1988-12 – DOE – Hazard Assessment for Exposure to Radioactive Fill Dirt Use for the Parking Ramp of the St. Louis Airport Parking Garage

. ·. • O.S. nepartment of Enerqy oat Ridge Operations Post Office Box 2001 Oak Ridg~, TN l78)1-8723 '... View Document


1989-01-20 – DOE – Radiologically contaminated soil beneath a parking garage ramp at the Lambert International Airport

Mr. To• Richter
St. Louts Airport AuthGrity
P.O. Bo• 10212
~rt suttc;n
St. Louts. MD 63145
DMr “”. Richter: ·
D 1~ IIDWit of Etwgy
– ,,O.IMDI
_OR Riclte. T……….., m31-8723
January 20. 1989
Tbe purpose of uats letter ts to dtscuss racUo)ottcallr contam1~ted son
…_atb a OU’k1ftt tarave ramp at the L.uMrt lnternat1ona1 Atf’IM)rt. The son
was ,.., .. ., fr. 1 State c011struct1Gft project •tar the St. l.Gu1s Airport
Stonee Site (SLAPS) wMcb vas suspeeted to be contlfl1nated vittl lw levels
of thort … 230. Tbts son vas trlDSported to the 11T’I)Ort tenatn~l lr”tl vtaere
tt w.s asM as ftll dur1ft9 recent construct1on of a parting garage “”‘· The
analys1s of ~les takeo at the Dlrk,ng gerate ranp durtnt construct1oa
conftnlld that levels of thor1~230 were s11tht1y above DOE’s cleinup ·
crlter1a of. 5 ptcocurtes per trail.
Stace the conttatnated soil is beneath the foundat1on of the parting ramp,
DO[ ca.pletld 1ft assessment of the potentitl health rtsks Which would result
froa leaving the soil in place. ln develop1nv the asse~sment DOE utilized
conservat1ve assumpttons for potential exposure to a worker Who would be
wort1nt on tilt founclat1on of tbe part1ng l”liiiP 1n tht contam1na~ed son. The
nsl.lltarit •xtiiUII dose to aft 1Delhidua1 worttng tn thts manner “‘S est1aate4
‘tO be 0.42 ara/yr. Th1s esttmate vas based em external guma radiation and
inhalatton doses from uran1um-234. ·235. -238, radi~226. thortum-230, and
-232. For COIIIIWir1son. this value ts less than 1/2 of one percent of the OOI
allaw&ble dose l’\111t ta the puhHc of 100 we&Jyr. Tht potential fo~
exposurt 1s ‘V’I!ry law ghen the present lotat10ft of the cont&mtnat.ed so11 aftd
dut to the fact that thoMua-230 1s the pr1mar”y contasiMnt and is an alphl
nc11it1on es1tter~ Alpha radiat,on 1s not tipable of penetraUI\g the outer
la~er of stta on tbe husao body and exposure nay only be obtained if the soil
1s ingested (i .e •• eaten) or inhaled. Inhalation or ingestion of the
c~,taa1nated so11 11 quantities suffit1ert to cause any exposure ts eltrene1y
unl1kt1J given tbe locat.’on of tbe so~l .
• • • •
. I
ltftll Ut rtsaalts of tilt r1st assess.at &nd tht c0ftsirvat1vt ISSYIPt1ons
lAtch an IIUe u pert Df the &SSHs.nt, \bt ‘rtnntlltCAtion of tilt •tertal
lft4 the nature of &lllha rad1at1oa, DOt dMS not reca.tl\11 re110va1 of the
Soft. Tbt d&ta whiCh 4tf1fttS tbe COI~tftlftt ltvt\S Of tb1S SD11 lftd tfte r1sk
asstsSDent v111 bt contidered in tbt overall Rt~~dia1 ‘ tnvest1gation/
Feu1b1Ht1 Studw fol'” ftnal deters1nat1ol of the ftetd I fen- ret~edtat1on . If
thtrt &rt anr Qutst1ons, please conttct ae at (61S) ”6· 084•.
cc : s. ltedle. lttl
A. W.llo, N£•23
~. W1ng, C£•53
6. Kepko • EPA Reg. ion Vtt
D. ledln, MDDMR
&. Turf. Jt£-!3
8. Ma~m1ng, CE·SO
• 1
‘fz::-\ewM ~(Lc.L. P. A¥e1
Site Mauver ! .
Tecbntc•l Strv1cts D1v1ston
I •


