National Priorities List (NPL) Sites - by State | Superfund | US EPA
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
RCED-98-241 Superfund
United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Requesters August 1998 SUPERFUND Information on the Status of Sites GAO/RCED-98-241 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-280503 August 28, 1998 The Honorable John D. Dingell Ranking Minority Member Committee on Commerce House of Representatives The Honorable Thomas J. Manton Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials Committee on Commerce House of Representatives The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify severely contaminated hazardous waste sites and place them on the National Priorities List for cleanup under the Superfund program. The progress of cleanup work at National Priorities List sites has been a focus of congressional and EPA attention over the history of the program. National Priorities List sites generally follow a regular path toward cleanup that includes a study of site conditions and an evaluation of cleanup alternatives, the selection of one or more cleanup remedies (that is, the cleanup standards and techniques to be used at site), and the design and construction of the remedies. Given the congressional interest in the status of sites on the National Priorities List, you asked us to (1) determine the progress the Superfund program has made in selecting remedies at both federal and nonfederal sites; (2) verify the accuracy of the information in the Superfund database on sites’ cleanup progress; and (3) determine the number of cleanup projects that cannot be started in fiscal year 1998 because of a lack of funding. -
Ohio River Park Site Operable Unit Three Neville Island Allegheny County, Pennsylvania February 1998
SUPERFUND PROGRAM PROPOSED PLAN Ohio River Park Site Operable Unit Three Neville Island Allegheny County, Pennsylvania February 1998 INTRODUCTION The United States Environmental Protection Agency Region HI (EPA) has identified the Preferred Alternative to address hazardous contamination in groundwater, surface water, and sediment at the Ohio River Park Superfund Site ("Site") located on Neville Island in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (see Figure 1). The major components of EPA's Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3 in this Proposed Plan) include monitored natural attenuation, and institutional controls. (Terms in bold print are defined hi the Glossary.) This Proposed Plan is based on site-related documents contained in the Administrative Record for the Site including the Remedial Investigation, the Baseline Risk Assessment, v the Ecological Risk Assessment1, the Feasibility Study, and the Intrinsic Remediation Demonstration. The Administrative Record is at the following locations: Coraopolis Memorial Library U.S. EPA-Regipn ffl Docket Room State and School Streets Ms. Anna Butch Coraopolis, PA 15108 841 Chestnut Building, 9th Floor (412)264-3502 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 566-3157 EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania encourage the public to review and comment on the Preferred Alternative, the Proposed Plan, and other documents hi the Administrative Record file. The public comment period begins on February 25, 1998 and closes on March 26, 1998. On March 17, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., EPA will hold a public meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan at the Neville Township Municipal Building, 5050 Grand Avenue, Neville Island, PA. Written comments, postmarked no later than March 26, 1998, should be sent to: 1 The ERA consists of Sections 1.0 - 3.0 of the Draft Ecological Risk Assessment prepared by the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) as supplemented by EPA's Data Interpretation, dated November 18, 1994. -
It's Time to Prioritize Climate Threats
10. DUNDAS_ (DO NOT DELETE) 2/4/2020 7:00 PM CERCLA: IT’S TIME TO PRIORITIZE CLIMATE THREATS Lindsey Dundas∗ Climate change will bring more extreme weather, including increased flooding and wind damage, to all stretches of the United States. These effects of climate change will cause pro- found consequences for communities living near sites with a legacy of toxic waste. With 1,883 Superfund sites on the Na- tional Priorities List and countless other U.S. properties with some degree of contamination, climate change will re- sult in increased risk of exposure for surrounding local popu- lations and environments. Currently, the Hazard Ranking System does not consider effects of climate change when cal- culating the risk a site poses to the public. Without consider- ing associated climate risks, the sites are not accurately ranked on the National Priorities list, and resources under CERCLA may not be adequately allocated. This Comment explores an approach to modifying the cur- rent CERCLA regime to account for climate change while calculating a site’s score under the Hazard Ranking System. I argue that the process of ranking sites on the National Pri- orities List must be updated to account for associated climate risks. This change should be made by updating the current formula through rulemaking by the Environmental Protec- tion Agency. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 284 I. SUPERFUND SITES IMPERILED BY CLIMATE CHANGE ..... 285 A. Damage to the San Jacinto Waste Pits During Hurricane Harvey .................................................... 285 B. The Martin Aaron Industrial Site ........................... 289 ∗ J.D. Candidate, 2020, University of Colorado Law School; B.S. Chemistry, 2016, Virginia Tech. -
