
capping
with
three
feet
of
clay
cover
and
a
hard
wearing
surface.
Some
sludge
reportedly
remained
in
one
of
the
surface
impoundments
at
the
time
of
closure.

Underlying
the
Gulfco
site
is
the
Chicot/
Evangeline
aquifer
system.
This
aquifer
system
is
a
major
source
of
municipal
and
smaller
public
water
supply
systems
in
the
Freeport
area.
The
largest
public
water
supply
system
within
4
miles
of
the
site
is
that
of
the
city
of
Freeport,
which
supplies
approximately
11,300
people.
The
city
of
Freeport
uses
100
percent
of
the
surface
water
supplied
by
the
Brazos
Water
Authority.
The
city
also
has
seven
ground
water
wells,
two
of
which
are
maintained
for
emergency
use
only,
and
have
not
been
used
for
drinking
water
for
several
years.
The
remaining
wells
are
scheduled
to
be
abandoned.

The
site
lies
within
the
100­
year
coastal
floodplain
along
the
north
bank
of
the
Intracoastal
Waterway
between
Oyster
Creek
to
the
east
and
the
Old
Brazos
River
Channel
and
the
Dow
Barge
Canal
to
the
west.
The
southern
part
of
the
Gulfco
site
drains
to
the
south
where
it
enters
the
Intracoastal
Waterway,
which
is
a
fishery.
The
surface
water
migration
pathway
extends
in
all
directions
within
contiguous
surface
water
bodies
since
these
surface
water
bodies
are
tidally
influenced.
Surface
water
flows
eastward
into
the
Drum
Bay,
Christmas
Bay,
Bastrop
Bay,
and
Galveston
Bay.
Galveston
Bay
is
the
seventh
largest
estuary
in
the
United
States
and
is
designated
as
a
National
Estuary
as
part
of
the
National
Estuaries
Program.
In
addition,
Christmas
Bay
is
designated
as
the
Christmas
Bay
Coastal
Preserve
of
the
Texas
Coastal
Preserve
Program,
and
harbors
eight
endangered
or
threatened
species
including
the
Bald
Eagle,
Brown
Pelican,
Peregrine
Falcon,
Whooping
Crane,
Piping
Plover,
Reddish
Egret,
White­
faced
Ibis,
and
Green
Sea
Turtle.
The
12,199­
acre
Brazoria
National
Wildlife
Refuge
is
located
to
the
south
of
Bastrop
Bayou
and
contains
the
habitats
of
three
state­
threatened
species,
including
the
Wood
Stork,
White­
tailed
Hawk,
and
the
Swallow­
tailed
Kite.
A
wetland
area
is
located
approximately
500
feet
south
of
the
site
across
the
Intracoastal
Waterway.
This
area
is
classified
as
intertidal
estuarine,
emergent,
persistent,
and
regularly
flooded.
Twenty
miles
of
wetland
frontage
lie
within
15
stream
miles
of
the
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
HARBOR
OIL
Portland,
Oregon
Harbor
Oil
is
a
waste
oil
reprocessing
facility
located
on
approximately
4.2
acres
in
an
industrial
area
of
Portland,
Oregon.
The
site
formerly
also
operated
as
a
tank
truck
cleaning
facility.
In
late
1980,
the
facility
submitted
a
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
Part
A
Permit
Application
indicating
the
company's
main
business
was
reclaiming
industrial
fuel/
lubricating
oils
and
waste
solvents.
A
revised
RCRA
Part
A
application
stated
the
company
did
not
reclaim
used
solvents
and
that
its
business
was
the
collection
of
used
oils
and
asphalts
which
are
processed
and
re­
refined
into
usable
products.

Currently,
onsite
petroleum
recovery
process
tanks
consist
of
a
4,000­
gallon
diesel
fuel
storage
tank;
six
20,000­
gallon
heated
storage
tanks:
six
20,000­
gallon
cold
storage
tanks;
and
205,000­
gallon
and
320,000­
gallon
cold
storage
tanks.
These
tanks
hold
used
petroleum
products
in
varying
stages
of
recovery.

Waste
oils
received
at
the
facility
are
first
transferred
into
heat
tanks
for
dehydration,
distillation,
and
blending.
Following
heat
processing,
the
blended
oils
flow
through
an
oil/
water
separator.
The
separated
oils
are
transferred
into
settling
tanks
equipped
with
filters.
The
separated
water
is
piped
into
a
surge
tank.
Processed
oils
are
transferred
into
storage
tanks.

In
March
1974,
there
was
a
major
spill
or
release
of
waste
oil
from
on
site
storage
tanks.
In
addition,
in
October
1979,
a
severe
fire
destroyed
the
facility
and
melted/
ruptured
five
20,000­
gallon
aboveground
used
oil
tanks.
The
incident
caused
large
volumes
of
used
oils
and
smaller
volumes
of
waste
paints
to
flow
west
and
south
across
the
site,
into
the
wetlands
that
border
the
site
and
Force
Lake.

In
July
and
August
2000,
consultants
for
the
EPA
conducted
a
Preliminary
Assessment/
Site
Inspection
at
the
facility.
Historical
documentation,
sampling,
and
analytical
results
document
the
presence
of
several
hazardous
substances
on­
site
including
volatile
organic
compounds,
semi­
volatile
organic
compounds,
metals,
pesticides,
and
polychlorinated
biphenyls.
Two
sources
of
contamination
were
documented:
waste
oil
storage
tanks
and
contaminated
soil.

The
15­
mile
target
distance
limit
(TDL)
for
this
site
begins
at
a
permitted
outfall
which
is
located
in
the
wetlands
west
of
the
site
and
continues
south
for
approximately
300
feet
through
the
wetlands
to
Force
Lake,
and
ends
at
the
southern
shore
of
this
lake,
a
distance
of
approximately
0.2
miles.
Force
Lake
is
a
spring
and
seep­
fed
lake.
Force
Lake
drains
a
fairly
small
surface
area,
but
the
water
level
is
maintained
by
ground
water
inflow
from
the
springs
and
seeps.

Force
Lake
supports
recreational
fishing
activities.
A
large
palustrine
emergent
seasonally
flooded
wetland
having
a
perimeter
of
approximately
1.3
miles
is
located
immediately
west
and
south
of
the
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
LAMMERS
BARREL
Beavercreek,
Ohio
The
Lammers
Barrel
property
is
now
a
vacant
lot,
approximately
two
acres
in
size,
located
in
Beavercreek,
Ohio.
The
property
is
bisected
by
Little
Beaver
Creek
which
flows
west
to
east
through
the
site.
The
property
is
bordered
to
the
west
and
south
by
Grange
Hall
Road
and
East
Patterson
Road,
respectively.
An
abandoned
railroad
right
of
way
makes
up
the
northern
border.
The
facility
experienced
a
fire
in
1969,
that
completely
destroyed
the
buildings.
The
only
structures
remaining
are
a
concrete
pad,
a
non­
functional
production
well,
and
pipes
that
appear
to
run
from
the
former
facility
to
the
creek.

Operations
began
at
Lammers
Barrel
Factory
in
1953
and
continued
until
the
fire
in
October
1969.
According
to
former
employees,
the
facility
bought,
sold
and
reclaimed
all
types
of
solvents.
Any
inventories
of
chemicals
handled
at
the
facility
were
reportedly
destroyed
in
the
fire.
During
operation,
the
facility
had
an
above­
ground
storage
capacity
of
over
500,000
gallons.
This
consisted
of
eighteen
vertical
tanks,
ranging
in
size
from
2,500
to
25,000
gallons
and
approximately
6,000
55­
gallon
drums.

Sampling
of
residential
wells
began
in
the
mid­
1980s.
In
1985,
analyses
of
approximately
90
residential
well
samples
throughout
Beavercreek
identified
an
area
of
ground
water
contamination
along
the
northern
end
of
the
Valleywood
subdivision,
located
southeast
of
the
facility.
Sampling
revealed
that
the
presence
of
vinyl
chloride
was
above
the
federal
maximum
contaminant
level
(MCL)
for
drinking
water
in
some
wells.
Several
wells
contained
other
volatile
organic
compounds
(VOCs),
such
as
chloroethane,
1,2­
dichloroethene,
perchloroethylene,
and
trichloroethylene.
As
a
result,
the
Ohio
National
Guard
brought
a
350­
gallon
mobile
water
tank
as
an
emergency
water
supply
to
five
homes
along
Patterson
Road.
Nine
homes
that
exceeded
removal
action
levels
of
VOCs
in
drinking
water
were
subsequently
connected
to
the
county
municipal
water
system.

Periodic
ground
water
sampling
has
continued
since
1985,
resulting
in
the
extension
of
the
county
water
line
or
installation
of
filtration
systems
at
several
homes.
Sampling
efforts
in
1988,
1991
and
1997
show
that
the
contaminated
ground
water
plume
has
advanced
into
the
adjacent
Valleywood
subdivision.
In
1992,
Ohio
Environmental
Protection
Agency
conducted
a
Site
Inspection
(SI)
at
the
site.
Six
soil
samples,
four
sediment
and
four
surface
water
samples
from
Little
Beaver
Creek
were
collected
along
with
additional
residential
well
samples.
The
six
soil
samples
from
the
site
indicate
the
presence
of
VOCs,
lead
and
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(PCBs).
The
creek
sediment
samples
revealed
low
concentrations
of
xylenes
and
heavy
metals.

An
Engineering
Evaluation/
Cost
Analysis
(EE/
CA)
was
prepared
for
the
U.
S.
EPA
in
1997.
Soil,
sediment
and
ground
water
samples
were
collected
in
March,
April,
June
and
August
of
1997.
A
total
of
71
residential
well
samples
from
54
homes
were
collected.
VOCs
were
detected
in
28
of
the
wells
sampled
serving
54
homes.
Most
of
the
homes
sampled
had
been
sampled
in
previous
investigations.
Some
samples
were
collected
from
residential
wells
at
homes
that
had
already
been
connected
to
the
municipal
system
to
identify
the
extent
of
the
plume.
Sediment
samples
collected
from
Little
Beaver
Creek
identified
the
presence
of
VOCs
and
semi­
volatile
organic
compounds
(SVOCs).

Soil
contaminant
concentrations
indicate
two
potential
source
areas
for
ground
water
contamination,
on
each
side
of
Little
Beaver
Creek.
Both
areas
of
subsurface
soil
contamination
lie
near
the
level
of
the
water
table.
Similar
VOCs
were
detected
in
both
on­
site
soil
and
monitoring
well
samples,
and
off­
site
residential
well
samples.
Concentrations
of
VOCs
in
on­
site
soils
indicate
that
they
may
be
the
source
of
the
ground
water
contamination
plume.

Similar
contaminants
were
also
detected
in
on­
site
sediment
and
soil
samples,
indicating
that
the
site
may
actually
be
impacting
the
sediments
and
associated
water
quality
of
Little
Beaver
Creek.
Little
Beaver
Creek
flows
into
the
Little
Miami
National
and
State
Scenic
River,
a
popular
recreation
and
wildlife
area.
Possible
targets
along
the
river
in
the
vicinity
of
the
site
include
a
human
food
chain
fishery,
wetlands
and
a
state
threatened
species.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
PESTICIDE
WAREHOUSE
III
Manati,
Puerto
Rico
The
Pesticide
Warehouse
III
(PWIII)
site
is
an
active
facility
located
at
Road
No.
670,
kilometer
(km)
3.7,
in
a
rural/
residential
area
of
Manati,
Puerto
Rico.
The
site
is
approximately
2
acres
in
size
and
consists
of
a
main
warehouse,
a
smaller
warehouse,
and
a
small
shed
which
contains
an
on­
site
well.
The
PWIII
site
is
bounded
to
the
south
by
Road
No.
670,
to
the
west
and
north
by
fields,
and
to
the
east
by
a
church
and
a
retirement
home.
The
Puerto
Rico
Land
Authority
(PRLA)
owned
and
operated
the
site
from
1954
to
1996.
Site
operations
during
this
period
included
the
preparation
of
pesticides/
insecticides,
herbicides,
and
fertilizers.
The
site
is
currently
privately
owned
and
operated.

In
1996­
1997,
EPA
conducted
a
Site
Inspection
(SI)
investigation
which
consisted
of
an
on­
site
reconnaissance
and
a
subsequent
sampling
site
inspection.
During
the
reconnaissance,
the
following
were
noted
to
be
stored
in
bags
within
the
main
warehouse:
magnesium
sulfate,
Ochoa
fertilizer,
sulfate
of
potash,
zinc
sulfate,
ferrous
sulfate,
urea,
MoCap
10G,
Karmex
DF,
Baylethon,
Hyvar
X,
Nemacor
3,
and
Solobar.
Spilled
materials
were
noted
throughout
the
warehouse.
In
addition,
stained
soils
were
noted
throughout
the
site.
Surface
drainage
was
observed
to
be
toward
the
west,
where
it
entered
a
drainage
ditch.
This
ditch
extended
along
the
western
and
northern
boundaries
of
the
site,
where
it
terminated
in
a
leach
pit
located
north
of
the
on­
site
buildings.
This
pit
was
observed
to
be
unlined
and
appeared
to
be
a
natural
sinkhole.

Based
on
the
potential
for
pesticide
contamination
on
site
and
the
potential
impact
to
off­
site
receptors,
EPA
conducted
an
SI
sampling
event
which
included
the
collection
of
15
surface
soil
samples
(depth:
0
to
6
inches)
at
locations
both
on
and
off
the
PWIII
site.
Diazinon,
Malathion,
Diuron,
and
Toxaphene
were
detected
in
on­
site
surface
soil
samples
at
concentrations
significantly
above
background.
These
contaminants
were
also
detected
at
concentrations
significantly
above
background
in
samples
collected
from
the
drainage
ditch
and
associated
leach
pit.
These
contaminants
were
either
observed
on
site
or
were
listed
in
site
Material
Safety
Data
Sheets
(MSDS).
Other
pesticides
detected
in
on­
site
soils
at
concentrations
significantly
above
background
included
alpha­
BHC,
Heptachlor,
Aldrin,
Endosulfan
I,
Dieldrin,
Endrin,
alpha­
Chlordane,
and
gamma­
Chlordane.
Several
pesticides
detected
on
the
PWIII
site
exceeded
EPA
Soil
Screening
Levels
(SSLs).
Zinc
was
also
detected
at
concentrations
significantly
above
background
in
both
on­
site
soils
and
the
retirement
home
located
adjacent
to
the
PWIII
site.
The
contamination
is
related
to
improper
handling
of
pesticides/
insecticides,
herbicides,
and
fertilizers.