1948-11-01 – AEC – SLAPS – Uranium contamination at Airport Storage Area, St Louis MO

. ··- .. …,- -~ : .’ ·~~. . ,,_ … ‘ t~t:r”·;..;._- -:·L\-l·j•’; -~~:.-.1.-..~ -, 1′ ·:~\ L””
·~~;/ a~C; #~ ~~wJ.(__,
T/,r C’-1””” a/ ~0., ~-/
s Atomic Energy ComOnfifsisc1eon u. • I k: Operations
New or 1 Di vi;:i on
November 1 • 1948
. ,; _-_·-·c(\_.M,·EfJJ.£NfiAt.,.- ~-~~ _ V.tiY
A study of pollution o£ Cold ‘?later Creek and content of
uranium that may be .found in the earth at the Airport .
Storage Area, st. Louis, Uissouri revealed the followinga
1. Creek water samples were well within the limits
of tole ranee.
2. M.ld samples adjacent to the area ranged in value ·
from nil to 190 times that of normal uranium
content in soil.
H~rever, no final conclusion should be drawn from these
Ad~itional samples both under normal and adverse weather
conditions need to be taken so that the evaluation o!
hazards presented by erosion and drainage both into the
Creek and adjacent area can be more soundly determined.
‘~ •
Egrpose of Raoo~
During the period z~~rch 23 to March 28, 1948 mud and l’later samples were
taken by Paul B. Klavin in the a raas adjacent to t.lJ.e air:9ort storage area,
Robertson, !o:;issouri. This sampling survey nas planned in order to study
(1} the pollution of Cold ~1ater Creek by materials stored or dun?ed at the
ai rport a rea, and (2) the content of uranium that might have soaked into the
~thod of _s.t u9z
Seventeen water samples werG collected in 500 cc bottles fr~ the various
drainage ditches and streams alongside and adjacent to the storage area. In
addition, samples were collected from the main stream, cold 7’fater Creek.
Samples of water ware obtained from various hiehway bridges frO!ll its oriein
to its mouth.
Fifty mud samples ”are tal(en in 250 cc bottles at both surface and subsurface
levels 01•-.3″ and .3″ to 7″ raspectively; the latter procu.Nd to indicate
pene·tr ation. Using a two inch di.a.metar pi-pe to obtain a 211 x 3″ cylinder
of mud, the sub~urface and surface mud was sampled throughout tht3 area west
of the property, where the most noticeable drainage from. the storage area
occurs. Thera lVere 20 sampling stations along a north-eouth line follotdng the
wast fence appro:x:i.:nately 25 – 30 feet apart. ‘Ihe remaining staticns were wast
of the fenced area along the drainage ditches and a9pr~ll~tely 100 feet apart.
In addition to these samples four control mud samples were taken at distances
of one and five miles from the area.
