EPA/540/4-90/008
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Connecticut
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, B.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview - iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets 1
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
11
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
A^ s the 1970s came to a
close, a series of head-
line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly
known as the Superfund
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
groundwater (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
111
-------
lively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
not on the NPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund 's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half
have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies like
those designed to clean up
groundwater must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
IV
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually oh all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe
what the problems are, what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear about
both environmental progress
across the country and the
cleanup accomplishments
closer to home. The public
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make as a
Nation in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation arid
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites?
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
VI
-------
The diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
Vll
-------
i- about potential *|
rhazarddus waste" ""T"5"*
|sites?
Sr
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
SWhat happens tr%^;
& there Is ant ii
! danger?
h
; If there isn't an
w ^ "
* imminent
[how doe$ EPA
^determine what, if ^
any, cleanup actions,,
" « ^ *
Ibe
_
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now it's time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
Vlll
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
that, a. setiptt§ threat
, may exist, wliafs the
"
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
How does EPA use
ji&ej^sittlts of the
site ij^pectiott?
f 5 * f , &? Ws
IX
-------
, How do people f aidA'"-
put whether pPAv ^ ^
I considers a site a;\" %^
national priority lor- ^?1
- cleanup wsing -CV\; ^
money? ^4?
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). That's why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in-which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent, of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not ari imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
site Is ad%4 ~
what are
|&e steps io cteanttp?
XI
-------
How are cleanup
f alternatives
identified and
it *
f
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent site investiga-
tions/ the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
ronmental risks.
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility
study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their use of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to clean up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
Does the public have 5""-' Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
4-a say in the final ';'" ' opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
' cleantit) decision**^; ' '* concerris are carefully considered before a final decision is
Sjj Jt s
made.
xu
-------
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice, are
published in a report for public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
frequently are large and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it must be
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the -> action JtJ,ee.ds to
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
tailored to a site, does
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
remedy tweed, toj}&;
kilted too?
,!.<"
Xlll
-------
SUPERFUND
Phi iflfi
m
*
&.
I Once the design. Is fX'v
I Complete, how
it take *6"
f* achiatly cleait up 1$Le \,^
Lsile and howmwr*- c'
* does it cost?
-' \i^ < - %>;s^
,^; V,,J if
?5iV \ j
"" \ \ *«»« <.
f'Once the ,
I Action is complete, is^ "
I the site mitomdliciilly *
|"delef ed" from &?* \ W
I NPL?
I ~
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup called the
remedial action are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
If s not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay/' after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA/ and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
-f ^' s
Cau, EPA make patties ,
for tltg,
XV
-------
TAX
-------
The Site Fact Sheets
presented in this book
are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
at the site.
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site or part
of the site are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvii
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
SITE NAME
STATE
I H %.* '<§
.«!? Anv&'t
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
Location
Site Description
Site ResponsibUlty: "
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
**%v>.*V ^V^* ^ r
S«^5SvX\vS^ & C"m^v." '
XVlll
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats and Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
Site Facts
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
r-1^
XIX
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect ,
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to dean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet .
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
State of Connec
Connecticut is the second smallest state in the nation, covering 5,018 square miles.
The State topography consists of western upland in the northwest part of the state,
narrow central lowland in the north and south, and hilly eastern upland drained by
rivers. Connecticut experienced a 4.0 percent increase in population through the 1980s
and currently has approximately 3,233,000 residents, ranking 28th in U.S. State
populations. Principal State industries include manufacturing, retail, government, and
services. Connecticut produces livestock, aircraft engines and parts, submarines,
copper, helicopters, and electrical equipment.
How Many Connecticut Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
1
13
Q
14
Cong.
Cong.
Cong.
Cong.
Cong.
District 01
District 02
District 04
District 05
District 06
1 site
6 sites
1 site
3 sites
3 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and heavy
metals (inorganics).