Two
sources
have
been
identified
for
the
Hazard
Ranking
System
(HRS)
evaluation
of
the
site:
contaminated
soil
and
the
drainage
ditch
and
associated
leach
pit.
There
are
other
areas
of
environmental
concern,
such
as
a
pit
observed
at
the
bottom
of
a
former
truck
scale
located
south
of
the
main
warehouse
entrance,
and
a
cistern
located
below
the
ruined
northeast
portion
of
the
main
warehouse
building,
and
suspected
asbestos­
containing
materials
located
on
some
of
the
piping
runs
within
the
small
warehouse.

Ground
water
threatened
by
the
PWIII
site
serves
an
approximate
population
of
118,970
people.
These
people
obtain
potable
water
from
wells
screened
in
the
North
Coast
Limestone
Aquifer
System
(i.
e.,
the
aquifer
of
concern),
which
has
karst
aquifers
beneath
the
site.
The
nearest
potable
well
is
the
Coto
Sur
No.
5,
which
is
located
approximately
700
feet
west
of
the
PWIII
site.
This
well
serves
an
approximate
population
of
1,260
people.
In
addition,
analytical
data
from
the
SI
indicates
that
there
is
documented
soil
contamination
at
the
nearby
retirement
home,
which
has
a
building
within
15
feet
from
the
eastern
border
of
the
PWIII
property.
The
population
of
the
retirement
home
is
estimated
to
be
50
people.
There
are
currently
20
workers
at
the
PWIII
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
UNITED
METALS,
INC.
Marianna,
Florida
The
United
Metals,
Inc.,
site
is
located
in
Marianna,
Jackson
County,
Florida,
approximately
2.5
miles
south
of
Interstate
10
and
approximately
1,000
feet
east
of
State
Road
71.
The
site,
which
is
now
abandoned,
was
used
primarily
as
a
lead­
acid
and
nickel­
cadmium
battery
reclamation
facility.
The
site
is
being
proposed
to
the
NPL
because
a
release
of
lead,
chromium,
and
other
metals
has
been
documented
in
facility
soils,
in
a
nearby
wetland,
and
in
a
habitat
used
by
a
Federally
threatened
species.
The
release
also
poses
a
threat
to
a
downstream
recreational
fishery
and
additional
wetland
areas.

From
1979
until
1991,
United
Metals,
Inc.,
processed
and
recycled
used
batteries
within
a
24­
acre
fenced
area
at
its
Marianna
facility.
In
1981,
the
facility
processed
as
many
as
10,000
to
12,000
batteries
per
week,
resulting
in
2,
500
gallons
of
acidic
wastes
per
day.
Until
sometime
in
the
early
1980s,
treated
and
possibly
untreated
wastewater
from
the
recycling
process
flowed
into
a
settling
basin,
then
into
concrete
basins,
and
finally
through
a
ditch
to
an
unlined
holding
pond.
A
second
holding
pond
was
constructed
to
provide
additional
capacity,
but
allegedly
was
never
used.
The
wastewater
system
eventually
was
modified
so
that
the
wastewater
was
stored
in
tanks,
eliminating
the
discharge
to
the
holding
pond.
The
holding
ponds
subsequently
were
abandoned,
dredged,
and
backfilled.
Dredged
sediments
from
the
holding
ponds
and
from
contaminated
drainage
ditches
currently
are
stockpiled
in
the
recycling
building
on
site.

During
the
1980s,
the
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Regulation
(FDER)
conducted
several
inspections
at
the
facility.
In
August
1981,
FDER
and
United
Metals,
Inc.,
entered
into
a
Consent
Order
that
required
numerous
actions
to
be
undertaken
by
United
Metals,
including
payment
of
a
fine,
submittal
of
a
detailed
plan
evaluating
the
wastewater
system,
identification
of
environmental
problems,
completion
of
a
limited
ground
water
assessment,
and
proposal
of
corrective
actions.
In
July
1986,
EPA
conducted
a
RCRA
program
inspection.
EPA
noted
that
RCRA
violations
persisted,
including
improper
closure
of
the
holding
ponds
following
sediment
removal,
improper
storage
of
hazardous
wastes,
inadequate
ground
water
monitoring,
and
operating
without
appropriate
permits
for
hazardous
waste
storage
and
treatment.
As
a
result
of
these
violations,
EPA
issued
an
Amended
Complaint
and
Compliance
Order.

United
Metals,
Inc.,
discontinued
recycling
operations
and
sold
the
facility
to
Anrich
Industries,
Inc.
Anrich
subsequently
renovated
the
facility
and
began
battery
cracking
operations
in
May
1991.
On
May
22,
1991,
the
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(FDEP)
conducted
a
Hazardous
Waste
Inspection
of
the
facility.
FDEP
noted
several
RCRA
violations
and,
in
July
1991,
ordered
that
all
operations
cease.
In
June
1993,
a
Site
Inspection
was
conducted
that
included
the
collection
of
15
soil
samples
and
the
installation
of
five
monitoring
wells.
Soil
samples
collected
from
the
facility
production
area
and
drainage
ditches
were
found
to
be
contaminated
with
lead.
In
1994,
an
Expanded
Site
Investigation
confirmed
the
presence
of
lead
at
significant
levels
in
facility
soils
and
in
the
drainage
ditch
that
flows
into
the
wetland
area.

In
March
1995,
the
EPA
Removal
Assessment
Team
conducted
a
site
visit
to
determine
the
site's
eligibility
for
a
removal
action.
EPA
collected
six
surface
soils
samples,
four
waste
samples
from
55­
gallon
drums
and
three
storage
tanks,
and
two
water
samples
to
identify
the
nature
and
extent
of
contamination
and
to
identify
the
immediate
threat
to
the
public
and
environment.
Lead
was
detected
in
soils,
a
flammable
liquid
was
discovered
in
drums,
and
800
gallons
of
sulfuric
acid
was
found
in
an
on­
site
storage
tank.
As
a
result
of
these
findings,
EPA
initiated
limited
removal
activities
in
January
1996,
and
returned
in
March
1996
to
complete
the
removal.

The
main
area
of
concern
at
the
United
Metals,
Inc.,
facility
is
contaminated
soil
where
the
battery
recycling
activities
were
performed,
as
well
as
contaminated
soil
along
the
drainage
route
to
the
wetland
area
located
west
of
the
facility.
Metals
contamination
has
been
documented
in
the
wetland,
which
also
serves
as
a
habitat
for
the
Flatwoods
Salamander,
a
Federally
threatened
species.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
WARD
TRANSFORMER
Raleigh,
North
Carolina
The
Ward
Transformer
site
is
located
near
the
Raleigh
Durham
International
Airport
in
a
predominantly
industrial
area
of
Raleigh,
Wake
County,
North
Carolina.
The
site
encompasses
an
active
electrical
transformer
building/
reconditioning
facility
constructed
in
1964
on
11
acres
of
previously
undeveloped
land.
A
perennial
stream
bordered
by
wetlands
leads
from
the
property
to
a
recreational
lake
and
fishery.
The
closest
residence,
the
only
one
within
1/
4
mile
of
the
site,
is
approximately
300
feet
northeast
of
the
Ward
Transformer
property.
The
site
is
being
proposed
to
the
NPL
because
elevated
levels
of
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(PCBs),
dioxins,
furans,
arsenic,
chromium,
copper,
lead,
manganese,
and
zinc,
all
attributable
to
facility
operations,
have
been
found
throughout
the
site,
and
elevated
concentrations
of
PCBs
have
been
detected
in
surface
water
downstream
of
the
site,
posing
a
threat
to
recreational
fisheries
and
wetlands.

Prior
to
1972,
stormwater
runoff
flow
from
the
facility
was
uncontrolled.
Two
impoundments
were
constructed
around
1972
to
collect
runoff,
and
in
1979,
a
retaining
wall
(curb
height)
was
constructed
around
the
facility
to
direct
runoff
into
the
impoundment.
An
onsite
treatment
plant,
installed
in
1979,
removes
PCBs
from
the
impoundment
water
prior
to
its
discharge.
Recent
inspections
by
the
North
Carolina
Division
of
Water
Quality
show
that
the
treatment
facility
is
in
compliance.

The
facility
currently
incinerates
used
transformer
parts
in
a
permitted
onsite
burnoff
oven/
incinerator
and
reclaims
copper
from
the
resulting
ash.
Recent
inspections
by
the
North
Carolina
Division
of
Air
Quality
indicate
that
the
incinerator
is
in
compliance
with
its
permit.
Prior
to
the
installation
of
the
incinerator,
transformer
parts
were
burned
in
the
open
air
to
reclaim
copper.
A
concrete
area
near
the
incinerator
is
covered
with
dark,
oily
soil.
In
1978
and
1979,
EPA
collected
samples
on
the
facility
property
and
from
an
unnamed
tributary
and
Little
Brier
Creek
downstream
from
the
facility.
PCB
contamination
was
found
in
soil,
in
the
stormwater
impoundment,
and
water
and
sediment
collected
from
the
unnamed
tributary
and
Little
Brier
Creek.
No
additional
action
was
taken
by
the
EPA
on
the
site
until
1993.
Prompted
by
reports
of
bankruptcy,
EPA
conducted
a
removal
investigation
and
no
contaminants
were
detected
above
removal
action
levels.

The
North
Carolina
Superfund
Section's
Preliminary
Assessment
(PA)
conducted
in
1994,
and
subsequent
Site
Inspection
(SI)
performed
in
1995,
recommended
further
action
under
CERCLA
as
part
of
an
Expanded
Site
Inspection.
In
1997,
samples
were
collected
for
the
Expanded
Site
Inspection
by
the
North
Carolina
Superfund
Section.
Soil
at
the
wooded
rear
of
the
Ward
property,
outside
fencing
or
curbing,
contained
PCB
1260,
manganese,
zinc,
1,
2,
3,
7,
8
pentachlorodibenzofuran,
and
octachlorodibenzofuran.
Sediment
collected
along
the
shoreline
of
the
impoundment
showed
PCB
1260.
Soil
near
the
incinerator
contained
Aroclor
1260,
dioxins,
arsenic,
chromium,
copper,
lead,
manganese,
and
zinc.
Aroclor
1260
was
also
found
in
sediment
samples
collected
from
the
unnamed
tributary
and
Little
Brier
Creek
less
than
a
mile
downstream
of
the
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
ASHLAND/
NORTHLAND
STATES
POWER
LAKEFRONT
Ashland,
Wisconsin
Conditions
at
Proposal
(December
1,
2000):
Ashland/
Northern
States
Power
Lakefront
site
is
located
in
Ashland,
Ashland
County,
Wisconsin,
and
encompasses
Northern
States
Power
Company
(NSP)
property
(the
location
of
a
former
manufactured
gas
plant
(MGP)
that
operated
from
1885­
1947),
Wisconsin
Central
Limited
Railroad
corridor,
Kreher
Park
(formerly
the
location
of
City
of
Ashland's
waste
water
treatment
plant),
and
Chequamegon
Bay.
The
site
is
being
proposed
to
the
NPL
based
on
evidence
that
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
benzo(
a)
anthracene,
xylenes,
ethylbenzene,
and
other
VOCs
from
former
MGP
operations
have
contaminated
soils
and
underlying
ground
water,
and
have
migrated
to
Chequamegon
Bay,
a
recreational
area
and
a
state
endangered
species
habitat.

The
lakefront
portion
of
the
site
has
been
the
location
of
industrial
activities
over
the
past
150
years
and
currently
consists
of
a
landfilled
area
in
the
city­
owned
Kreher
Park.
Sawmills
operated
on
the
lakefront
from
the
early1880s
through
1931.
The
city­
owned
parcels
of
the
lakefront
were
created
during
the
late
1880s
to
the
early
1900s
by
the
placement
of
wood
wastes,
soil,
sand,
and
demolition
wastes
into
Chequamegon
Bay.

During
the
operation
of
the
MGP,
residual
coal
tars
and
oils
were
produced
as
a
by­
product
from
the
manufacture
of
natural
gas
from
coal
Records
indicate
that
the
residual
MGP
wastes
such
as
coal
tar
and
oils
were
discharged
with
the
waste
water.
On­
site
fill
soils
contaminated
with
coal
tar
have
been
found
with
free
product
dense
non­
aqueous
phase
liquids
(DNAPLs)
in
the
base
of
a
former
ravine
that
extends
across
the
NSP
facility,
indicating
that
some
of
the
coal
tar
was
disposed
on
site.
This
ravine
also
contains
cinders
ash,
boiler
slag,
and
demolition
debris.
Just
north
of
the
ravine
is
a
seep
where
water,
oils
and
tar
flow
to
the
land
surface.
Historic
drawings
refer
to
a
waste
tar
dump
between
the
seep
area
and
waste
water
treatment
plant.

In
1989,
the
city
of
Ashland
performed
an
investigation
on
the
Kreher
Park
area
for
possible
expansion
of
the
existing
wastewater
treatment
facility.
The
discovery
of
contamination
from
what
was
believed
to
be
creosote
wastes
in
the
subsoils
and
ground
water
at
Kreher
Park
prompted
the
city
to
abandon
the
project.
Subsequently,
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
(WDNR)
performed
an
assessment
of
the
contamination
in
1998.
Soil
borings
and
ground
water
samples
indicated
elevated
levels
of
hazardous
substances.
Additionally,
WDNR
discovered
that
Chequamegon
Bay
sediments
directly
offshore
of
Kreher
Park
contain
VOCs,
PAHs,
and
DNAPL
oils
and
tars.
Disturbance
of
these
sediments
releases
oils
and
tars
to
the
water
column
and
surface,
causing
a
slick
to
form
on
the
water
surface.

In
1995
and
1999,
NSP
conducted
investigations
that
further
defined
the
area
of
contamination.
Free
product
DNAPL
was
discovered
in
the
ravine,
and
soil
and
groundwater
samples
confirmed
the
presence
of
VOCs
associated
with
coal
tar
wastes.