Soil and liquid samples were· analyzed by the University of Ro<'~he ster for uranium content. A soil analysis result of o.o signifies no uranitun detect ed. If present, the uranium concentration is less than 0.1 micrograms l;.ranium per gram of soil. The sensitivity of the water analysis is 0.0004 micrograms uranium per cc of water. ~scriotion of TeiTain aqjoining...MQ...E!:OJ29rlY at J:!obertson..a J:j. ss~t1 Just prior to the period of mud and water sampling t here had boen gena r-a.l and frequent rains causi ng sluage and residue to be washed onto the adjoining property wast of the area. The area nearest tha west fence was swampy and boggy with many small drainage ditches emanating .from the area itself. In the central portion of the adjoini..l'lg area there is a swampy stretch running northsouth for 250 feet and east"""'f9st f'or 125 feat. 'l'liElnty to thirty feet south of asphalt cover ed Brawn Road which borders the area on the nortn., there was a pool of l'fater 50 feet in length. Due wast of t his pool thora was a.nother swampy stretch 125 feet in length originating or terminating at the swampy section desc1~bed above. All of the ground west of the Sl'Bmp area leading to Cold Vlater C:reek was firm terr ain. Two IDAi."l ditchew originati.ng near the fence area were avident1 one 25 feet directly south of and parallel to Brown Road and the other, a larger one originates in ~~a residue area and runs due west for 500 fest into the creek. -1- . As previously m3ntioned, the rainy weather conditions prior to the' sa:npling period were unusually severe and caused the appearance t)f many ephe;aeral ditches in the area. Cold ilater Creek was swollen and turbulent along its entire course to the Missouri River. Discussion The results of the mud analysis showed conclusively that s01no3 residue from the area had been washed "estward towards the creek. It should b1~ recognized that the weather conditions at the time the samples W9re taken af~ects the amounts of uranium obtained par sample. 1.he uranium tolerance value has been given by K. z. ~~rgan a:s: 60 micrograms uranium per milliliter of water. All values from the seventeen water samples taken are well within the limits of tolerance, ths highest,.lO micrograms uranium per milliliter of water being 17% of the recommended laval. Fieure 1 shows the fall-off of intensity in Jlg/ml w.i th respect to distance. It can be noted here that although the path or the creek south of the area ~1s not been plotted, the concentration throughout was nil. The figure generally accepted for normal uranium in soil is 4 x 10-6 grams per gram. Of the 50 soil samples analyzed, the values range from nil to 190 tin:es this figure. Figures 2 and 3 show the number of samples takEn at surface and sub-ourface levels and their multiples of normal. Figura 4 contains plots of both surface and sub-ourface soil concentrations west of the fenced area, showing once again, the sharp drop in inte.nsity with distance. Conclusion '!he study revealed the followinit~ 1. The creek vrater samples ware well within the limits of tolel"ance. 2. }.fud samples adjacent to the area ranged in value from nil to 190 times that of normal