Soil: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), heavy metals (inorganics),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
and creosote (organics).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and heavy metals (inorganics).
15--
o) 12
I 9 +
*
6
3-
GW Soil SW Sed
Contamination Area
* Appear at 20% or more sites
State Overview
xxi
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy
"Selected'
^ Remedy
" Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
* Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 7 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Connecticut, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental
progress. Should you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Connecticut Superfund Office
EPA Region I Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region I Superfund Public
Relations Office
(203) 566-4633
(617)573-9645
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(617)565-3417
Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
XXII
-------
The NPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow (*-) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
*- An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
* An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
*- An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
* An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
* A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
XXlll
-------
JtTOj
Page
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
[press Toward Cleanup at
Site Name
BARKHAMSTED-NEW HARTFORD LNDF
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL
CHESHIRE GW CONTAMINATION
DURHAM MEADOWS
GALLUP'S QUARRY
KELLOGG-DEERING WELL FIELD
LAUREL PARK, INC.
LINEMASTER SWITCH CORPORATION
NUTMEG VALLEY ROAD
OLD SOUTHINGTON LANDFILL
PRECISION PLATING
REVERE TEXTILE PRINTS CORPORATION
SOLVENTS RECOVERY SERVICE OF NE
YAWORSKI WASTE LAGOON
jwrxf ones
County
LITCHFIELD
NEW HAVEN
NEW HAVEN
MIDDLESEX
WINDHAM
FAIRFIELD
NEW HAVEN
WINDHAM
NEW HAVEN
HARTFORD
TOLLAND
WINDHAM
HARTFORD
WINDHAM
in LU
NPL
Final
Final
Prop
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
e ottitc UJL Vsuuu.euti.uui.
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
10/04/89 *
09/08/83 *- * * *
06/21/88 * *
10/04/89 * *-
10/04/89 * "*
09/01/84 * "^ "^ "*
09/08/83 "* + "^ *" "*"
02/21/90 «*- "*
03/31/89 "* 1^
09/21/84 *
10/04/89 "^ 1^
07/01/87 "*
09/08/83 "* <*- "^ "*
09/08/83 "^ "* *-
-------
-------
-------
BARKHAMSTED-
NEW HARTF
LANDFILL
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD980732333
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Litchfleld County
Barkhamsted
Site Description
The Barkhamsted-New Hartford Landfill encompasses 98 acres near the Barkhamsted
and New Hartford town line. Since 1974, it has been owned and operated by the
Regional Refuse Disposal District One. The landfill Is unlined and accepts municipal
and industrial wastes, including oily metal grindings and sludge containing heavy
metals. A barrel-crushing operation also is on site to reclaim metals. In 1983, leaking
drums containing hazardous solvents were observed on site during a State inspection.
Tests indicate volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were present in shallow and deep
wells on site. An unnamed brook borders the site to the southwest and north and
flows through a wetlandto the Farmington River. The surrounding area is rural and
residential. Many private wells and a municipal supply well serving an estimated 4,800
people are within 3 miles of the site.
site Responsibility: jne site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater underlying the site is contaminated with VOCs including
xylene, toluene, and vinyl chloride, which are present in shallow and deep
wells on site. The site is not completely fenced, making it possible for
people and animals to come into contact with hazardous substances.
Potential human health threats include drinking or coming in direct contact
with the groundwater or contaminated soils, the surface water, or
sediment from the brook and beaver pond.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
BARKHAMSTED-NEW HARTFORD LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase aimed at cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action. Status
Entire Site: The Farmington Valley Health District shut down the on-site
well serving the landfill office due to VOC contamination. An investigation
into the nature and extent of site contamination is planned to begin in 1991
Environmental Progress
The EPA has studied the conditions at the Barkhamsted-New Hartford Landfill site and
has determined, as the contaminated water source has been removed from service,
that no other immediate actions are required to make it safer while waiting for cleanup
actions to begin.