Boating,
fishing,
and
camping
are
encouraged
in
Chequamegon
Bay,
and
the
Common
Tern,
a
state
endangered
species,
nests
in
Chequamegon
Bay.
In
addition,
the
Ashland
Water
Utility
has
a
water
intake
in
Chequamegon
Bay.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
ATLANTIC
RESOURCES
CORPORATION
Sayreville,
New
Jersey
Conditions
at
Proposal
(September
13,
2001):
The
Atlantic
Resources
Corporation
(ARC)
site
includes
contaminated
soils
on
the
ARC
property
and
the
releases
of
contaminants
from
those
soils
to
the
surrounding
marshes
and
to
the
Raritan
River.
The
site
is
part
of
the
former
Horseshoe
Road
industrial
complex.
The
complex
is
located
in
a
remote
area
in
the
northern
outskirts
of
the
Borough
of
Sayreville,
Middlesex
County,
New
Jersey.
The
ARC
site
is
located
on
the
northeastern
corner
of
the
complex,
bordered
to
the
north
by
the
Middlesex
County
Utilities
Authority
(MCUA)
property,
and
to
the
east
by
Conrail.
To
the
south
is
the
Atlantic
Development
Corporation
(ADC)
area
and
to
the
west
is
the
Horseshoe
Road
Drum
Dump
(HRDD)
area
and
the
contaminated
marsh
area.
The
on­
site
facilities
are
approximately
200
feet
from
the
Raritan
River.
The
ADC,
the
HRDD
and
the
marsh
areas,
and
the
Sayreville
Pesticide
Dump
area,
located
on
the
south
side
of
ADC,
comprise
the
Horseshoe
Road
Superfund
site.

Historical
aerial
photographs
indicate
the
ARC
site
was
developed
in
1939.
The
1939
aerial
photograph
indicates
buildings
and
three
surface
impoundments.
Prior
to
1972
ammonia
wastes
were
reported
to
have
been
disposed
of
in
these
impoundments.
Activities
at
the
site
during
this
period
were
primarily
recycling
and
recovery
of
precious,
semi­
precious,
and
non­
precious
metals.
After
1972,
the
site
continued
to
be
used
for
recycling
activities
including
solvent
reclamation;
possible
hazardous
waste
incineration;
and
the
reclamation,
recovery,
and
refinement
of
precious
metals,
including
gold
and
silver,
from
a
variety
of
sources,
including
film
and
printed
circuit
boards.

Waste
management
problems
associated
with
the
ARC
operations
have
been
noted
since
1974,
including
dumping
and
discharges
directly
to
the
Raritan
River
and
to
the
marsh.
The
State
of
New
Jersey,
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard,
the
Middlesex
County
Health
Department,
and
EPA
have
participated
in
investigations
and/
or
response
actions
at
the
ARC
site.

The
ARC
site
was
originally
included
on
the
National
Priorities
List
(NPL)
as
part
of
the
Horseshoe
Road
Superfund
site
in
September
1995.
As
a
result
of
legal
actions
taken
by
ARC,
this
property
was
formally
removed
from
the
Horseshoe
Road
site
in
April
1997
(62
FR
15571).
EPA
noted
at
that
time
that
"[
r]
emoval
of
the
ARC
area
does
not
preclude
EPA
from
taking
future
action
in
that
area
if
further
evaluation
reveals
the
presence
of
contamination."
Based
on
sampling
performed
between
October
1997
and
August
1998
as
part
of
an
EPA
Remedial
Investigation
(RI)
of
the
Horseshoe
Road
site,
significant
soil
and
subsoil,
surface
water,
and
ground
water
contamination
remains
at
the
ARC
site.
Much
of
this
contamination
is
above
applicable
clean­
up
criteria.
Based
on
these
current
conditions,
EPA
is
adding
the
ARC
site
to
the
NPL.

While
the
EPA
RI
clearly
documents
that
the
release
from
the
ARC
site
is
commingled
with
the
release
from
the
Horseshoe
Road
site,
the
ARC
site
qualifies
independently
for
placement
on
the
NPL.
Surface
water
runoff
from
the
ARC
site
flows
via
two
drainageways
to
the
contaminated
marsh
to
the
west
of
the
site.
One
drainageway,
on
the
southern
boundary
of
the
ARC
property,
may
drain
overland
flow
from
both
the
ADC
and
ARC
properties.
The
other
drainageway,
however
(the
central
drainageway),
carries
runoff
only
from
the
ARC
site.
The
marsh,
in
turn,
flows
to
the
Raritan
River.
Water
and
sediment
samples
taken
from
these
drainageways
as
part
of
the
EPA
RI
contain
many
of
the
same
contaminants
as
the
contaminated
soils
on
the
ARC
property.
One
of
these
samples,
taken
from
the
mouth
of
the
central
drainageway,
was
taken
as
the
water
flowed
into
the
adjacent
marsh
and
demonstrates
that
the
release
from
ARC
is
entering
and
contributing
to
the
contamination
in
the
marsh.
In
turn,
some
of
these
same
contaminants
are
found
downstream
in
the
Raritan
River,
which
is
a
human
food
chain
fishery.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
BRINE
SERVICE
COMPANY
Corpus
Christi,
Texas
Conditions
at
Proposal
(September
13,
2001):
The
Brine
Service
Company
site
is
located
approximately
6.5
miles
west
of
downtown
Corpus
Christi,
situated
along
the
southern
Gulf
Coast
of
Texas.
The
site
is
comprised
of
two
adjacent
waste
disposal
pit
areas,
the
south
pit
area
and
the
north
pit
area.
The
south
pit
area
is
located
on
the
property
formerly
owned
and
operated
by
Brine
Service
Company.
The
south
pit
area
reportedly
received
oil
field
wastes/
drilling
fluids
and/
or
refinery
wastes
from
as
early
as
1946
through
the
1960s.
The
site
was
discovered
in
November
1997
when
a
pipeline
company
was
advancing
an
excavation
trench
through
a
portion
of
the
former
Brine
Service
Company
property
to
install
interconnecting
pipelines
between
two
nearby
refineries.
Subsequent
sampling
of
the
pit
areas
revealed
the
presence
of
metals,
including
mercury,
as
well
as
several
organic
compounds.
The
site
is
being
proposed
to
the
NPL
because
hazardous
substances
associated
with
the
pit
areas
have
migrated
to
an
adjacent
drainage
ditch
and
a
release
of
mercury
has
been
detected
in
downgradient
wetlands
associated
with
Tule
Lake.
Contamination
from
the
site
also
poses
a
threat
to
fisheries
associated
with
Corpus
Christi
Bay,
downstream
of
Tule
Lake.

The
two
pit
areas
were
originally
used
as
a
quarry
for
sand
and
caliche.
After
the
pits
were
excavated,
the
south
pit
area
received
oil
field
brine
and
hydrocarbons.
According
to
an
interview
with
the
president
of
the
Brine
Service
Company,
facility
wastes
were
disposed
in
the
south
pit
area
during
operations
in
the
mid
1950s.
There
is
no
documentation
as
to
the
subsequent
use
of
the
north
pit
area;
however,
the
north
pit
area
is
directly
downgradient
of
the
south
pit
area
and
may
have
received
runoff
or
overflow
from
the
south
pit
area.
Land
use
surrounding
the
Brine
Service
Company
site
is
commercial/
industrial
including
three
refineries.
Three
refineries
are
located
within
1­
mile
of
the
site.
Several
pipelines
traverse
the
site.

Surface
water
drainage
from
the
pit
areas
enters
a
drainage
ditch
located
along
the
east
side
of
the
property.
The
ditch
travels
north
approximately
½
mile
and
empties
into
wetlands
bordering
Tule
Lake.
Tule
Lake
is
a
brackish
shallow
water
wetland
area
and
a
habitat
for
several
State
Listed
Threatened
Species.
Tule
Lake
flows
into
Corpus
Christi
Inner
Harbor,
which
in
turn
flows
into
Corpus
Christi
Bay.
Corpus
Christi
Bay
is
an
estuarine
subtidal
area
and
has
been
nominated
to
the
National
Estuary
Program.
The
Bay
also
is
used
for
recreational
and
commercial
fishing.

The
following
hazardous
substances
were
encountered
during
the
1997
pipeline
trench
excavations
at
the
site:
barium,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
mercury,
fluorene,
2­
methyl
naphthalene,
naphthalene,
phenanthrene,
benzene,
ethylbenzene,
toluene,
1,
2,
4­
trimethylbenzene,
1,3,5­
trimethylbenzene,
xylenes,
2,4­
dimethylphenol,
acenaphthene,
2­
methylphenol
(o­
cresol),
3&
4
methylphenol
(m&
p
cresol),
and
phenol.
Total
benzene
levels
were
documented
as
high
as
79,000
F
g/
kg.
Subsequent
sampling
in
February
2000,
conducted
by
the
Texas
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Commission
(TNRCC),
confirmed
the
presence
of
metals
and
organic
compounds
in
both
pit
areas
and
documented
elevated
concentrations
of
mercury
in
the
nearby
wetland
areas
of
Tule
Lake.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
CALLAHAN
MINE
Brooksville,
Maine
Conditions
at
Proposal
(September
13,
2001):
The
Callahan
Mine
site
is
located
approximately
1,000
feet
east­
southeast
of
Harborside
Village
in
the
Town
of
Brooksville,
Hancock
County,
Maine.
The
site
is
the
former
location
of
a
zinc/
copper
open­
pit
mine.
The
mining
operations
were
conducted
adjacent
to
and
beneath
Goose
Pond,
a
tidal
estuary.
The
Callahan
Mine
was
reputedly
the
only
intertidal
heavy
metal
mine
in
the
world
at
the
time
of
its
operation.
The
property
comprises
150
acres
and
is
located
in
a
coastal,
rural
setting
on
the
Cape
Rosier
peninsula.
The
property
abuts
Goose
Pond
to
the
east,
and
private
properties
to
the
west,
south,
and
north.
Facility
features
include
large
waste
piles
(waste
rock
piles),
a
tailings
pond,
and
mine
operations
buildings
and
structures.
The
open
pit
mine
ceased
operations
in
1972
and
was
flooded
by
opening
a
dam
at
Goose
Falls.
The
mine
is
currently
under
water
and
is
subject
to
daily
tidal
exchange
in
Goose
Pond.
Goose
Pond
is
connected
to
Goose
Cove
to
the
north
by
a
reversing
falls
known
as
Goose
Falls.
Goose
Cove
is
located
on
the
southern
part
of
Penobscot
Bay.

The
zinc/
copper
sulfide
deposit
was
discovered
in
1880
at
low
tide
by
a
clam
digger.
The
main
components
of
this
deposit
were
sphalerite
and
chalcopyrite,
accompanied
by
abundant
pyrite
and
lesser
amounts
of
pyrrhotite.
The
first
mine
operated
until
1887.
Ore
was
mined
from
three
shafts.
Efforts
were
made
to
mine
the
ore
sporadically
through
1964.
Callahan
Mining
Corporation
geologists
became
interested
in
the
potential
of
the
property
in
1964
and
subsequently
open
pit
mining
operations
commenced
in
1968.
Two
dams
were
constructed
at
the
saltwater
inlet
and
freshwater
inlet
of
Goose
Pond.
Fresh
water
that
normally
flowed
into
Goose
Pond
was
diverted
south
to
Wier
Cove
via
a
drainage
ditch.
Goose
Pond
was
subsequently
drained
to
allow
for
the
excavation
of
the
mine.

The
open­
pit
mine
was
approximately
600
to
1,000
feet
in
diameter
and
320
feet
deep.
Approximately
5
million
tons
of
non­
ore­
bearing
waste
rock
and
798,000
to
800,000
tons
of
ore­
bearing
rock
were
removed
from
the
mine.
Waste
rock
was
removed
and
piled
throughout
the
property,
but
predominantly
in
an
area
south
of
Dyer
Cove.
This
area
has
been
referred
to
as
"Callahan
Mountain,"
due
to
the
large
volume
of
waste
rock
located
in
this
area.
In
addition,
a
large
amount
of
marine
clay
(200,000
to
225,000
tons)
was
dumped
on
the
lower
portions
of
"Callahan
Mountain"
after
a
mud
slide
occurred
at
the
open­
pit
mine.
Dyer
Cove,
currently
a
small
part
of
the
Goose
Pond
estuary,
was
a
fully
enclosed
area
used
to
temporarily
store
water
pumped
from
the
open
pit
mine.
Particulates
were
allowed
to
settle
out
prior
to
pumping
the
water
from
this
cove
to
Goose
Cove.
Sediment­
laden
water
from
the
mine
was
also
pumped
through
a
16­
inch
pipe
line,
discharging
directly
into
Goose
Cove,
north
of
Goose
Pond.

Ore
was
trucked
from
the
mine
to
an
ore
storage
area.
From
here,
the
ore
was
loaded
into
a
series
of
crushers
and
mills
that
reduced
the
rock
to
the
consistency
of
fine
sand
and
silt.
The
small
particles
containing
zinc
and
copper
were
then
recovered
by
a
process
called
"flotation".
The
ore
was
passed
through
flotation
cells
into
which
chemicals
were
introduced
that
caused
the
minerals
to
float
on
bubbles.
Chemicals
that
were
used
in
the
flotation
process
included
dithiophosphate
salts,
aryl
phophorodithioate,
cyclohexanol,
and
cresol.
The
flotation
process
creates
a
"froth"
which
lifts
(through
surface
tension)
the
mineral
particles
and
depresses
or
allows
the
remaining
rock
to
sink.
The
mineral
rich
froth
was
collected,
washed,
dried,
and
stockpiled
in
a
portion
of
the
mill
where
it
awaited
transportation
to
a
smelter.
The
average
ore
grade
was
1.30%
copper,
4.91%
zinc,
0.35%
lead,
and
0.50
ounces
per
ton
of
silver.

The
remaining
non­
mineral
particles
and
residues
of
the
chemical
reagents
were
discharged
to
the
tailings
pond.
The
approximately
11­
acre
tailings
pond
is
located
in
the
southern
portion
of
the
property,
adjacent
to
Goose
Pond.
A
series
of
dams
were
constructed
as
material
was
added
to
the
tailings
pond.
The
final
height
of
the
dam
is
82
feet.
Mining
operations
ceased
in
June
1972
due
to
the
depletion
of
the
mineral
reserve.
Milling
ceased
in
July
1972.