uranium content in soil. It is felt that a sound conclusion cannot be drawn from the s~9les shown hera because of the unusual conditions that prevailed at the tillB of sampling. Because of the excessive rains, two divergent forces would tend to affect the results. There would be a tendency to a higher result because of tho increased erosion; while the increased quantity of water would tend to dilute 1;be concentration. With comprehensive data the evaluation of hazards presanted by erosion and drainage both into the creek and adjacent area can be more soundly determined. It is thersfore recommended that subsequent soil and liquid samples be taken during essentially dr.y conditions. -2- ------------------- . • '0 t z 3 • ~ ' 1 a O'- 2 l " ~ 6 7 a 9 o 34567891 ~±Tr-: f -:: - ·~ ,: _ + --~-ttt~ -. ~ --- 8 -- • ·. ~ . :!' . .... --~~ ... -.. .• • 1. - : • •. • t . ,;;;. ..: ·, J,.~,·. Figure .3 ,, ...... --- · -"·-~ ·· ___ ...,.. -.~ ....... ._..... _ . ....,._,..... ____ ~ ·-·------·----·-----'"--·--··! , ...... ~ ............... . " ·--· · ···-···.··--·-~ . 'i / -·--·' . ---.. , ·, ., ......... ... -.l Figun 2. ~j."· l.. .t. .· .k i:··":· ... ·- ,· • • • ANAJ,ISE.S Or' Water Samples Taken at Airport Area & Cold ·,rater Creak Robertson, ~ssouri Hlltiples Sample Ur!'niUI!l of pmf. No. Operation Date Description W.crogrami/ml !$vel 1 Airport Area 'J/23/48 Main stream 150 ft. from fence area 4.0 O.O? 2 ,, II " JUnction of stream and Cold ~ter Creek 0.45 o.oos .3 II It II Cold water Creek & Brown Rd . Approx. 250 it. "l from fence 6 . 0 0. 1 ., ... 4 II " II stream near Brown Rd. 10 i't. fran area .3. 5 o.o6 'J 5 II u Stream near Br01!1l Rd. {juncti on with Cold Water Creek) 10.0 0 .17 tt.r:' " I. . 6 II " • 10 ft. from area main stream leading into Cold ~~ Water Creek 7 .0 o.u 7 " " II 100 ft. from area . Stream near Br~tn Rd. 3. 5 o.o6 8 " II It Cold ','l'ater creek at Taylor Rd. Approx. 1 lllile t:: .:. ~., . J down tile creek 0. 015 O. OOOJ 1""' . ~ · 9 n It n Byp&ss 6? - Highl'lay l40 - ~zel'I'IOOd al. o.ooos o.oooo1 t 10 " It 11 Cold uater Creek - t mile N of New Halls Ferry Rd. o.oo10 0.00002 11 II II II Cold Water Creek - Ol d Ferry Ri. 0.0026 0. 00004 l2 II! n II Cold water Creek - Old Jamestown Rd. 0. 0010 . 00002 13 .. n .. Cold water Creek - Junction of Mo. 99 & Highway 67 0. 0020 . 0000.3 14 " II It Cold Water Creek-1m Halls Ferry Rd. & Patterson Rd. o.oo:w . 0000.3 15 " II It Cold water Creek at N• tural Bridge Rd. o.ooos . oooo1 • 16 II " It Cold Water Creek - St. Charles Rd. o.oooo 0 • • 5alnple No. Operation Date l? 18 A.irport. Area J/23/48 " II II aNALYSES OF Water S&mples Taken at Airport Al'aa & Cold Water Creek Robertson, ~s5ouri Description Cold ~t er Creek - ~dland Blvd. M.lltiples Ui~n.1:wn o.i" Pttti • Alicrograms/ml laval o.oooo 0 c:ra'Wfish picked up on area {Ash weight 