-------
BEACON HEIGI
LANDFILL
CONNECTICUT
EPAID# CTD072122062
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
New Haven County
Southeast of the intersection of
Blackberry Hill Road and Skokorat Road
Alias:
Betkoski's Dump
The Beacon Heights Landfill site covers 30 acres on an 83-acre property. Between
1920 and 1979, the landfill was used for the disposal of industrial and municipal waste,
including oils, chemical liquids, sludges, solvents, rubber, and plastics. Landfill
operations included open burning along with burial of noncombustibles. During an
investigation conducted by the EPA in 1984, benzene and several other solvents were
detected in two private wells on Skokorat Road at levels that exceed drinking water
standards set by the State of Connecticut. Hockanum Brook, located 1/2 mile
northwest of the landfill, flows into the Naugatuck River 2 miles northwest of the site.
Approximately 44 homes are within 1/2 mile of the site along Skokorat and Blackberry
Hill Road. The nearest residences are approximately 1,000 feet to the north and west
of the site. Eight hundred people live within 1 mile of the site. Local residences used
groundwater as the drinking water supply source. The local surface water is used for
recreational purposes. An apple orchard is located approximately 600 feet northwest of
the landfill.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater underlying the site was found to be contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including methylene chloride. The on-
site leachate and soils are contaminated with VOCs, as well as lead. The
on-site surface water has been shown to be contaminated with VOCs.
People are at risk by touching or drinking contaminated surface or
groundwater, breathing potentially contaminated air, or by accidentally
ingesting soil on the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being cleaned up in two long-term remedial phases focusing on control of
contamination sources and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Source Control: In 1985, the EPA chose the following remedies, which the
parties potentially responsible for the contamination at the site agreed to
. carry out: (1) excavation of Betkoski's Dump and other contaminated soils
for consolidation with the main landfill prior to closing it down; (2) covering the
consolidated wastes to prevent contaminant migration; (3) providing gas venting and
stormwater management controls; and (4) installing a system to collect leachate along
the perimeter of the site. The parties potentially responsible also are required to fence
the site and to enforce State and local control of use of groundwater in the area. Forty-
nine residences that elected to do so have been connected to the municipal water line.
Three pumping stations and a reservoir have been built to accommodate the additional
water service.
Entire Site: Under the EPA's guidance, a study for leachate disposal is
currently being developed by the parties potentially responsible. It has been
decided that the area should be capped; after the design is finalized, the
, responsible parties will construct the cap and collect leachate for off-site
disposal or on-site treatment followed by discharge to surface water. A more extensive
groundwater monitoring system is also planned.
Site Facts: In 1987, 32 of the more than 70 companies identified by the EPA as
potentially responsible parties agreed to pay for a substantial portion of the site
cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The interim actions described above have provided a safe drinking water supply to
residents, have reduced the potential for exposure to contamination, and have made
the Beacon Hills Landfill site safer while it awaits further planned cleanup activities.
A
-------
CHESHIRE GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATED
SITE
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD981067317
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
New Haven County
Cheshire
The 15-acre Cheshire Groundwater Contamination site in Cheshire has been leased by
a variety of tenants that have conducted varied manufacturing processes. A major
portion of the site has been owned by Cheshire Associates, a New York-based
partnership, since 1966. The company leased the property to Valley National
Corporation from 1966 to 1979 and to Cheshire Molding Co. from 1979 to 1980. Both
companies manufactured plastic molding at the site; neither kept records of disposal
practices or waste quantities. Airpax Corporation Plant 2, the current lessee,
manufactured electrochemical and electronic devices beginning in 1983 and disposed
of its wastes in accordance with the existing State regulations. The wastes of principal
concern at the site include organic chemicals and solvents. Both soil and groundwater
on the site are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), as are residential
wells both on and off site, on-site shallow wells, and an off-site bedrock well. The area
is residential and industrial. About 330 people living within 1 mile use private wells for
drinking water. Cheshire municipal wells, serving 22,900 people, lie 2 miles southeast
of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
IV
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with VOCs from the organic chemicals
and solvents formerly used at the site. Wells are polluted with VOCs,
including high levels of trichloroethane, dichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, and xylenes. VOCs contaminating the soil also
include trichloroethane, dichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene. People
drinking contaminated groundwater are at risk from exposure to
contaminants. The site is in a low-lying freshwater wetland bordered by
two ponds.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
CHESHIRE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in initial actions and a long-term remedial phase aimed at
providing an alternate drinking water source and cleaning up the groundwater at the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In October 1983, in compliance with a State Consent
Agreement, Cheshire Associates removed 20 cubic yards of contaminated
soil to an EPA-regulated landfill. Municipal water has been provided to the
contaminated residential wells.