A
study
completed
by
the
Maine
Department
of
Marine
Resources
in
1975
examined
bioaccumulation
of
trace
elements
in
selected
marine
organisms
located
in
Goose
Cove.
Levels
of
cadmium,
copper,
lead,
and
zinc
were
detected
at
several
times
to
several
orders
of
magnitude
higher,
in
Goose
Cove
biota
and
sediments
than
in
samples
collected
from
other
Maine
midcoastal
and
river
locations.
The
most
recent
sampling
event
was
conducted
by
the
Maine
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
in
October
1999.
Soil
samples,
tailings
pond
samples,
tailings
pile
samples,
waste
rock
pile
samples,
sediment
samples,
and
surface
water
samples
were
collected.
Soil
samples
were
collected
from
the
mine
entrance
and
the
mine
operations
areas.
Sediment
samples
were
collected
from
Goose
Pond,
Dyer
Cove,
and
Horseshoe
Cove.
Samples
were
submitted
to
the
State
of
Maine
Health
and
Environmental
Testing
Laboratory
for
metals
analysis.
The
analytical
results
for
these
samples
are
used
to
associate
hazardous
substances
with
the
sources
and
attribute
hazardous
substances
to
the
site.
The
sediment
samples
document
actually
contaminated
sensitive
environments
and
an
actually
contaminated
fishery
in
Goose
Pond.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
CAYUGA
COUNTY
GROUND
WATER
CONTAMINATION
Cayuga
County,
New
York
Conditions
at
Proposal
(September
13,
2001):
The
Cayuga
County
Ground
Water
Contamination
site
consists
of
a
plume
of
contaminated
ground
water
from
an
unknown
source(
s).
The
site
is
located
west
of
Syracuse
in
a
rural
area
of
Cayuga
County,
between
the
Village
of
Union
Springs
to
the
west
and
the
City
of
Auburn
to
the
northeast.
The
site
is
in
an
area
consisting
of
residential
properties
intermingled
with
extensive
farmland
and
patches
of
woodlands.
The
homes
in
the
area
use
private
wells
for
potable
water
supply
and
septic
systems
for
sanitary
waste
water
disposal.
The
affected
area
is
not
serviced
by
a
public
water
supply.

Routine
testing
of
the
Village
of
Union
Springs'
municipal
drinking
water
supply
revealed
low
levels
of
cis­
1,2,
DCE,
and
prompted
referral
to
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
for
a
CERCLA/
SARA
response
action
on
December
4,
2000.
Through
investigations
conducted
by
the
New
York
Departments
of
Health
and
Environmental
Conservation
and
by
the
EPA,
over
300
drinking
water
supplies
have
been
sampled
as
of
April
2001.
As
a
result
of
these
sampling
events,
EPA
determined
that
51
residential
wells
are
contaminated
with
volatile
organic
compounds
(VOCs),
primarily
vinyl
chloride,
trichloroethylene
(TCE)
and
cis­
1,
2,
dichloroethylene
(cis­
1,2,
DCE),
in
concentrations
above
the
Federal
maximum
contaminant
levels
(MCLs).
Twenty­
four
of
these
drinking
water
supply
wells
are
contaminated
above
EPA's
Removal
Action
Levels
(RALs)
for
vinyl
chloride
and/
or
cis­
1,1,
DCE
of
two
parts
per
billion
(ppb)
and
400
ppb,
respectively.

As
of
July
2001,
EPA
has
installed
55
treatment
systems
to
treat
contaminated
water
from
52
wells
as
part
of
a
time
critical
Removal
Action.
Two
large
dairy
farms
in
the
impacted
area
have
had
air­
stripper
treatment
systems
installed;
at
these
farms
water
is
used
for
both
residential
drinking
water
and
for
livestock
(approximately
1,500
dairy
cows).
A
treatment
system
installed
on
a
well
at
a
child
day
care
facility
exhibited
partial
breakthrough
of
contaminants
in
May
2001;
however,
contamination
was
contained
due
to
built­
in
redundancy
in
the
treatment
system.

The
suspected
extent
of
the
plume
covers
an
area
of
approximately
3,050
acres
or
4.
8
square
miles
and
falls
within
three
townships,
Aurelius,
Fleming
and
Springport.
The
plume
extends
from
the
Village
of
Union
Springs
to
the
Auburn
City
limits,
a
distance
of
seven
miles,
and
has
approximately
120
homes
within
its
boundaries.

The
ground
water
flow
system
consists
of
three
hydrological
units:
the
overburden,
shallow
bedrock
(Onondaga,
Oriskany,
and
Manlius
Formations)
and
the
deep
bedrock
(Rondout,
Cobleskill
and
Bertie
Formations).
Downward
hydraulic
gradients
exist
throughout,
but
are
particularly
strong
between
the
shallow
and
deep
bedrock
units,
with
water­
level
differences
in
excess
of
40
feet
observed
during
dry
periods
of
the
year.

An
observed
release
of
vinyl
chloride,
TCE
and
cis­
1,2
DCE
has
been
documented
by
chemical
analysis
of
ground
water
samples
collected
from
private
wells
during
an
April
2001,
sampling
event.
Actual
contamination
was
documented
for
49
wells
during
an
April
2001
EPA
sampling
event.
According
to
information
provided
by
NYSDEC
and
preliminary
information
gathered
by
EPA,
the
source
of
the
ground
water
contamination
at
the
site
has
not
been
determined.
Due
to
these
conditions,
the
State
of
New
York
requested
on
June
7,
2001
that
EPA
place
the
site
on
the
NPL.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
CROWN
CLEANERS
OF
WATERTOWN,
INC.
Carthage,
New
York
Conditions
at
Proposal
(September
13,
2001):
The
Crown
Cleaners
of
Watertown,
Inc.
(a.
k.
a.,
Nu­
Art
Cleaners)
site
includes
a
former
laundry/
dry
cleaning
facility
located
along
Route
3
in
the
Village
of
Herrings,
Jefferson
County,
New
York
and
a
groundwater
plume
resulting
from
onsite
contamination
.
The
facility
property
is
approximately
9.82
acres
in
size
and
consists
of
a
main
building
and
several
ancillary
buildings
situated
parallel
to
Route
3
and
along
the
Black
River.
The
property
is
bordered
to
the
north
by
Fort
Drum,
to
the
west
by
residential
dwellings,
to
the
east
by
a
county­
managed
park
and
to
the
south
by
the
Black
River.
From
1890
until
the
mid­
1960s,
the
property
was
used
by
the
St.
Regis
Paper
Company
for
the
purpose
of
producing
paper
bags
and
related
products.
In
the
late
1970s,
the
property
was
purchased
by
Crown
Cleaners.
Company
cleaning
processes
involved
both
dry
and
machine
wash
cleaning.
The
dry
cleaning
operation
involved
the
use
of
tetrachloroethylene
(PCE),
as
well
as
machine
oils
and
greases.
Waste
water
from
the
washing
machines
was
discharged
into
basement
storage
pits,
which
then
discharged
through
the
foundation
walls
to
the
ground
and
the
Black
River.

In
1991,
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Health
(NYSDOH)
discovered
that
the
Village
of
Herrings
public
water
supply
well
was
contaminated
with
PCE.
Concentrations
ranged
from
25
to
50
parts
per
billion
(ppb).
The
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(NYSDEC)
was
contacted
and
preliminary
investigations
were
conducted
in
the
area
of
the
village
well
and
the
Crown
Cleaners
property
,
which
is
located
300
feet
south
of
the
village
well.
The
investigation
included
an
inspection
of
the
Crown
Cleaners
building
and
surrounding
areas.
Analytical
results
of
soil
samples
collected
on
the
Crown
Cleaners
property
indicated
the
presence
of
PCE
at
concentrations
up
to
63,000
ppb.
The
most
contaminated
samples
were
collected
in
the
spent
filter
storage
area,
located
on
the
southwest
side
of
the
main
building.
In
addition,
sampling
of
a
private
well
located
2,200
feet
west
of
Crown
Cleaners
indicated
the
presence
of
PCE
at
concentrations
of
22
to
40
ppb.

In
1991,
NYSDEC
investigated
contamination
of
the
village
well.
Results
of
this
investigation
indicated
that
the
soil
and
ground
water
beneath
the
Crown
Cleaners
building
were
contaminated
with
PCE
and
other
organic
compounds.
This
investigation
also
indicated
that
the
Crown
Cleaners
facility
was
the
source
of
the
PCE
contamination
detected
in
both
the
village
well
and
an
unused
private
well
located
on
an
adjacent
property.
As
a
result
of
this
study,
a
treatment
system
for
the
village
well
was
installed.
The
efficiency
of
the
well
was
improved
during
the
installation
of
the
treatment
system.
As
a
result,
the
system
could
be
operated
in
an
"on­
off"
cycle.
Previous
to
the
study,
the
well
operated
continuously,
creating
a
cone
of
depression
which
reached
the
Crown
Cleaners
site.

In
1998,
NYSDEC
initiated
a
state
Remedial
Investigation/
Feasibility
Study
(RI/
FS)
of
the
Crown
Cleaners
site.
Field
activities
included
several
rounds
of
ground
water
samples
collected
from
wells
in
the
area
of
the
site.
Analytical
results
from
these
sampling
activities
indicated
that
PCE
was
still
present
in
samples
collected
from
on­
site
monitoring
wells,
the
village
well,
and
private
potable
wells
in
the
area.
Concentrations
of
PCE
detected
during
the
RI/
FS
were
less
than
detected
in
1991­
1992
as
a
result
of
the
new
pumping
schedule
of
the
village
well.
Other
RI/
FS
activities
included
a
building
survey,
a
ground
penetrating
radar
survey
of
the
structures
beneath
the
Crown
Cleaners
building,
and
a
limited
removal
of
wastes
located
within
the
building
and/
or
residing
in
containers,
sumps,
or
other
locations.

On
June
8,
2000,
the
NYSDEC
requested
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
to
assess
the
site
for
a
possible
removal
action,
and
to
provide
assistance
in
assessing
contamination
from
the
site
to
local
private
drinking
water
wells
and
the
village
supply
well.
During
EPA's
removal
site
evaluation,
asbestos
insulation
materials
were
observed
in
various
stages
of
deterioration
throughout
the
entire
facility.
In
addition,
five
above
or
partially
buried
steel
storage
tanks
were
located
near
the
building's
electrical
room.
These
vessels
ranged
from
275
to
10,000
gallons
and
appeared
to
contain
a
petroleum­
derived
product.
The
estimated
quantity
of
materials
within
these
tanks
was
5,000
gallons.
Evidence
of
leakage
was
noted
at
each
of
these
tanks.
Based
on
an
evaluation
of
previous
analytical
data,
historical
information,
and
the
removal
site
evaluation,
EPA
determined
that
the
site
poses
a
threat
to
public
health,
welfare,
and
environment
and
that
the
site
met
the
requirements
of
the
National
Contingency
Plan
for
the
undertaking
of
a
removal
action.
Activities
planned
for
the
removal
action
include
securing
the
site,
removal
and
disposal
of
volatile
organic
contaminated
sludge/
debris,
sump
pit
water,
and
soils/
spent
dry
cleaning
filters,
removal
of
friable
asbestos­
containing
materials,
and
removal
and
disposal
of
approximately
5,000
gallons
of
waste
oil.

PCE
contamination
in
ground
water
is
documented
by
the
chemical
analyses
of
ground
water
samples
collected
from
the
Village
of
Herrings
potable
public
supply
well.
PCE
contamination
is
documented
for
this
well,
which
is
located
300
feet
south
of
the
site
and
serves
an
approximate
population
of
140
people.
This
well
is
screened
in
the
Pamelia
Formation.
PCE
contamination
is
also
documented
by
chemical
analyses
of
ground
water
samples
collected
from
on­
site
monitoring
wells.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
CURTIS
BAY
COAST
GUARD
YARD
Anne
Arundel
County,
Maryland
Conditions
at
Proposal
(September
13,
2001):
The
United
States
Coast
Guard
(USCG)
Yard,
Hawkins
Point
Road
is
a
113­
acre
federal
facility
located
adjacent
to
Curtis
Creek
approximately
six
miles
southeast
of
downtown
Baltimore.
The
current
mission
of
the
USCG
Yard,
Hawkins
Point
Road
is
to
provide
core
industrial
support
for
the
Coast
Guard,
including
the
design,
construction,
and
repair
of
ships
and
boats.
The
Yard
at
Hawkins
Point
was
originally
established
in
1899
as
a
Coast
Guard
training
academy
and
boat
repair
facility.
Industrial
development
began
at
Hawkins
Point
around
1906.
By
1910,
the
Yard
had
become
a
fully
operational
ship­
building
and
repair
facility.
The
Yard
reached
its
peak
of
development
during
World
War
II,
with
a
civilian
workforce
of
more
than
3,000.
In
1941,
a
bulkhead
was
constructed
farther
out
into
Curtis
Creek.
Three
piers
and
two
floating
dry
docks
were
built
and
moored
along
the
piers.
The
current
waterfront
configuration
was
essentially
completed
when
construction
was
finished
in
the
mid­
1940s.
Following
World
War
II,
the
Yard
workforce
gradually
declined.
Site
operations,
including
vessel
repair
and
overhaul,
buoy
construction,
and
various
manufacturing
operations,
continued
into
the
1960s
and
1970s.
Manufacturing
operations
were
reduced
at
Hawkins
Point
throughout
the
1980s
and
1990s.
Major
activities
in
the
1990s
centered
around
the
construction
of
a
3,500­
ton
shiplift.

An
initial
Preliminary
Assessment
(PA)
was
completed
in
1993
at
the
Yard.
The
PA
identified
13
areas
as
potential
sources
of
contamination.
In
1998,
the
USCG
submitted
to
EPA
supplemental
information
to
the
1993
PA.
The
supplemental
information
identified
four
of
the
13
sites
as
petroleum­
release
sites
that
are
exempt
from
CERCLA.
The
nine
remaining
areas
of
potential
contamination
were
addressed
in
the
Site
Inspection
(SI)
conducted
at
the
site
in
2000.
Two
of
these
areas
(areas
6
and
13)
are
not
evaluated
in
the
Hazard
Ranking
System
(HRS)
scoring
because
available
data
indicate
there
is
no
significant
chemical
contamination
associated
with
these
sources.
Six
of
the
nine
areas
of
potential
contamination,
identified
as
areas
4,
5,
7,
8,
9,
and
11,
are
included
as
sources
in
the
HRS
scoring.