3.0 grams} 12. )1/gram of ash .. · •r . ..:t I ~ -- ·-- • ANALYSES OF Soil Samples Taken at Airport Area, Robertson, Mo:. l!llti ples Sanple Uranium of nonaal No1 Q.Eeration Date Il!P'th ~ription micrograms tEE,aJn soil Con9_t 1 Airport Area 3/2E/4S Surface l.'ud 6r from S end of area drainage ditch 0 to 311 near railroad o.o 0 2 II II II Mld. .3" to 6tl 6r fran s end of area drainage ditch balOl'l surface near railroad o.o 0 3 11 II Surface mud 201 N of S and of fence 101 W of fence o.o 0 0 to 311 deep 4 !.Ud Jll to 6U 201 N of Send of fence 10' 'IV of fence o.o 0 r. ·.· II It n • deep ,~. · " 5 II II Surface mud .35' N of s end of f ence 101 W of fence o.o 0 ~ : o to 311 ~; . , .. 6 II II " l!l.d .3n to 6n .35 1 N of S end of fence lO' \1 of fence o.o 0 ~:· :"' deep ,. . f ? n 11 Surface mud 60• N from S eoo of fence lO• \'i of fence 3.2 .so 0 t o .311 a q II II MUd 311 to 7u 601 N from B end of fence 10 r 1'l of fence 3.3 .8,3 deep 9 II .. II Surface mud 95' .from S end of Fence 10' ',f of fence 760. 0 to 4" in ditch 190 10 II II II Surface mud 1251 N of SW end of fence 10' W of fence 19. 4.5 0 to 311 ll II II II }Jld 311 to 611 deep 1251 N of ~ end of fence 101 11 of fence 17. 4.3 12 II II II Surface mud 150' N of SW end of fence 10' W of fence l6. 4.0 • 0 to .3" deep • Sample Uranium !Jlltiples o:f no :rmal No. Operation Depth Description micrograms/gram soU Cone. 1;3 Airport Area J/28/48 llud ~~~ to 6" 1501 N of Sli end of .fence 101 Wo! .fenee 17. 4.;3 14 II II II &lrface mud 1801 N of 5W end t:.>£ renee 101 W of
0 to 3″ fence 8.1 2.0
15 n II .. l!ld 3u to 6•- 1801 N of S5. end of fence lOt Wo! o.o 0
16 II II Surface I!Dld 2201 N of SW end of fence 5′ ii of n. 2.8
0 to 3″ fence
17 11 II ” l’!Wi 3″ to 6n 2201 N of SN end of fence 5′ w or o.o 0
beneath surface fence
l8 II ” It lbd 0 to 511 250• N of SW end or fence 101 W of 9 • .3 2.7
deep fence
19 II II Surface mud 10′ N of NW end of fence o.o 0
0 to 4″ deep
20 II It II Surface mud 310′ N of Sif end of fence 101 \’l of o.o 0 I
0 to 411 fence
21 II II Surface md 201 s of Bl’own Rd. 1001 W of fence 12. 3
0 to 311 towards Cold ·,vater Creek
22 1:11 It .. )u to sin deep 100′ W of fenee towards Cold Water 2.1 o.s
Creek 201 S of Brown Rd.
2J II … It 0 to ,311 deep 2001 W of fence towards Cold ·:1ater 1.2 o3
Creek 201 5 of Brown Rd.
24 II II II Ml.d depth 311 2001 W o! fence towards Cold \'{ater o.o 0
to 611 Creek 5′ S ot Brown Rd.
25 II II II Surface I!Dld 275′ :’i o! fence towards Cold Water u. 2.8
0 to .)11 Creek 5′ S of Brown Rd. (Ditch) • 26 •• II It 3″ to 611 deep 275• w of fence towards Cola water
Creek 51 S of Brown Rd. (Ditch)
12. .3
·. – – —· -·- –·
.. – – • MJ.ltiples
$ample Uranium of normal
No . Operation DaUI Depth Desca-iption Mi.crogramB/gram soil cone.
27 Airport Area 3/’)13/413 l.ll.d 0 to Jitt 4501 ll” of fence near Col d Water Creek 5. 0 1. 25