Administrator's Emphasis List 2017-2021
MAKING DECISIONS AND MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN SUPERFUND ADMINISTRATOR’S EMPHASIS LIST 2017-2021 Following a key recommendation of the Superfund Task Force, EPA released the initial Administrator’s Emphasis List in December 2017. It identified 21 sites from across the United States targeted for immediate and intense attention. The Superfund site remedial process is a multi-step process that can be delayed, sometimes for years, for any number of reasons. In developing this list, EPA considered sites that could benefit from the Administrator’s direct engagement and that had identifiable actions to protect human health and the environment that were yet to be completed. These sites required timely resolution of specific issues to expedite cleanup and redevelopment efforts. The Administrator’s Emphasis List identified site-specific milestones covering a broad spectrum of issues at sites across the United States. Milestones covered National Priorities List listing, remedy selection, investigations and settlement agreements. The list was designed to be dynamic and to spur action at sites where opportunities exist to act quickly and comprehensively. The resolution of an issue at a particular site can often provide information and insight into how to resolve similar issues at other sites and thus, provide lessons learned that can be applied broadly to the Superfund program. Significant progress has been made at each of the sites because of this special emphasis. Information on the Administrator’s Emphasis List can be found at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-sites- targeted-immediate-intense-action. Since the creation of the Administrator’s Emphasis List in 2017, EPA has achieved critical milestones at 28 sites that have moved site cleanups forward. -
ECOLOGICAL REVITALIZATION: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
ECOLOGICAL REVITALIZATION: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets A pocket park at a Former RCRA Corrective Action facility, former service station restored to a wetland Constructed wetland on a Superfund landfill site Former weapons manufacturing site, now a national wildlife refuge Former RCRA Corrective Action facility, now part of the Audubon Trail Former Brownfields property, transformed into a natural habitat Former Superfund site February 2009 restored to natural habitat Former army ammunition plant, now a national tallgrass prairie Former Brownfields property, restored to natural habitat About the cover page: Ecological Revitalization in Action Descriptions are in a clock-wise direction, starting with top right. 1. Former RCRA Corrective Action facility, restored to a wetland: Ecological revitalization at the AMAX Metals Recovery Inc. (now Freeport McMoRan) in Braithwaite, Louisiana, where a water retention pond was dewatered to form a wetland that provided a home to alligators relocated due to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Photograph courtesy of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Program. 2. Former weapons manufacturing site, now a national wildlife refuge: Nearly 27 square miles at Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) in Colorado, one of the worst hazardous waste sites in the country, have been transformed into one of the nation’s largest urban national wildlife refuges. The open space surrounding a former weapons manufacturing facility at RMA provides a home for nearly 300 species of wildlife including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Photograph courtesy of EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI). 3. Former RCRA Corrective Action facility, now part of the Audubon Trail: At England Air Force Base in Louisiana, areas excavated during cleanup became part of the Audubon Trail, provided habitat and a stopping point for migratory birds, and expanded an 18-hole golf course. -
Ciba-Geigy National Priorities List Site, Mcintosh, Alabama Restoration
August 2017 Ciba-Geigy National Priorities List Site, McIntosh, Alabama Restoration Plan and Programmatic Environmental Assessment Prepared by: Natural Resource Trustees for the Ciba-Geigy NPL Site U.S. Department of the Interior National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Geological Survey of Alabama This page intentionally left almost blank. i Ciba-Geigy National Priorities List Site, McIntosh, Alabama Restoration Plan and Programmatic Environmental Assessment August 2017 Suggested Citation Ciba-Geigy NRDAR Trustees. 2017. Ciba-Geigy NPL Site Restoration Plan/Programmatic Environmental Assessment. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and Geological Survey of Alabama. ii FACT SHEET Restoration Plan/Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Ciba-Geigy National Priorities List (NPL) Site Trustee Agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and Geological Survey of Alabama Abstract: The Natural Resource Trustee Agencies (Trustees) present a description of the assessed natural resource injuries and losses resulting from releases of hazardous substances from the Ciba-Geigy NPL Site in McIntosh, Alabama, and the restoration project types proposed for use to compensate for those injuries and losses. Releases of hazardous substances, which include primarily dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and DDT-isomers, likely affected fish, birds, sediment, and sediment-dwelling biota. The Trustees identified habitat enhancement and restoration on newly acquired lands and habitat enhancement and restoration of state-owned lands as appropriate and reasonable strategies for restoration of natural resources or services like those injured or lost. -