The
sampling
results
collected
from
the
six
sources
currently
identified
at
the
Yard
indicate
contamination
with
semi­
volatile
organic
compounds
(SVOCs),
volatile
organic
compounds
(VOCs)
metals,
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(PCBs),
pesticides,
and
dioxins.
The
sources
are
not
contained,
therefore
the
hazardous
substances
are
available
to
migrate
into
adjacent
surface
waters.
The
USCG
Yard,
Hawkins
Point
Road
is
located
in
an
area
characterized
by
the
existence
of
a
documented
fishery,
Curtis
Creek.
The
Patapsco
River
and
the
Chesapeake
Bay,
which
are
within
the
fifteen­
mile
downstream
target
distance
limit,
are
also
designated
fisheries.
The
only
fishery
sampled
to
date
is
Curtis
Creek.
The
sample
results
indicate
that
a
release
of
metals,
SVOCs,
and
PCBs
has
occurred
to
this
fishery.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
DEL
AMO
Los
Angeles,
California
Conditions
at
Proposal
(December
1,
2000):
The
Del
Amo
site
should
be
placed
on
the
National
Priorities
List
(NPL)
because
contaminated
ground
water
beneath
the
site
could
effect
water
that
people
drink.
The
Del
Amo
site
is
located
within
the
Los
Angeles
city
limits,
Los
Angeles
County,
California,
in
proximity
to
the
Cities
of
Torrance
and
Carson.
From
the
early
1940s
to
the
early
1970s,
a
280­
acre
synthetic
rubber
manufacturing
facility
operated
on
the
property.
The
facility
consisted
of
the
following
three
plants:
a
butidiene
plant,
a
styrene
plant,
and
a
copolymer
plant.
The
facility
was
dismantled
in
the
early
to
mid
1970s,
and
the
property
is
currently
occupied
by
a
business
park.
The
Montrose
Chemical
Corporation
NPL
site
is
located
approximately
600
feet
west
of
the
Del
Amo
site.

The
1998
Final
Groundwater
Remedial
Investigation
Report
identified
the
following
12
areas
of
concern
for
ground
water
contamination
on
the
Del
Amo
site:
1)
cyclohexane
tanks
associated
with
the
former
copolymer
plant
in
the
northern
portion
of
the
site,
2)
pits
and
trenches
in
the
former
copolymer
plant
area,
3)
XMW­
20
non­
aqueous
phase
liquid
(NAPL)
in
the
former
styrene
plant
area
in
the
western
portion
of
the
site,
4)
volatile
organic
compound
(VOC)
tanks
associated
with
the
former
styrene
finishing/
benzene
purification
unit,
5)
VOC
tanks
and/
or
pipelines
associated
with
the
former
styrene
finishing
unit,
6)
tank
farm
in
the
former
styrene
plant
area,
7)
VOC
storage
tanks
associated
with
the
former
ethylbenzene
production
unit
#1,
8)
VOC
storage
tanks
associated
with
the
former
ethylbenzene
production
unit
#2,
9)
utility
tanks
in
the
former
styrene
plant
area,
10)
waste
pit
area
and
underground
petroleum
pipelines
in
the
southern
portion
of
the
site,
11)
underground
benzene
pipeline
in
the
southeast
portion
of
the
site,
and
12)
laboratory
underground
pipelines
in
the
former
butadiene
plant
area
in
the
eastern
portion
of
the
site.
The
Del
Amo
HRS
Documentation
Record
focuses
on
two
of
these
12
areas
of
concern
(the
XMW­
20
NAPL
and
the
waste
pit
area).

The
XMW­
20
NAPL
is
composed
primarily
of
benzene
(90
percent)
with
lesser
quantities
of
toluene,
ethylbenzene,
and
styrene.
It
is
located
approximately
50
feet
from
the
historic
location
of
a
500,000­
gallon
crude
benzene
storage
tank
and
extends
laterally
over
an
area
of
approximately
17,500
feet.
The
NAPL
is
limited
to
the
saturated
zone,
occurring
as
isolated
blobs
in
a
smear
zone
that
extends
vertically
from
the
water
table,
at
approximately
60
feet
below
ground
surface,
to
30
feet
below
the
water
table.

The
waste
pit
area
occupies
approximately
3.7
acres
in
the
southern
portion
of
the
site
and
consists
of
six
disposal
pits
(Pits
2A
through
2F)
and
two
evaporation
ponds
(Ponds
1B
and
1C).
The
pits
and
ponds
received
process
wastes
from
the
styrene
manufacturing
plant.
The
pits
and
ponds
are
currently
covered
with
fill
material,
weeds,
and
miscellaneous
debris,
and
the
3.7­
acre
parcel
is
surrounded
by
a
double
row
of
fences.
Hazardous
substances
in
the
waste
remaining
in
the
pits
and
ponds
include
benzene,
ethylbenzene,
and
naphthalene.
The
pits
and
ponds
are
evaluated
as
two
separate
sources
in
the
Del
Amo
HRS
Documentation
Record.

Ground
water
proximal
to
the
XMW­
20
NAPL
is
contaminated
with
benzene
at
concentrations
up
to
1,200,000
ug/
L.
Soils
located
beneath
the
waste
pit
area
have
come
to
be
located
below
the
top
of
the
water
table,
due
to
rising
ground
water
levels.
These
soils
are
contaminated
with
the
same
hazardous
substances
that
are
found
in
the
waste
remaining
in
the
pits
(e.
g.,
benzene,
ethylbenzene,
and
naphthalene).
There
are
17
municipal
drinking
water
wells
within
4
miles
of
the
Del
Amo
site.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
DIAMOND
HEAD
OIL
REFINERY
DIV.
Kearny,
New
Jersey
Conditions
at
Proposal
(July
27,
2000):
The
Diamond
Head
Oil
Refinery
Div.
(Diamond
Head)
site
is
located
at
1401
Harrison
Ave.
in
Kearny,
Hudson
County,
New
Jersey.
Currently,
the
site
is
inactive
and
consists
of
undeveloped
land
that
is
bordered
by
Harrison
Avenue
to
the
north,
entrance
ramp
M
of
Interstate
280
(I­
280)
to
the
east,
I­
280
to
the
south,
and
Campbell
Distribution
Foundry
to
the
west.
The
site
is
comprised
of
wetland
areas
and
drainage
ditches,
a
small
wetland/
pond,
a
vegetated
landfill
area
along
the
western
border
of
the
site,
and
the
remnants
of
the
former
Diamond
Head
Oil
Refinery
on
the
eastern
portion
of
the
site.
The
abandoned
refinery
portion
of
the
site
contains
various
construction
debris,
including
foundations
of
the
former
on­
site
building
and
two
former
aboveground
storage
tanks.
The
refinery
is
currently
owned
by
the
Hudson
Meadows
Urban
Land
Development
Corporation
(HMULDC).
A
portion
of
the
site
is
owned
by
HMULDC.

The
Diamond
Head
Oil
Refinery
Div.
was
in
operation
from
February
1,
1946
to
early
1979.
The
facility
operated
under
several
company
names
including
PSC
Resources,
Inc.,
Ag­
Met
Oil
Service,
Inc.,
and
Newtown
Refining
Corporation.
All
of
these
companies
were
owned
by
Mr.
Robert
Mahler.
In
January
1985,
Newtown
Refining
Corporation
sold
the
property
to
Mimi
Urban
Development
Corporation,
which
changed
its
name
to
Hudson
Meadows
Urban
Land
Development
Corporation.

During
facility
operations,
two
aboveground
storage
tanks
and
possibly
underground
pits
were
used
to
store
oily
wastes.
These
wastes
were
intermittently
discharged
directly
to
adjacent
properties,
including
the
wetland
area
to
the
south
of
the
site,
creating
an
oil
lake.
The
New
Jersey
Department
of
Transportation
(NJDOT)
acquired
the
property
south
of
the
refinery
on
March
6,
1968.
In
1977,
NJDOT
began
construction
of
I­
280
and
was
reported
to
have
removed
9
million
gallons
of
oil­
contaminated
water
and
200,000
to
250,000
cubic
yards
of
oily
sludge
from
the
lake.
The
material
was
reportedly
transported
to
Newtown
Refining
Corporation's
facility
on
Long
Island
to
be
recycled;
however,
there
are
no
reports
stating
that
this
recycling
process
occurred.
It
is
also
reported
that
during
the
construction
of
I­
280,
an
underground
lake
of
oil­
contaminated
ground
water
was
found
extending
from
the
eastern
limits
of
the
NJDOT
right­
of­
way
to
Frank's
Creek
on
the
west.
It
is
reported
that,
prior
to
abandoning
the
refinery,
Diamond
Head
cleaned
out
the
two
aboveground
tanks;
however,
there
is
no
known
documentation
of
this
activity.
From
the
close
of
operations
in
1979
until
1982,
the
abandoned
refinery
was
not
completely
fenced.
During
this
time,
it
was
reported
that
dumping
of
waste
oils
and
other
debris
took
place
on
site.
Refinement
International
Co.
hired
Eastern
Chemical
Co.
to
clean
up
the
refinery
in
May
1982.
In
order
to
do
so,
the
material
in
the
tanks
was
analyzed
and
found
to
contain
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(PCBs)
at
a
concentration
of
206
parts
per
million
(ppm).
Subsequent
analyses
revealed
the
presence
of
PCBs
at
concentrations
over
3,100
ppm.
Approximately
7,500
gallons
of
material
were
pumped
out
of
the
tanks
and
disposed
off
site
by
a
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
permitted
Treatment,
Storage,
and
Disposal
Facility
(TSDF)
by
Resource
Technology
Service.
Environmental
Transport
also
removed
27
tons
of
contaminated
soil
in
May
1982.

Background
information
indicates
that
previous
investigations
have
been
conducted
at
the
Diamond
Head
Oil
Refinery
Div.
site.
These
investigations
include
a
sampling
event
conducted
by
the
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(NJDEP),
an
Environmental
Site
Characterization
conducted
by
Killam
Associates,
and
a
Site
Inspection
conducted
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
Region
II
Field
Investigation
Team
(FIT).
During
these
investigations,
ground
water,
surface
water/
sediment,
surface/
subsurface
soil,
liquid
waste
and
solid
waste
samples
were
collected.
Analytical
results
of
these
samples
indicated
the
presence
of
volatile
organic
compounds
(VOCs),
and
semivolatile
organic
compounds
(SVOCs),
pesticides,
PCBs,
and
metals.

In
December
1999
EPA
conducted
an
Expanded
Site
Inspection
(ESI)
at
the
Diamond
Head
Oil
Refinery
Div.
site.
During
the
ESI,
EPA
collected
surface/
subsurface
soil
and
ground
water
samples
from
20
borings
advanced
throughout
the
site.
EPA
also
collected
sediment
samples
from
the
on­
site
wetland/
pond
area
as
well
as
from
the
wetland
area
extending
along
the
southern
perimeter
of
the
site.
Analytical
results
indicated
the
presence
of
VOCs,
SVOCs,
pesticides,
PCBs,
and
metals.
An
observed
release
to
surface
water
is
documented
by
chemical
analyses
of
sediment
samples
collected
from
wetlands
along
the
southern
and
western
boundaries
of
the
site.
Level
II
concentration
of
lead
and
zinc
are
documented
to
0.19
mile
of
wetland
frontage
located
along
the
southern
perimeter
of
the
site.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
ELLENVILLE
SCRAP
IRON
AND
METAL
Ellenville,
New
York
Conditions
at
Proposal
(September
13,
2001):
The
Ellenville
Scrap
Iron
and
Metal
facility
is
a
24­
acre,
inactive
scrap
iron
and
metal
reclamation
facility
located
at
34
Cape
Road
in
the
rural
Village
of
Ellenville,
Ulster
County,
New
York.
Approximately
10
acres
of
the
facility
were
used
for
the
scrap
metal
operations.
The
facility
is
bound
to
the
north
by
Cape
Road;
to
the
south
and
west
by
Beer
Kill;
and
to
the
east
by
residential
homes,
one
of
which
was
formerly
part
of
the
property,
used
for
the
storage
of
heavy
equipment
and
automobile
batteries.
The
facility
consists
of
an
office
building,
truck
scale,
hydraulic
baling
machine
used
for
metal
cans
and
other
small
parts,
scrap
metal
piles,
a
landfill
embankment
composed
of
construction
and
demolition
debris,
and
automobile
battery
and
brush
piles.
Deteriorated
drums
are
found
scattered
throughout
the
property,
the
majority
of
which
are
found
on
the
lower
portion
adjacent
to
Beer
Kill.
The
landfill
embankment,
approximately
40
feet
in
height,
runs
in
a
crescent
along
a
northwesterly
to
southeasterly
axis
bisecting
and
dividing
the
site
into
upper
and
lower
portions.

The
Ellenville
facility,
in
operation
since
1950,
was
used
for
the
recycling
of
automobile
batteries.
The
facility
was
purchased
in
late
1997
and
used
as
a
landfill
and
tire
dump.
A
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(NYSDEC)
permit
was
never
obtained
to
operate
a
solid
waste
management
facility
or
to
store
tires
at
the
site.
From
1987
to
1998
NYSDEC
inspected
the
Ellenville
facility
on
numerous
occasions
and
directed
the
owners
to
remediate
conditions
at
the
site.
In
March
1987,
Ellenville
Scrap
proposed
a
Settlement
of
Claim
with
NYSDEC,
which
was
accepted
on
January
15,
1988.
As
part
of
that
Settlement
of
Claim,
Ellenville
Scrap
acknowledged
that
it
was
operating
a
solid
waste
management
facility
without
a
NYSDEC
permit
and
that
it
had
improperly
disposed
of
industrial
waste.
In
connection
with
this
settlement,
Ellenville
Scrap
agreed
to
close
and
cover
the
area
where
construction
and
demolition
debris
had
been
disposed.
Subsequent
Consent
Orders
entered
into
by
Ellenville
Scrap
and
C.
Bruno
Demolition
with
the
NYSDEC
called
for
an
evaluation
of
site
conditions
and
the
removal
of
all
construction
and
demolition
debris
at
the
facility
that
did
not
meet
exemption
criteria
of
state
environmental
law.
As
of
June
2000,
construction
and
demolition
debris
had
not
been
removed
from
the
site.

Two
sources
have
been
identified
for
the
Hazard
Ranking
System
(HRS)
evaluation
of
the
site:
contaminated
soil
in
the
facility
disposal
area,
and
the
landfill
embankment.
There
are
other
areas
of
environmental
concern,
such
as
piles
of
scrap
metal,
miscellaneous
waste,
waste
tires,
railroad
ties,
and
automobile
batteries,
as
well
as
leachate
that
has
been
observed
discharging
from
the
embankment,
ponding
at
its
base,
and
flowing
to
and
disappearing
beneath
a
pile
of
brush.