101 from Brown Rd. (Ditch)
;cs II ” ” Surface mud 500′ r f of ~Ff end of fence junction 1. 5 .38
0 to 3 11 deep of ditch and Cold water Creek 10′ N
of Rl.ilroad tra cks
29 l l 11 n 3n to 7 11 deep 500′ \Y of SY: end of fence j unction o.o 0
ot ditch and·. Cold Water Creek 10′ N of Railroad tracks ·J.
30 II It II Surface mud 4001 Vf of Sl'( corner of fence 75′ N 4 – 5 1 .1 :!’
0 to 4″ deep of RR tracks (drainage ditch} : ~~– f:
31 ll II II 411 to 7″ be- 4001 W af S’:l corner of fence 751 N 2.2 .7
neath surface of RR tracks (drainage. ditch) ,.
32 ll II Surface mud 300′ ‘\’:” of S\7 end of fence (drainage 6 .0 1.5 ~ :.
0 to~~
·-·· : ditch) and 591 N of RR t racks . …,
3!11 to 6in 300′ ‘\’f of SW end of fence (drainage 6.
V ‘
33 •• 11 •• .24. I .
deep ditch) 50 1 N of RR tracks
34 II ” • Surface mud 200• W of s’• end oi f ence 751 N of n. 2.7
0 to 3″ 4eep RR tracks (drainage ditch)
35 II ll ” 311 to 6n 200• ‘II oi S’,f end of fence 75′ N of .3·4 .8.5
RR tracks (drainage ditch)
36 n It II 0 to 3″ deep 100′ W of’ SW end a! fence 50′ N o! 50. 12.5
Surface mud RR tracks (s1’lB.Illpy section)
Yl • • Ju to 6!n 1001 W of sn· end of f ence 50• N of ?.9 .2
RR tracks (Sllalllpy section)
38 II II II 0 to 2ttt sur- 1001 7( of srr and of fence 100′ N of 31. s.o
face mud RR tracks (swampy section)
. 39 n It 2~’ to 6~” 100′ w of S1f end of fence 1001 N o! 4. 0 1.0
If deep RR tracks (swampy section)
• MuJ:t.iples
&unple Urani\llll of normal
No. Oper14tion Date Depth Descri;etion :t.:~ crogramsLrz.a.m. soil Cone .
40 Airport ANa 3/2I3/JJ3 0..311 deep sur- 251 W of w fence towards Cold so. 12.5
face !!!.’J.d ~i’il.tar Creak, 200′ H or RR track
41 II 11 II 0…311 deep 201 w of 11 fence towards Cold ·t~ater 65. 16.2
surface mu.d C~ek 1001 1-1 of RR tra.cka (swamp) w: ~-·
42 II It J• to 6- deep 20• W of “f1 fence tor.oards Cold Water ?.1 1.8
Creak 100• N of RR tr&cks (swamp)
43 11 II 11 Surface mud 20• N of SVT end of fence .251 ‘!T of ?! 3.8 .95
0- 2~1 fence towards cold Water Creek
(drainage ditch)
44 II • • 2!11 to stu 201 N of Si’l end of fence 251 vr of Y o.o 0
deep fence t.ONards Cold ‘Nater Creek
(drainage ditch)
45 II 11 0 – 311 deep 110’ s of NW end of fence 251 7f or 38. 9.5
fence towards Cold :rater Creek ··:Sh-‘
Jn to 5~’
– ~
46 II 11 It u o• s of Nlf end of tenoe 251 w of 25. 6.2 ‘ .
deep fence tO”//&.rds Cold !’later Creek
47 ,, It II Surface mud Control Natural Bridge Rli. &. Air- o.o 0
0- .3″ deep port ~. 1 mile fran area
48 • • II 3″-Qn·daep Control Na.turs.l Bridge Rd . P~ Air- o.o 0
port Rd. 1 mile from area
49 11 • tt 9-3” daep sur- Control – 5 miles from Airport o.o 0
face 1111d Area city limits
50 II .. Jn-Ott deep Control – 5 miles fran J..irport o.o 0
Area city l:imits •
‘ .
.. •, ~·
… -.
, …… f’ … ~’ o-;w•….c;.s ICS
r KHOol cK£MtCAl WOR I
lfo4ALL.PtC ‘lor ·~ -~–··