Entire Site: A thorough investigation of the site to assess the type and
extent of contamination and to identify cleanup strategies is scheduled to
begin in late 1990.
Site Facts: In 1983, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
signed a Consent Agreement with Cheshire Associates requiring the company to
remove contaminated on-site soil and to monitor VOCs in the 2 private wells
semiannually for 5 years.
Environmental Progress
Removal of contaminated soil and the provision of a safe drinking water supply have
reduced the potential exposure to contaminated drinking water at the Cheshire site,
making it safer while it awaits further cleanup activity.
-------
DURHAM MEAD
CONNECTICUT
EPAID# CTD001452093
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Middlesex County
Main Street in Durham
Alias:
Merriam Mfg.
Site Description
Investigations at the Durham Meadows site center around the Merriam Manufacturing
Company, which occupies 5 acres on Main Street. Established in 1851, the company
makes metal products, primarily boxes for files, security, tools, and fishing supplies.
Merriam disposed of contaminated wastewater and sludges on its property in two
unlined and undiked lagoons built in 1973. Before that, waste was apparently put into
the facility's septic system. The owner ceased dumping in the lagoons in 1982. In
another area, paint wastes and decreasing solvents were stored on the ground in
drums. Some were in poor condition or leaking during a State inspection in 1981. In
early 1983, after an EPA/State inspection, the EPA ordered the owner to correct several
violations of State hazardous waste management regulations. In response, Merriam
removed drums and supplied alternative water to affected residents. Durham has a
population of approximately 5,600 residents, all using private wells. The nearest
resident lives only 10 feet away from the site border. The site is less than 1/2 mile
from the Coginchaug River, which eventually drains into the Connecticut River. A
freshwater wetland is within 1,500 feet of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal, State and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Wastewater and sludges from manufacturing processes at the site
contained paint waste and organic solvents. In 1982, the State
Department of Environmental Protection detected volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), including methylene chloride in private wells in the
Durham area. Drinking contaminated groundwater could threaten the
health of nearby residents. The site currently lacks any security or
physical barrier to prevent direct contact with contaminated wastes. The
nearby freshwater wetlands could potentially become polluted from the
contaminants migrating from the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
DURHAM MEADOWS
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focus ing on
developing cleanup alternatives for contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Under State order, Merriam removed drums containing
hazardous wastes to an EPA-approved facility and supplied bottled water to
residents in the vicinity of the site after the private wells were found to be
contaminated. Carbon filters have since been installed in affected homes.
Entire Site: The EPA will perform a detailed site investigation to determine
the extent and nature of groundwater contamination and to recommend
strategies for cleanup. The study is scheduled to be completed by late
1993. Once the investigation is completed, the EPA will evaluate the study findings
and select the final cleanup remedies for site contamination.
Site Facts: The State ordered Merriam Manufacturing to supply bottled water to
residents in the vicinity of the site. The EPA issued an Administrative Order requiring
Merriam to correct several violations of State hazardous waste management
regulations.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate drinking water source and the removal of some hazardous
materials have reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated drinking water or
soil from the Durham Meadows site, making it safer while awaiting further cleanup
activities.