There
is
an
observed
release
of
bis(
2­
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
to
a
surface
water/
sediment
sampling
location
in
Beer
Kill.
Beer
Kill
is
a
fishery
and
is
designated
for
recreational
use.
Seven
residential
properties
are
located
in
a
neighborhood
adjacent
to
the
site.
There
is
documented
contamination
above
regulatory
levels
at
two
of
these
residences
with
polychorinated
biphenyls
(PCBs);
one
of
these
residences
was
formerly
part
of
the
facility
and
was
used
for
the
storage
of
heavy
equipment
and
automobile
batteries.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
EUREKA
MILLS
Eureka,
Utah
Conditions
at
Proposal
(June
14,
2001):
The
Eureka
Mills
site
is
approximately
135
acres
of
lead­
and
arsenic­
contaminated
soil
located
in
the
Town
of
Eureka,
approximately
60
miles
south
of
Salt
Lake
City
and
12
miles
west
of
Utah
Lake.
Eureka
is
one
of
several
towns
in
the
Tintic
Mining
District,
which
was
organized
in
the
spring
of
1870.
Richer
ores
from
the
district
were
shipped
to
larger
smelters
both
in
the
United
States
and
abroad.
It
was
not
economical
to
ship
the
lower
grade
ores,
so
milling
and
smelting
operations
began
to
be
developed
near
the
mines.
A
total
of
14
mills
may
have
been
operated
in
the
Tintic
District.
These
mills
concentrated
ores
and
made
them
more
profitable
for
shipping.
Early
mills
in
Eureka
used
the
mercury
amalgamation
process,
in
which
ore
was
crushed
into
a
pulp,
run
over
vanners,
and
collected
as
amalgam
in
tanks
and
pans.
A
number
of
smelters
have
also
operated
in
the
Tintic
District
over
the
years.
However,
none
were
very
successful
nor
operated
for
any
substantial
length
of
time.

The
Utah
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
(UDEQ),
in
conjunction
with
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
collected
22
soil
and
9
sediment
samples
from
the
Eureka
area
in
2000.
Soil
samples
were
collected
from
residential
areas,
from
the
Tintic
High
School
and
Eureka
Elementary
Schools,
and
adjacent
to
mill
sites.
Sediment
samples
were
collected
along
Eureka
Gulch
and
in
the
gulch
below
four
of
the
possible
mill
sites
in
Eureka.
These
samples
were
analyzed
for
total
metals
and
indicated
the
presence
of
arsenic
and
lead
concentrations
as
great
as
1,030
milligrams
per
kilogram
(mg/
kg)
and
29,300
mg/
kg,
respectively.

The
discovery
of
these
concentrations
prompted
EPA
to
begin
a
Removal
Evaluation
in
August
2000.
It
included
the
collection
of
4,211
surface
soil
samples
from
approximately
837
"zones"
in
Eureka.
All
samples
were
analyzed
using
X­
ray
fluorescence
(XRF).
Of
these
4,211
samples,
10
percent
were
sent
to
a
laboratory
for
confirmational
analysis.
Of
these
confirmation
samples,
225
were
discrete
depth
samples
taken
from
between
0
and
24
inches
below
ground
surface.
When
compared
to
site
background
levels,
the
results
of
the
laboratory
confirmation
samples
were
utilized
to
delineate
an
area
of
more
than
5
million
square
feet
of
surficial
arsenic­
and
lead­
contaminated
soil.

The
methods
of
migration
from
the
contamination
are
various.
Historical
flooding
has
occurred,
which
may
have
transported
mine
and
mill
wastes
down
gradient
toward
and
through
the
town.
Human
actions
have
also
probably
served
to
spread
contamination
around
the
Town
of
Eureka.
In
1900,
tailings
ponds
broke
and
flooded
Eureka
Gulch.
Wastes
from
one
milling
process
were
allowed
to
flow
downhill
and
into
Eureka
Gulch.
The
use
of
tailings
as
fill
material
around
the
town
appears
to
have
been
widespread.
Horse
teams
and
wagons
hauled
most
of
the
district's
ore
in
its
early
days.
It
is
likely
that
some
primary
ore
carried
in
this
manner
was
inadvertently
lost
during
transportation.
Aerial
deposition
from
blowing
dust,
and
to
a
lesser
extent
from
smelting,
is
also
a
potential
mode
of
contaminant
transportation.

An
evaluation
of
the
confirmation
data
from
within
the
area
of
observed
soil
contamination
indicates
there
are
approximately
150
residences
that
are
subject
to
actual
contamination,
both
above
and
below
health
based
benchmarks.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
FRANKLIN
SLAG
PILE
(MDC)
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Conditions
at
Proposal
(September
13,
2001):
The
Franklin
Slag
Pile
(MDC)
site
(FSP)
is
located
in
the
Port
Richmond
section
of
northeast
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
The
FSP
site
consists
of
a
large
pile
of
copper
slag
situated
on
an
approximately
four­
acre
lot.
The
volume
of
the
slag
pile
is
approximately
68,000
cubic
yards.
The
slag
was
generated
as
a
by­
product
from
copper
smelting
conducted
at
the
adjacent
Franklin
Smelting
and
Refining
Corporation
(FSRC).
MDC
Industries
(MDC)
sold
the
slag
as
sand­
blasting
grit
in
50­
pound
bags
and
by
the
truckload
for
40
years.
MDC
ceased
operations
and
abandoned
the
site
on
December
30,
1999.

The
slag
pile
is
located
on
a
lot
measuring
approximately
300
feet
by
550
feet.
The
lot
is
bordered
by
a
CONRAIL
rail
spur
to
the
north;
by
the
lagoon
and
wetland
area
belonging
to
the
Philadelphia
Water
Department
(PWD)
Northeast
Water
Treatment
Plant
to
the
north
and
east;
by
Delaware
Avenue
and
Tioga
Marine
Terminal
to
the
southeast;
by
Castor
Avenue,
portions
of
the
former
FSRC
site,
and
the
Philadelphia
Gas
Works
(PGW)
to
the
southwest;
and
by
FSRC
to
the
northwest.
The
Delaware
River
is
less
than
1/
4
mile
to
the
southeast.
No
residents
are
located
within
1/
4
mile
of
the
site.

While
MDC
operated,
material
from
the
slag
pile
was
observed
to
have
migrated
off
the
property
on
all
four
sides
of
the
site.
The
entire
sidewalk
area
between
MDC
and
Delaware
Avenue
was
covered
in
black
slag
material.
Black
slag
also
covered
an
inactive
rail
line
bordering
the
Tioga
Marine
Terminal
on
the
north
side.
Storm
drains
along
Castor
and
Delaware
Avenues,
which
empty
directly
into
the
Delaware
River,
were
caked
with
slag
that
had
washed
off
the
property.
Slag
was
observed
in
a
wetland
area
on
the
PWD
property.
Slag
was
observed
being
carried
by
the
wind
off
the
property.
Tioga
Marine
Terminal
employees
complained
of
slag
material
in
their
beverages.
MDC
was
cited
by
EPA
Region
III
Water
Protection
Division
(WPD)
for
releasing
lead
in
storm
water
run­
off
that
was
captured
by
storm
drains
that
discharged
into
the
Delaware
River.

Samples
of
the
slag
revealed
leachable
concentrations
of
lead
up
to
36,900
micrograms
per
liter
(ug/
L)
and
concentrations
of
lead
up
to
9,060
milligrams
per
kilogram
(mg/
kg).
In
January
2000,
an
emergency
response
action
was
initiated
at
the
site.
The
action
included
capping
the
slag
pile
in
place;
decontaminating
and
removing
equipment
stored
in
the
slag
pile;
removing
slag
that
had
spilled
off
site
onto
sidewalks,
roads,
and
adjacent
properties;
removing
visible
slag
from
the
wetland
adjacent
to
the
northeastern
side
of
the
site;
excavating
slag
and
contaminated
soil
from
the
active
and
inactive
railroads
located
southeast
and
northwest
of
the
site;
and
cleaning
slag
from
adjacent
storm
drains.
Not
all
of
the
slag
was
removed
from
the
surrounding
properties.

Air
samples
collected
during
the
emergency
response
actions
revealed
an
observed
release
of
beryllium,
copper,
and
lead
to
air.
While
MDC
operated,
MDC
was
cited
for
releasing
lead
into
the
air
at
concentrations
exceeding
ambient
air
standards.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
HATHEWAY
AND
PATTERSON
COMPANY
Mansfield,
Massachusetts
Conditions
at
Proposal
(September
13,
2001):
Hatheway
and
Patterson
Company
(HPC)
is
a
former
wood
preserving
facility
located
in
a
mixed
residential
and
industrial
area
in
Mansfield,
Bristol
County,
Massachusetts.
The
HPC
property
comprises
approximately
40
acres
and
is
bordered
to
the
north
by
County
Street
and
residential
properties,
to
the
south
and
west
by
forested
and
wetland
areas,
and
to
the
east
by
a
welding
and
masonry
supply
company.
The
property
is
roughly
divided
in
half
by
the
Rumford
River,
which
runs
north
to
south,
and
by
a
railroad
track
right­
of­
way,
which
runs
east
and
west.
The
HPC
site
is
being
proposed
to
the
NPL
because
releases
of
dioxins,
furans,
and
phenols
from
the
facility
to
the
Rumford
River
have
impacted
fisheries
and
wetlands,
and
releases
of
arsenic,
chromium,
copper,
phenols
(including
pentachlorophenol
(PCP)),
and
polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(PAHs)
to
ground
water
pose
a
threat
to
nearby
municipal
and
private
drinking
water
wells.

Operations
at
the
HPC
property
included
preserving
wood
sheeting,
planking,
timber,
piling,
poles,
and
other
wood
products.
HPC
began
wood
treating
operations
at
the
property
in
1953,
although
it
operated
at
the
facility
since
1927.
Operations
between
1927
and
1953
are
unknown.
HPC
historically
used
various
methods
and
materials
to
treat
wood
on
the
property,
including
PCP
in
fuel
oil,
creosote,
fluorochrome
arsenate­
phenol
(FCAP)
salts,
chromated
copper­
arsenate
(CCA),
Dricon
tm
(a
fire
retardant),
and
other
chemicals.

In
1971,
a
tar
mat
approximately
62
feet
long
and
6
inches
wide
was
discovered
by
town
of
Mansfield
and
Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(MADEP)
personnel.
At
the
end
of
1972,
a
citizen
complained
of
"oily
water"
and
dead
water
fowl
in
the
Rumford
River
downstream
of
the
HPC
facility.
Subsequently,
MADEP
and
the
town
of
Mansfield
requested
that
HPC
contain
the
seepage.
By
1973,
HPC
developed
a
contaminated
ground
water
recovery
trench
located
along
the
east
bank
of
the
Rumford
River
just
upstream
from
its
confluence
with
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel.
Oily
seepage
was
again
detected
in
the
Rumford
River
in
1981
by
a
prospective
buyer
of
the
site.
In
1987,
HPC
was
issued
a
Notice
of
Noncompliance
by
the
MADEP,
which
ordered
that
HPC
conduct
a
soils
and
hydrology
assessment
of
the
site.
In
1988,
MADEP
issued
HPC
a
Notice
of
Responsibility,
and
in
1990,
MADEP
issued
a
Request
for
Short­
Term
Measure
to
address
the
imminent
contamination
of
the
Rumford
River
emanating
from
the
site.
In
1992,
EPA's
RCRA
program
personnel
conducted
inspections
of
the
HPC
facility
and
determined
that
the
drip
pads
were
not
in
compliance.
In
1984,
HPC
filed
for
bankruptcy
and
ceased
operations
in
April
1993.

Because
wood
treating
solvents,
chemicals,
sludges,
tanks,
sumps,
and
drums
were
abandoned
by
HPC
on
the
property
with
no
electricity
or
heat,
conditions
at
the
site
posed
a
significant
threat
of
hazardous
substance
releases.
Therefore,
in
December
1993,
EPA's
Emergency
Planning
and
Response
Branch
initiated
a
two
year
removal
action
to
address
problems
at
the
HPC
site.
Upon
initiating
the
removal
action,
EPA
discovered
several
process
and
support
buildings
that
contained
large
tanks,
process
vessels,
drums,
sumps,
pits,
and
various
small
containers.
Outside
on
the
property,
EPA
discovered
three
drip
pads,
treated
lumber
storage
areas,
three
above
ground
tanks
containing
PCP,
another
tank
containing
fuel
oil,
three
tanks
containing
Dricon
tm
in
water,
and
six
underground
storage
tanks.
Over
50,000
gallons
of
waste
water
was
removed
by
EPA
during
this
action;
an
undetermined
amount
of
contaminated
soil
remains
at
the
site.
HPC's
operations
and
abandoned
materials
have
caused
releases
of
site­
related
contaminants
to
soils,
ground
water,
and
surface
water.

In
1999,
the
state
of
Massachusetts,
at
the
recommendation
of
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Control,
closed
the
Rumford
River
downstream
of
the
HPC
facility
to
all
fishing
due
to
dioxin
contamination
attributed
to
HPC.
Releases
of
dioxins
and
phenols
also
have
impacted
approximately
1.
25
miles
of
wetland
frontage
along
the
Rumford
River,
and
the
releases
pose
a
threat
to
several
other
wetland
areas,
fisheries,
and
habitats
used
by
State
designated
threatened
species
downstream
of
the
facility.
In
addition,
over
44,000
people
receive
drinking
water
from
private
and
municipal
wells
within
four
miles
of
the
HPC
facility.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
MCGAFFEY
AND
MAIN
GROUNDWATER
PLUME
Roswell,
New
Mexico
Conditions
at
Proposal
(September
13,
2001):
The
McGaffey
and
Main
Groundwater
Plume
site
is
located
within
the
city
limits
of
Roswell,
Chaves
County,
New
Mexico
near
the
intersection
of
South
Main
Street
and
McGaffey
Street.
The
area
around
the
site
is
primarily
used
as
a
mixed
commercial
and
industrial
area,
though
residential
areas
are
located
further
south
of
the
site.
The
site
is
being
placed
on
the
NPL
because
perchloroethylene
(PCE)
has
been
detected
in
the
aquifers
underlying
a
portion
of
downtown
Roswell
and
poses
a
threat
to
the
municipal
and
private
drinking
water
supply
serving
the
communities
of
Roswell.