., •
Hip 2


1997-03-06 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Enforcement Support Services Contract – Alternative Dispute Resolution

Funding: CERCLA
No.: 97T07WGBX
2. Contract No.: 68-W4-0039
5. Prime Contractor: DYNAMAC
8. Priority: Ex edi te
3. Work Assignnent #: C07 02 3
6. Amenctnent Nunber:OOOOO
ite/Facil ity Name: WEST LAKE LANDFILL
3. EPA Site/Facility ID#: MOD079900932
5. CERCLA ONLY:FMS Site/Spill ID: 14
7. CERCLIS/Event/Actlvlty/NSS: 2101- 1701·
18. Purpase: Initiate New Work Assignment
19. Task Type: Alternative Dispute Resolution
!1. Comient:
22. Total Funding Received
Previously Approved:
This Action:
2.,eriod Of Performance From: 03/10/97
,2.6.. ..I ,nit iator: Work Assigr1wnen¥t Ma nager CWAM> Name: steve kinser
30. Approval: Project Officer
(SIGN) _________________ _
Name: N/A N/A
34. Cont~Offl


2013-03-27 – EPA – WEST LAKE LANDFILL BRIDGETON, MISSOURI – Questions and Answers

QUESTION: Why hasn’t EPA proposed to excavate the radiological waste at West Lake
Landfill, to be consistent with the ongoing excavation of similar radiological waste at the nearby
St. Louis Airport sites (SLAPS)?
While the wastes are similar at both sites, the pathways for people to be exposed to the material
at West Lake and SLAPS are very different
West Lake is fenced to prevent access, and the groundwater beneath the site is not being used for
drinking water. There are no current exposures to people.
The radiological waste at SLAPS is mainly at the surface along roads where the public could be
Existing risk assessments indicate that the West Lake waste can be safely managed by capping in
place as selected in the 2008 Record of Decision. However, due to extensive public interest, EPA
is currently re-evaluating the ROD remedy and several excavation remedies in more detail.
• EPA completed a Supplemental Feasibility Study in 2011 that re-evaluated the Record of
Decision remedy of cap-in-place as well as full excavation of the radiological waste with offsite
or on-site disposal.
• Region 7 presented the results of the SFS to the National Remedy Review Board as an “early
consultation” in February 2012, and the NRRB comments from this consultation resulted in
additional evaluations. The additional evaluations, including an evaluation of a partial
excavation alternative, are in work now by the potentially responsible parties and will result
in an addendum to the SFS report.
• The Lambert-St. Louis Airport Authority has expressed considerable interest in the remedy
to be selected, and has stated in writing that it views excavation of landfill waste so close to
the airport to constitute a bird strike hazard to aircraft.
• Questions received on this and related issues from Sens. Claire McCaskill and Roy Blunt,
Reps. William Lacy Clay
Dan Gravatt, 913-551-7324
Karl Brooks, 913-551-7006 3/27/2013
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058493
QUESTION: What is EPA doing about the landfill fire or “subsurface smoldering event” at
West Lake?
• The landfill fire at West Lake is occurring underground in a non-radiological waste disposal
cell at the site which is permitted by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR). As the sole regulatory authority for this waste disposal cell, MDNR is responsible
for responding to the landfill fire.
• EPA and MDNR communicate regularly on the status of the fire and the PRP’s to contain
and put the fire out.
• The landfill fire was first discovered in December 2010 and reported to MDNR and the EPA.
• The landfill fire began to receive extensive press coverage in late 2012 when odors from the
fire increased and began to generate complaints from local residents and businesses.
• The landfill fire area is more than 1,000 feet from the nearest area of radiological waste.
• Questions received on this and related issues from Sens. Claire McCaskill and Roy Blunt,
Reps. William Lacy Clay and Ann Wagner.
The site is PRP-lead, meaning that the PRPs (including the U.S. Department of Energy) are
paying for the additional studies and site work, and are reimbursing EPA staff for its time in
overseeing the work.
Dan Gravatt, 913-551-7324
Karl Brooks, 913-551-7006 3/27/2013
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058494

Search Document Archive

Navigating the Archives

The archives can be accessed here.

To make a detailed query of the text of every document in the Archives, use the search bar at the top of the screen

The file names for each record include up to three components:

  1. the date of publication;
  2. the acronym of the agency or organization involved (if applicable);
  3. and the subject matter of the record.

Search Queries:

To search for any record that contains one or more words in the body of the document, put those search terms in the search bar. A search query with two or more search terms (ie: Fukushima Daiichi) will return all records that include ANY of the terms entered(Fukushima AND Daiichi), even if they are not found consecutively in the document.

To search for specific strings of two or more search terms(ie: Fukushima Daiichi ), while excluding records that include separate references to each search term, place the search query in quotations "Fukushima Daiichi" in the search bar.

Document Collections

Records are grouped together into the following collections:

  1. Collections by Agency
  2. Collections by Organization
  3. Collections by Event
  4. Collections by Site