Record of Decision 1993
1140073-R8SDMS RECORD OF DECISION MONTANA POLE AND TREATING PLANT NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITE BUTTE, MONTANA Montana Department of Health &, Environmental Sciences Solid & Hazardous Waste Bureau Cogswell Building Helena, Montana 59620 (Lead Agency) (Support Agency) United States Environmental Protection Agency Region Vm - Montana Office Federal Building, 301 S. Park, Drawer 10096 Helena, MT 59626-0096 September 1993 6011002 431468 RECORD OF DECISION MONTANA POLE AND TREATING PLANT NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITE INTRODUCTION The Montana Department of Health & Environmental Sciences and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) present the Record of Decision for the Montana Pole and Treating Plant site (the Site). The Record of Decision is based on the Administrative Record, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, the Proposed Plan, the public comments received, including those from the potentially responsible parties, EPA comments, and other new information. The Record of Decision presents a brief outline of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, actual and potential risks to human health and the environment, and the selected remedy. The state followed EPA guidance' in preparation of the Record of Decision. The Record of Decision has the following three purposes: 1. Certify that the remedy selection process was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP); 2. Outline the engineering components and remediation goals of the selected remedy; and 3. Provide the public with a consolidated source of information about the history, characteristics, and risks posed by the conditions at the Site, as well as a summary of the cleanup alternatives considered, their evaluation, and the rationale behind the selected remedy. -
Five Year Review Report Signed on March 24, 2003
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 SDMS DoclD 2089416 Five-Year Review Report Second Five-Year Review Report for Ohio River Park Neville Township Allegheny County, Pennsylvania EPA 10 Number PA0980508816 PREPARED BY: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 11 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Acronyms and Abbreviations vi Executive Summary vii Five-YI~ar Review Summary Form. ........................................... .. viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY 2 3.0 BACKGROUND 4 3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 4 31.1 Surface Features 4 3.12 Geology 4 3.1.3 Hydrology 5 3.1.4 Climate 5 3.2 LAND AND RESOURCE USE 5 3.3 HISTORY OF CONTAMINATION 6 3.4 INITIAL RESPONSE 6 3.5 BASIS FOR TAKING REMEDIAL ACTION 7 3.5.1 Air Quality 7 3.5.2 Surface Soil Contamination 7 3.5.3 Subsurface Soil Contamination 8 3.5.4 Buried Waste 8 3.5.5 Surface Water 8 3.5.6 Sediment 8 3.5.7 Groundwater 8 3.5.8 Summary of Site Risks 9 4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS 10 4.1 REMEDY SELECTION 10 4.1.1 Operable Unit 1- Soil 10 4.12 Operable Unit 3 - Groundwater 11 4.2 REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION 11 4.21 Remedy Implementation Operable Unit 1 11 4.2.2 Remedy Implementation Operable Unit 3 15 4.3 SYSTEMS OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 15 4.4 SITE REDEVELOPMENT 16 5.0 PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 17 6.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 17 6.1 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPONENTS 17 6.2 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 18 6.3 DOCUMENT REVIEW 19 6.4 DATA REVIEW 19 11I 64.1 Groundwater Data 20 6.4.2 Surface Water Data 21 6.4.3 Air Monitoring Data 22 6.5 Site Inspection. -
Close out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
OSWER Directive 9320.2‐22 May 2011 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites Table of Contents Section Page Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................ iv 1.0 Introd uction ........................................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.2 Contents of the Guidance ..................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3 Role of the Remedial Project Manager ........................................................................... 1‐3 2.0 Remedial A c tion Completion ......................................................................................... 21 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1.1 Relation to Operable Units ................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1.2 Utilizing Multiple RA Projects at a Site ............................................................ 2‐1 2.2 Remedial Action Completion Definition ....................................................................... -