-------
GALLUPfS Q
CONNECTICUT
EPAID# CTD108960972
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Windham County
Plalnfleld
Site Description
Gallup's Quarry is a 22-acre abandoned gravel pit located in a rural area on Tarbox Road,
1 mile south of Plainfield's business district. In the 1970s, the owner accepted
chemical wastes without a permit. Drums and free liquids were dumped at the site,
including wastes containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals.
Several of these contaminants have been detected in on-site monitoring wells operated
by the State from 1980 to 1981 and by the EPA in 1986. In 1989, the EPA sampled
private drinking water wells and found no contamination. The area is rural and
residential. Approximately 6,500 people rely on wells within 3 miles of the site as their
sole source of drinking water. A community well is 4,000 feet away, and a private well
is 1,160 feet from the site.
Site Responsibility: fhe sfte js being cleaned up through
combined State and Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals, including
copper, nickel, and chromium. Ketone and hydrocarbons have been
found in the soil. The site is currently unrestricted. Direct contact with
hazardous substances on site may pose a potential health threat. Mill
Brook and associated wetlands, located 500 feet downslope of the site,
are threatened by site contamination. Local residents use these
resources for swimming and recreational purposes.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
GALLUP'S QUARRY
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action to limit exposure to
contamination and a long-term remedial phase aimed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1978, the site was evaluated by the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection. The State environmental staff and
the State Police supervised removal of waste drums and contaminated soil.
The owner agreed to reimburse the State for the removal activities at Gallup's Quarry
and another property he owned. However, limited soil analyses conducted by the State
in 1981 indicated that soil contaminated with ketone and hydrocarbons remained on the
site.
Entire Site: The EPA has scheduled an in-depth investigation at Gallup's
Quarry for 1990. The study will explore the extent and nature of soil and
groundwater contamination and will recommend cleanup strategies for the
site. Completion of the study and a final selection of a cleanup method is planned for
1992.
Environmental Progress
The EPA assessed conditions at Gallup's Quarry and determined that the site does not
pose an immediate threat to public health or the surrounding environment. The initial
actions described above have reduced the risk of accidental exposure to contamination
and have made the site safer while it awaits further cleanup activities.
10
-------
KELLOGG-D]
WELL FIEL1
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD980670814
BERING
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Fail-field County
Western bank of the Nbrwalk River
Alias:
Smith Well Field
Site Description
The Kellogg-Deering Well Field site consists of an approximately 10-acre municipal well
field and adjacent areas that contribute to the well field contamination. Groundwater
sampling data indicated that a significant source area of contamination exists below the
Elinco/Pitney Bowes/Matheis Court Complex located at the eastern edge of the site.
EPA recognizes that some groundwater cleanup efforts are being undertaken by the
owners and will evaluate these efforts during the technical design phase to determine if
they are consistent with the overall cleanup of the aquifer. The well field supplies
approximately 25% of the drinking water for 45,000 residents in the city of Norwalk.
The primary source of public water supply to the Norwalk First Taxing District (NFTD)
Water Department is surface water from four reservoirs. Reservoir water is blended
with well field water at varying ratios depending on reservoir storage and distribution
system location. The well field is located adjacent to residential and industrial areas.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
a Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), primarily trichloroethylene (TCE) and
perchloroethylene (PCE). People could be exposed to chemical
contaminants by drinking contaminated water if no treatment were
provided; however the water department is treating and blending water
from the wells and reservoir to provide safe drinking water.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
KELLOGG-DEERING WELL FIELD
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on wellhead
treatment and source control.
Response Action Status
Wellhead Treatment: The water department installed an aerator in 1981 at
one of the wells. The aerator consistently removes 65% of the volatile
organics in the groundwater. In 1984, the utility installed an air stripper on
another well, bringing the removal of VOCs to 99%. The air filtering actions were
completed in 1988. The air stripper is part of the water treatment plant, and it will
remain in operation. Contaminants are removed from water by air filtering the volatile
contaminants to a gas. The treated water is discharged into the existing conventional
water treatment plant and distribution system.