A
former
dry
cleaning
facility,
Lee
Mack
Laundry
and
Dry
Cleaners,
was
located
on
South
Main
Street.
The
facility
operated
from
1956
until
1963.
PCE
was
used
in
the
dry
cleaning
operations
at
Lee
Mack
Laundry
and
Dry
Cleaners
and
may
have
been
discharged
behind
the
facility.
PCE,
a
manufactured
chlorinated
solvent,
has
been
found
at
levels
up
to
25,000
micrograms
per
liter
(ug/
L)
in
monitoring
wells
surrounding
the
former
dry
cleaning
facility.
Chlorinated
solvents
such
as
PCE
are
heavier
than
water
and
readily
sink
in
ground
water.
An
exact
or
calculated
volume
of
the
chlorinated
solvent
released
into
the
ground
water
at
the
former
dry
cleaning
facility
is
unknown
at
this
time.
However,
very
small
amounts
of
these
chemicals
can
contaminate
large
volumes
of
soil
and
ground
water.

The
New
Mexico
Environment
Department
(NMED)
discovered
the
PCE
ground
water
plume
in
November
1994
during
an
investigation
of
a
nearby
underground
storage
tank.
Subsequently,
NMED
conducted
several
soil
and
ground
water
investigations
to
determine
the
source
and
potential
extent
of
the
plume.
During
a
February
1995
investigation,
NMED
found
PCE
in
ground
water
samples
collected
from
11
of
15
private
wells
located
down
gradient
of
the
former
dry
cleaning
facility.
In
2000,
NMED
detected
PCE
in
ground
water
samples
collected
from
13
of
16
ground
water
wells
down
gradient
of
the
former
dry
cleaning
facility.
PCE
contamination
has
been
identified
throughout
the
shallow
alluvial
aquifer,
which
underlies
a
portion
of
downtown
Roswell,
as
a
ground
water
plume
that
extends
from
the
dry
cleaning
facility
for
approximately
a
mile
in
a
southeasterly
direction.

All
of
the
municipal
supply
wells
for
the
City
of
Roswell
are
developed
within
the
deeper
artesian
aquifer.
During
routine
sampling
events
by
New
Mexico
Department
of
Health,
PCE
has
been
detected
intermittently
in
two
municipal
wells
from
1995
to
the
present
at
concentrations
ranging
from
0.3
ug/
L
to
2.3
ug/
L.
At
present,
the
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
(MCL)
of
5
ug/
L,
(the
acceptable
limit
established
by
the
Clean
Water
Act)
has
not
been
exceeded.
Eight
schools
and
one
hospital
are
located
within
one
mile
of
the
site.
Approximately
9,600
individuals
receive
their
drinking
water
from
four
City
of
Roswell
municipal
wells
located
within
four
miles
of
the
site.
These
drinking
water
supplies,
in
addition
to
several
private
wells,
are
threatened
by
PCE
contamination
in
the
shallow
alluvial
aquifer.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
OAK
GROVE
VILLAGE
WELL
Oak
Grove
Village,
Missouri
Conditions
at
proposal
(September
13,
2001):
The
Oak
Grove
Village
Well
site
is
located
in
Oak
Grove,
Franklin
County,
Missouri.
The
site
consists
of
a
trichloroethylene
(TCE)
and
tetrachloroethylene
(PCE)
chlorinated
solvent
ground
water
plume
with
no
identified
source.
The
plume
has
impacted
the
municipal
well
which
serves
as
the
sole
source
of
drinking
water
for
residents
in
Oak
Grove
Village.
Oak
Grove
Village
is
a
small
community,
population
ranging
from
about
402­
421,
located
adjacent
to
Highway
44,
approximately
one
mile
northeast
of
Sullivan.
The
site
initially
was
identified
in
1986
following
the
detection
of
TCE
and
PCE
in
samples
collected
from
the
well
by
the
Missouri
Department
of
Natural
Resources
(MDNR).
The
site
is
being
placed
on
the
NPL
because
contaminant
concentrations
in
excess
of
health­
based
benchmarks
have
been
detected
in
the
Oak
Grove
Village
well,
forcing
closure
of
the
well.
Residents
of
Oak
Grove
Village
currently
purchase
water
from
the
town
of
Sullivan.

Following
the
original
detection
of
TCE
in
1986,
MDNR
continued
to
sample
the
Oak
Grove
Village
well
and
distribution
points
within
the
municipal
system
on
a
quarterly
basis
until
October
1990.
Concentrations
of
TCE
in
the
Oak
Grove
Village
well
have
ranged
from
2.4
ug/
L
to
18
ug/
L.
TCE
concentrations
have
exceeded
both
the
screening
concentration
for
cancer
(7.7
ug/
L)
and
the
maximum
contaminant
level
(MCL)
(5.
0
ug/
L).
PCE
concentrations
have
ranged
from
16
ug/
L
to
59
ug/
L.
Two
samples
from
the
Oak
Grove
Village
well
contained
PCE
at
concentrations
that
exceed
both
the
screening
concentration
for
cancer
(1.6
ug/
L)
and
the
MCL
(5.0
ug/
L).

Due
to
the
elevated
concentrations
of
TCE
and
PCE,
the
Oak
Grove
Village
well
was
closed
from
July
1991
to
September
1992.
During
this
period,
Oak
Grove
Village
purchased
water
from
the
Sullivan
municipal
water
supply.
In
September
1992,
Oak
Grove
Village
reopened
the
Oak
Grove
Village
well
and
discontinued
service
with
Sullivan.
MDNR
continued
quarterly
sampling
after
the
Oak
Grove
Village
well
was
put
back
into
service.
The
well
again
was
closed
in
January
1994
due
to
elevated
concentrations
of
TCE
and
PCE.
Since
its
final
closure
in
1994,
the
Oak
Grove
Village
well
has
been
capped.

Several
investigations,
including
a
Site
Inspection
(SI),
an
Expanded
Site
Inspection
(ESI),
and
investigations
by
private
companies,
have
focused
on
identifying
the
sources
of
the
chlorinated
solvent
ground
water
plume
that
has
impacted
the
Oak
Grove
Village
well.
These
investigations
identified
the
Sullivan
Landfill,
the
TRW
Ramsey
facility
(a
RCRA
site),
and
two
automobile
service
stations
as
potential
sources
of
TCE.
Based
on
currently
available
information,
however,
the
contamination
detected
in
the
Oak
Grove
Village
well
cannot
be
conclusively
attributed
to
any
of
these
potential
sources.

Although
the
Oak
Grove
Village
well
is
no
longer
in
use
due
to
the
contamination,
the
ground
water
plume
also
poses
a
threat
to
the
population
served
by
the
nearby
Sullivan
municipal
drinking
water
wells.
Over
6,000
people
currently
receive
drinking
water
from
Sullivan
municipal
wells
or
private
wells
located
within
four
miles
of
the
Oak
Grove
Village
Well
site.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
PATRICK
BAYOU
Deer
Park,
Texas
Conditions
at
Proposal
(June
14,
2001):
The
Patrick
Bayou
site
consists
of
contaminated
sediments
within
the
Bayou,
a
portion
of
the
East
Fork
tributary,
and
associated
wetlands.
Patrick
Bayou
is
one
of
several
small
bayous
of
the
Houston
Ship
Channel
(HSC)
located
within
the
lower
portion
of
the
San
Jacinto
River
Basin
as
it
enters
Galveston
Bay
in
southeast
Texas.
Pesticides,
polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(PAHs),
metals,
and
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(PCBs)
have
been
detected
in
sediments
in
the
Bayou
since
the
early
to
mid1990s
For
several
years,
Patrick
Bayou
has
received
an
accumulation
of
permitted
industrial
wastewater
discharges,
municipal
wastewater
treatment
plant
effluent,
and
storm
water
runoff
from
adjacent
industrial
facilities
and
nearby
urban/
residential
areas.
These
discharges
are
suspected
to
be
the
primary
sources
of
the
sediment
contamination.
The
site
is
being
placed
on
the
NPL
because
sediment
contamination
has
been
detected
in
the
wetlands
bordering
the
Bayou
and
poses
a
threat
to
downstream
fisheries.

Patrick
Bayou
is
located
in
a
mixed
urban,
highly
industrialized
petrochemical
area
in
southeast
Harris
County
approximately
1
mile
north
of
the
Deer
Park,
Texas,
north
of
State
Highway
(SH)
225.
Most
of
the
upper
portion
of
the
Bayou
consists
of
a
series
of
open,
concretelined
storm
water
channels
and
large
metal/
concrete
culverts.
These
structures
were
installed
to
receive
storm
water
runoff
and
permitted
wastewater
discharges
and
for
erosion
control
south
of
SH
225.
Contaminated
sediments
have
been
documented
within
the
bounds
of
Patrick
Bayou
originating
below
a
series
of
culverts
located
a
mile
north
of
SH
225
extending
to
its
convergence
with
the
HSC
and
including
a
portion
of
the
East
Fork
tributary.
Patrick
Bayou
drains
a
total
distance
of
2.85
miles
north
to
its
confluence
with
the
HSC.
The
Bayou
is
normally
200
feet
wide
expanding
to
600
feet
within
the
last
¼
mile
before
entering
the
HSC.

Prior
investigations
conducted
by
the
city
of
Houston
in
1993
and
1994
along
the
HSC
and
its
tributaries
documented
high
to
moderate
levels
of
pesticides,
PAHs,
cadmium,
chromium,
mercury,
nickel,
zinc,
and
PCBs
accumulating
within
Patrick
Bayou
sediments.
Subsequent
investigations
were
conducted
in
July
1994
during
a
joint
Texas
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Commission
(TNRCC)/
EPA
Ambient
Toxicity
and
Water
and
Sediment
Quality
Survey.
These
investigations
confirmed
the
accumulation
of
the
following
substances
within
Patrick
Bayou
sediments:
arsenic,
cadmium,
chromium,
copper,
lead,
manganese,
mercury,
nickel,
selenium,
zinc,
hexachlorobenzene
(HCB),
bis­
2­
ethylhexyl
phthalate,
PAHs,
PCBs,
and
pesticides.
Mercury
levels
were
documented
in
the
sediments
as
high
as
8,300
ug/
kg,
with
PCB
levels
ranging
from
806
to
4,150
ug/
kg.
PAH
levels
were
detected
as
high
as
53,600
ug/
kg.
The
TNRCC
collected
samples
as
part
of
an
Site
Inspection
in
July
2000,
sediment
samples
collected
from
the
Bayou
showed
mercury
levels
as
high
as
a
41,500
ug/
kg,
and
PCB
levels
as
high
as
300,000
ug/
kg.

The
upper
portion
of
the
Bayou
and
several
small
islands
within
the
Bayou
contain
extensive
wetland
vegetation
affording
a
natural
habitat
for
waterfowl
and
migratory
birds.
Significant
populations
of
fish
and
marine
mammals
have
been
documented
near
the
mouth
of
Patrick
Bayou.
Local
fishermen
fish
for
blue
crab
and
catfish
along
the
HSC
even
though
human
consumption
has
been
restricted
by
the
Texas
Department
of
Health
(no­
consumption
advisory
for
children
and
women
of
childbearing
age)
due
to
high
levels
of
dioxin.
A
fish
kill
was
reported
on
March
21,
1990
in
the
East
Fork
tributary
of
Patrick
Bayou,
and
a
second
fish
kill
was
reported
on
September
10,
1990
in
the
Bayou.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
QUANTA
RESOURCES
Edgewater,
New
Jersey
Conditions
at
Proposal
(January
11,
2001):
The
Quanta
Resources
Corporation
(QRC)
site
is
located
at
163
River
Road
in
Edgewater,
Bergen
County,
New
Jersey.
The
site
covers
approximately
8
acres
since
the
expansion
of
River
Road
took
over
a
portion
of
the
site.
The
site
property
is
bordered
to
the
north
by
the
Celotex
Industrial
Park,
to
the
south
by
the
former
Spencer­
Kellogg
Industrial
Park,
to
the
west
by
River
Road,
and
to
the
east
by
the
Hudson
River.
From
approximately
1930
to
1981
the
site
had
been
used
as
an
oil
and
tar
storage
and
reclamation
facility.

Beginning
in
the
early
1930s,
Allied
Chemical
Corporation
Asphalt
Division
(now
Allied­
Signal)
operated
a
tar
processing
plant
at
the
site.
In
1974,
Allied
Chemical
sold
the
property
to
the
estate
of
Mr.
James
Frola
and
Mr.
Albert
Von
Dohln.
In
1977,
Mr.
Frola
and
Mr.
Van
Dohln
leased
the
property
to
E.
R.
P.
Corporation
for
the
storage
and
recycling
of
oil.
Shortly
thereafter,
E.
R.
P.
assigned
its
lease
to
Edgewater
Terminals,
Incorporated.
Quanta
Resources
Corporation
obtained
usage
of
the
property
through
transfer
of
the
lease
from
Edgewater
Terminals.
The
site
had
61
above­
ground
storage
tanks
(ASTs)
with
a
total
capacity
of
over
9
million
gallons,
along
with
an
unknown
number
of
underground
storage
tanks
(USTs)
and
numerous
underground
pipes.
These
tanks
were
used
to
store
oil,
tar,
asphalt,
sludge,
process
water
and
other
unknown
liquids.

On
July
2,
1981,
the
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(NJDEP)
forced
the
closing
of
the
Quanta
Resources
facility
when
it
was
discovered
that
the
storage
tanks
contained
large
quantities
of
oil
with
polychlorinated
biphenyl
(PCB)
concentrations
as
high
as
260
parts
per
million
(ppm).

Between
1984
and
1988,
removal
action
activities
were
conducted
at
the
QRC
site.
These
actions
were
supervised
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
and
focused
on
the
cleaning
and
decommissioning
of
the
ASTs
and
USTs.
In
addition,
some
underground
piping
and
shallow
soils
containing
coal
tar
were
removed
from
the
site.
In
1992,
EPA
conducted
an
assessment
of
the
previous
removal
actions,
which
included
the
collection
of
soil,
ground
water,
and
sediment
samples.
Analytical
results
from
these
sampling
activities
indicated
that
CERCLA
hazardous
substances
were
still
present
on
site.
From
1992
to
present,
the
EPA
Removal
Program
has
conducted
several
sampling
events
that
included
the
collection
of
surface
and
subsurface
soil
samples,
and
surface
water
and
sediment
samples
from
the
Hudson
River
in
areas
where
a
sheen
was
observed
adjacent
to
the
Quanta
Resources
site.
Analytical
data
from
these
sampling
events
indicated
the
presence
of
elevated
levels
of
polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(PAHs)
and
metals.