National Priorities List and State Orphan Sites
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Budget Change Proposal - Cover Sheet DF-46 (REV 10/20) Fiscal Year Business Unit Department Priority No. 2021-22 3960 Department of Toxic Substances Control Click or tap here to enter text. Budget Request Name Program Subprogram 3960-013-BCP-2021-GB 3620 Site Mitigation and 3620011 Other Site Mitigation Restoration Program Activities Budget Request Description National Priorities List and State Orphan Sites Budget Request Summary The Department of Toxic Substances Control requests a transfer of $19.55 million from the Toxic Substances Control Account to the Site Remediation Account to fund the state’s National Priorities List obligations and state orphan sites with Priorities 1A, 1B, and 2. Requires Legislation Code Section(s) to be Added/Amended/Repealed ☐ Yes ☒ No Click or tap here to enter text. Does this BCP contain information technology Department CIO Date (IT) components? ☐ Yes ☐ No Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap to enter a date. If yes, departmental Chief Information Officer must sign. For IT requests, specify the project number, the most recent project approval document (FSR, SPR, S1BA, S2AA, S3SD, S4PRA), and the approval date. Project No.Click or tap here to enter text. Project Approval Document: Click or tap here to enter text. Approval Date: Click or tap to enter a date. If proposal affects another department, does other department concur with proposal? ☐ Yes ☐ No Attach comments of affected department, signed and dated by the department director or designee. Prepared By Date Reviewed By Date Charlie Ridenour 1/7/2021 Alice Jeung 1/7/2021 Department Director Date Agency Secretary Date Meredith Williams 1/7/2021 Jared Blumenfeld 1/7/2021 Department of Finance Use Only Additional Review: ☐ Capital Outlay ☐ ITCU ☐ FSCU ☐ OSAE ☐ Dept. -
Presentation Slides: National Priorities List (Npl) Proposal
Newark South Ground Water Plume National Priorities List Proposal (NPL) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 August 15, 2017 Who Are We & What Is Our Mission Lisa Denmark EPA Remedial Project Manager Who Are We? • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Established December 2 nd , 1970 • Region 3 of 10 • Location: 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA • Mission- Protect Human Health and Environment How EPA Began • 50s/60s awareness of human impact on environment • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-1969 – Established environmental policy and regulations – Protector of Earth, Air, Land, and Water • Nixon proposed one organization for environmental issues EPA Goals • Enforcement and Environmental Protection Standards • Research effects and methods to prevent pollution • Assist others through grants and technical assistance • Policies to protect human health and the environment How to Achieve EPA Goals • Variety of divisions established for protection – Air Protection – Land and Chemicals – Water Protection – Environmental Assessment and Innovation – Hazardous Site Cleanup Superfund • 1970’s Awareness of dangers grew – Love Canal in Niagra Falls, New York – Valley of the Drums in Brooks, Kentucky • Government action and funding needed • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) • Better known as “Superfund” for the initial trust fund • Superfund Reauthorization Amendment Act of 1986 (SARA) Superfund • Authorizes EPA to investigate and clean up contamination • Historically, money came -
Appendix D Pennsylvania Sites on the Federal National Priorities List
Appendix D Pennsylvania Sites on the Federal National Priorities List This appendix contains a list of “active” sites on EPA’s National Priorities List. This list includes sites that are designated as “Proposed,” “Final,” or “Deleted” where long-term monitoring or actions are required to be reviewed. Further information on the status of these sites is included on EPA’s website. - 38 - Lead DEP Site Name Agency Region County House Senate Threat Status Hunterstown Responsible SC Adams 91 33 Groundwater is contaminated with toxic The soil remedy is complete and operating as Road Party volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Soils designed. Groundwater remediation is ongoing. contain toxic metals and asbestos. The Responsible Party conducted Capture Zone Evaluation of the groundwater recovery network in 2017. It was determined that a well is needed further south to capture groundwater and delineate the end of the plume. Keystone Landfill Responsible SC Adams 91 33 Groundwater and nearby surface water are The landfill cap and gas extraction system have Party contaminated with toxic volatile organic been constructed. Groundwater extraction is compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals. ongoing. The off-site wells are showing declining VOC concentrations. The four new Land Management Plan piezometer pairs have been installed and initial sampling work was performed. Shriver’s Corner Responsible SC Adams 91 33 Groundwater is contaminated with toxic Remedial actions are complete. A new Party volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and uncontaminated water system was constructed to has affected residential wells in the area. replace affected residential wells. The Responsible Parties continue to operate the groundwater remediation system and the residential water supply system.