Under
an
Administrative
Consent
Order
with
EPA,
Allied­
Signal
contracted
GeoSyntac
Consultants
to
conduct
a
Removal
Site
Investigation
(RSI)
at
the
QRC
site.
This
investigation
was
conducted
in
1998
and
1999
and
included
the
collection
of
surface
and
subsurface
soil
samples
collected
from
Quanta
Resources
property
as
well
as
from
properties
in
the
vicinity
of
the
Quanta
Resources
property,
ground
water
samples
collected
from
monitoring
wells,
and
sediment
samples
collected
from
the
Hudson
River.
Based
on
the
results
of
activities
conducted
during
the
RSI,
heavy
end
coal
tar
product
was
estimated
to
extend
from
the
area
west
of
where
the
new
River
Road
exists
to
approximately
750
feet
into
the
Hudson
River.

An
observed
release
to
surface
water
by
direct
observation
is
documented
through
the
direct
deposition
of
heavy
end
coal
tar
product
to
the
Hudson
River.
Elevated
concentrations
of
PAHs
(including
benzo(
a)
anthracene,
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
benzo(
g,
h,
i)
perylene,
benzo(
k)
fluoranthene,
and
dibenzo(
a,
h,)
anthracene)
are
documented
in
the
Hudson
River,
which
is
a
fishery
and
a
sensitive
environment
(i.
e.,
state­
designated
water
body
for
the
maintenance
of
aquatic
life).

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
RAILROAD
AVENUE
GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION
Des
Moines,
Iowa
Conditions
at
Proposal
(September
13,
2001):
The
Railroad
Avenue
Groundwater
Contamination
site
is
located
in
Des
Moines,
Polk
County,
Iowa.
The
site
comprises
a
chlorinated
solvent
ground
water
plume
with
no
identified
source.
The
plume
area
is
about
123
acres
in
size
and
is
approximately
bounded
on
the
south
by
the
lakes
at
the
south
edge
of
the
Raccoon
River
Park,
on
the
west
by
19
th
Street,
on
the
north
by
Holiday
Park,
and
on
the
east
by
5
th
Street
and
the
Raccoon
River.
The
ground
water
plume
has
impacted
wells
within
the
West
Des
Moines
Water
Works
municipal
system,
which
supplies
drinking
water
to
the
residents
of
West
Des
Moines.
The
site
is
being
placed
on
the
NPL
because
the
volatile
organic
compounds
(VOCs)
trichloroethylene
(TCE),
tetrachloroethylene
(PCE),
and
cis­
1,2dichloroethylene
(cis­
1,2­
DCE)
have
been
detected
in
several
of
the
West
Des
Moines
Water
Works
municipal
wells,
and
have
resulted
in
five
of
the
contaminated
wells
being
converted
from
regular
use
to
standby
status.

The
West
Des
Moines
Water
Works
system
supplies
a
population
of
46,980
persons.
This
population
is
served
by
19
shallow
municipal
wells
drilled
approximately
30
to
50
feet
deep
in
the
alluvial
aquifer,
and
3
deep
wells
drilled
approximately
2,500
feet
deep
in
the
Jordan
aquifer.
Three
additional
wells
were
nonproducing
wells,
and
thus
were
abandoned.
Water
also
is
purchased
from
the
Des
Moines
Water
Works,
which
is
supplied
by
surface
water
intakes
on
the
Raccoon
and
Des
Moines
Rivers.
The
amount
of
water
purchased
depends
on
the
time
of
year,
with
more
being
purchased
during
the
summer
months.
In
2000,
the
percentage
of
Des
Moines
water
that
was
blended
with
the
West
Des
Moines
groundwater
was
9
percent.

In
1991,
West
Des
Moines
wells
(WDMWs)
#12
and
#13
were
put
on
line
for
the
West
Des
Moines
Water
Works
system.
The
wells
were
sampled
in
1991
and
indicated
no
VOC
contamination.
In
1993,
a
routine
water
distribution
sample
collected
by
the
city
was
found
to
contain
cis­
1,2­
DCE.

In
1999,
EPA
completed
a
preliminary
assessment/
site
investigation
(PA/
SI)
of
the
Railroad
Avenue
Groundwater
site.
An
expanded
site
investigation
(ESI)
was
completed
in
August
2000.
PCE
and
its
degradation
products,
TCE
and
cis­
1,2­
DCE,
were
detected
in
nine
of
the
shallow
municipal
wells
during
the
PA/
SI
and/
or
the
ESI.
TCE
was
detected
in
WDMW
#21
at
concentrations
above
health­
based
benchmarks.
While
both
the
PA/
SI
and
the
ESI
verified
the
presence
of
VOCs
in
groundwater,
no
source
of
the
contamination
could
be
conclusively
identified.

Although
five
of
the
municipal
wells
currently
do
not
contribute
to
the
drinking
water
supply,
four
additional
wells
also
have
shown
contamination.
The
groundwater
plume
also
poses
a
threat
to
ten
additional
West
Des
Moines
Water
Works
municipal
wells
that
draw
water
from
the
contaminated
shallow
aquifer,
as
well
as
an
undetermined
number
of
private
drinking
water
wells
within
four
miles
of
the
site.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
For
more
information
about
the
hazardous
substances
identified
in
this
narrative
summary,
including
general
information
regarding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
these
substances
on
human
health,
please
see
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
ToxFAQs.
ATSDR
ToxFAQs
can
be
found
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxfaq.
html
or
by
telephone
at
1­
888­
42­
ATSDR
or
1­
888­
422­
8737.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
(NPL)
September
2002
OSWER/
OERR
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Washington,
DC
20460
REASOR
CHEMICAL
COMPANY
Castle
Hayne,
North
Carolina
Conditions
at
Proposal
(September
13,
2001):
The
Reasor
Chemical
Company
site
is
an
inactive
pine
stump
rendering
facility
located
at
5100
North
College
Road
in
Castle
Hayne,
New
Hanover
County,
North
Carolina.
The
facility
is
located
approximately
½
mile
south
of
Route
NC
132
and
US
117
and
is
approximately
25
acres
in
size.
Although
little
information
is
available
regarding
specific
site
operations
and
hazardous
substances
used
at
the
Reasor
Chemical
Company
facility,
elevated
levels
of
metals,
including
lead
and
mercury,
and
organic
compounds,
including
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
toluene,
and
xylenes,
have
been
detected
in
the
waste
lagoons
and
soils
that
comprise
the
source
areas
at
the
site.
Dioxins
also
have
been
documented
at
elevated
levels
in
the
source
areas.
The
site
is
being
placed
on
the
NPL
because
toluene
and
dioxins
have
been
detected
in
wetlands
adjacent
to
the
facility.
In
addition,
site­
related
hazardous
substances
detected
in
drainage
ditches
that
receive
runoff
from
the
source
areas
pose
a
threat
to
downstream
wetlands
and
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries.

Reasor
Chemical
Company
produced
turpentine,
resin,
pine
oil,
and
related
compounds
from
pine
tree
stumps
at
its
facility
from
1959
to
1972.
By
1969,
most
operations
at
the
facility
had
ceased,
buildings
were
demolished,
and
equipment
was
removed.
In
April
1972,
a
fire
destroyed
additional
structures.
The
property
then
was
sold
to
Martin­
Marietta
Corporation
(MMC)
for
limestone
mining
purposes.
After
MMC's
permit
application
was
denied,
the
property
was
sold
to
the
current
owner,
Cameron
Company,
on
August
5,
1986.
The
site
currently
is
vacant
and
receives
no
routine
maintenance.

Features
at
the
site
include
areas
formerly
housing
an
extraction
unit,
a
refinery,
distillation
units,
a
scrap
copper
area
where
copper
and
plastic
were
burned,
a
pipe
shop
area,
ten
tank
cradles,
and
a
drum
disposal
area.
The
drums
have
since
been
removed.
Other
identified
site
features
include
five
ponds
and
a
sparsely
vegetated
sluice
area.
Four
of
the
ponds
(the
waste
lagoons)
located
near
the
former
distillation
and
extraction
areas
drain
via
overland
flow
to
a
ditch
that
empties
into
wetlands
located
at
the
southern
portion
of
the
property.
A
gate
restricts
vehicle
access
to
the
site.

From
1997
to
1999,
EPA
conducted
a
Remedial
Investigation
(RI)
at
the
Reasor
Chemical
Company
facility.
More
than
130
samples
were
collected
from
facility
soils,
ponds,
and
drainage
ditches.
Surface
water
and
sediment
samples
also
were
collected
from
a
wetland
and
Prince
George
Creek,
downgradient
of
the
facility.
Hazardous
substances
detected
in
the
source,
process,
and
drainage
areas
during
the
RI
include
volatile
organic
solvents
(including
ethylbenzene,
toluene,
and
xylenes),
metals
(including
arsenic,
copper,
lead,
mercury,
nickel,
iron,
and
zinc),
semivolatile
organic
compounds
(including
benzo
(a)
pyrene),
and
dioxins.
Toluene
was
documented
in
a
wetland
sediment
sample
at
460
ug/
kg.
Iron
was
documented
in
surface
water
samples
at
levels
up
to
13,000
ug/
L,
which
exceeds
the
Ambient
Water
Quality
Criteria/
Ambient
Aquatic
Life
Advisory
Concentration
benchmark.

Approximately
150
residences
within
½
mile
of
the
site
are
served
either
by
private
wells
or
one
of
two
community
wells.
Low
levels
of
solvents
were
detected
in
the
shallow
aquifer
beneath
the
facility
but
have
not
been
documented
in
the
drinking
water
wells.
Approximately
0.8
mile
of
wetland
frontage
has
been
impacted
by
the
site,
and
site­
related
hazardous
substances
pose
a
threat
to
more
than
70
miles
of
wetland
frontage
that
border
the
surface
water
migration
pathway
downstream
of
the
area
of
documented
contamination.
The
surface
water
pathway
includes
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
and
a
habitat
known
to
be
used
by
Federally
designated
endangered
species.

Status
(September
2002):
EPA
is
considering
various
alternatives
for
this
site.

[The
description
of
the
site
(release)
is
based
on
information
available
at
the
time
the
site
was
evaluated
with
the
HRS.
The
description
may
change
as
additional
information
is
gathered
on
the
sources
and
extent
of
contamination.
See
56
FR
5600,
February
11,
1991,
or
subsequent
FR
notices.]
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
___________________________________________________________________________

For
further
information,
call
the
Superfund
Hotline,
toll­
free
1­
800­
424­
9346
or
(703)
412­
9810
in
Washington,
DC
metropolitan
area,
or
the
U.
S.
EPA
Superfund
Regional
Offices
listed
below*.

For
publications,
contact
EPA
Superfund
Docket
at
(202)
566­
0276
SUPERFUND.
DOCKET@
EPA.
GOV
by
Mail:
Walk­
in
Address
(by
Appt.):
CERCLA
Docket
Office
(5305T)
CERCLA
Docket
Office
Ariel
Rios
Building
1301
Constitution
Avenue
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave
NW
EPA
West,
Room
B102
Washington,
DC
20460
Washington,
DC
20004
_________________________________________________________
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response
(5204G)
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
401
M
Street,
SW
Washington,
DC
20460
(703)
603­
8860
_________________________________________________________
Region
1
Connecticut
New
Hampshire
Maine
Rhode
Island
Massachusetts
Vermont
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
Region
1,
U.
S.
EPA,
Records
Center,
Mailcode
HCS
One
Congress
St.,
Suite
1100
Boston,
MA
02114­
2023
(617)
918­
1225
_________________________________________________________
Region
2
New
Jersey
Puerto
Rico
New
York
Virgin
Islands
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
Region
2,
U.
S.
EPA
290
Broadway
New
York,
NY
10007­
1866
(212)
637­
4435
_________________________________________________________
Region
3
Delaware
Pennsylvania
District
of
Columbia
Virginia
Maryland
West
Virginia
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
Region
3,
U.
S.
EPA,
Library
1650
Arch
Street,
Mailcode
3PM52
Philadelphia,
PA
19103
(215)
814­
5364
______________________________________________________________________
Region
4
Alabama
Mississippi
Florida
North
Carolina
Georgia
South
Carolina
Kentucky
Tennessee
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
Region
4,
U.
S.
EPA
61
Forsyth
Street,
SW,
9th
floor
Atlanta,
GA
30303
(404)
562­
8127
_________________________
Region
5
Illinois
Minnesota
Indiana
Ohio
Michigan
Wisconsin
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
Region
5,
U.
S.
EPA,
Records
Center,
Superfund
Division
SMR­
7J
Metcalfe
Federal
Building,
77
West
Jackson
Boulevard
Chicago,
IL
60604
(312)
353­
5821
________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Region
6
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Louisiana
Texas
New
Mexico
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
Region
6,
U.
S.
EPA
1445
Ross
Avenue,
Mailcode
6SF­
RA
Dallas,
TX
75202­
2733
(214)
665­
7436
_____________________________________________________________
Region
7
Iowa
Missouri
Kansas
Nebraska
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
Region
7,
U.
S.
EPA
901
North
5th
Street
Kansas
City,
KS
66101
(913)
551­
7335
_____________________________________________________________
Region
8
Colorado
South
Dakota
Montana
Utah
North
Dakota
Wyoming
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
Region
8,
U.
S.
EPA
999
18th
Street,
Suite
500,
Mailcode
8EPR­
SA
Denver,
CO
80202­
2466
(303)
312­
6757
_________________________
Region
9
American
Samoa
Guam
Northern
Arizona
Hawaii
Trust
Territories
California
Nevada
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
Region
9,
U.
S.
EPA
75
Hawthorne
Street
San
Francisco,
CA
94105
(415)
744­
2343
__________________________________________________________
Region
10
Alaska
Oregon
Idaho
Washington
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
Region
10,
U.
S.
EPA
11th
Floor,
1200
6th
Avenue,
Mail
Stop
ECL­
110
Seattle,
WA
98101
(206)
553­
6699
_____________________________________________________________
*
All
EPA
telephone
and
telecommunications
systems
may
be
accessed
via
the
Federal
Telecommunications
System
(FTS).