Source Control: The remedy selected by the EPA for controlling the source
of contamination involves treatment by extracting contaminants from the soil
with vacuum extraction; extraction, treatment, and discharge of
contaminated groundwater; and institutional controls to prevent exposure
during the time that the remedy is being conducted. The EPA has plans for a third set
of studies for the area between the well field and the contaminant source control. Air
and groundwater monitoring also will be provided. The technical phase is expected to
begin in the fall 1990.
Site Facts: An EPA Administrative Order was signed with the parties potentially
responsible for the site contamination in 1989 concerning the wellhead treatment.
I Environmental Progress
The interim action described above has eliminated the potential of exposure to
hazardous substances in the drinking water, and will continue to protect these
households until planned cleanup activities at the Kellogg-Deering site are completed.
12
-------
LAUREL PAR
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD980521165
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
New Haven County
Naugatuck
Aliases:
Murthas Hunter Mountain Landfill
Laurel Park Landfill
Site Description
The Laurel Park, Inc. site is a landfill that occupies approximately 20 acres of a 35-acre
parcel of land. The landfill has been in existence since the late 1940s, and several
industries disposed of solvents, oils, hydrocarbons, chemical and liquid sludge,
chemical solids, tires, and rubber products there. The facility continued to operate as a
municipal landfill until 1987. The central developed portion of the town of Naugatuck,
which has an estimated population of 26,500 people, is located approximately 1 mile
northeast of the site. Homes are located around three sides of the landfill.
Approximately 50 homes are located within a 1/4-mile radius of the site, with the
closest residents being about 1,000 feet from the site. The nearest homes used
groundwater from individual wells as a drinking water supply source but have been
connected to the public water supply. The homes at the bottom of Huntington Hill,
downslope of the landfill, are on a public water supply line. Most of the area
immediately bordering the site is forested.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site soil and leachate are contaminated with inorganic and organic
chemicals including dichloroethane and benzene. Groundwater and
surface water are contaminated with heavy metals including calcium and
magnesium and with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as toluene
and acetone. The human health threats include direct contact with,
drinking, or accidental ingestion of contaminated groundwater, surface
water, soils, and leachate. Forested areas surrounding the site may be
threatened by runoff of site contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
LAUREL PARK, INC.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: an initial action and two long-term remedial
phases concentrating on fencing, water line installation, and sewer treatment; and
source control and groundwater treatment.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: A leachate collection system was constructed in 1984,
under a court order, to capture contaminants leaching from the landfill area
into the groundwater and other site areas. Additionally, the potentially
responsible parties provided bottled water to area residents affected by a contaminated
drinking water supply.
Fencing, Water Line, and Sewer Treatment: The potentially responsible
party fenced a leachate seep in 1986 and installed a water supply line in
1989. The water line is complete except for surface landscaping. All of the
homes are hooked up, with the exception of three residences that refused to be
hooked to the system. There is no hook-up fee, but the homeowners have to pay for
municipal water use. The potentially responsible parties constructed a sewer line,
completed early in 1990, to carry leachate from the site to the Naugatuck Water
Pollution Control facility for treatment.
Source Control and Groundwater Treatment: The remedy selected by
the EPA to address both the source control and groundwater control
includes: (1) installation of a cover over all waste disposal areas to prevent
contact with surface water and groundwater; (2) rehabilitation of the
existing leachate collection system, including addition of a system . .
consisting of french drains and groundwater extraction wells, followed by off-site
treatment and discharge at the Naugatuck Water Pollution Control Facility; and (3)
monitoring of the air, water, soils, and groundwater at the site. Preparation of the
technical specifications and design for the selected remedy is the next step.
Site Facts: In the early 1960s, citizens began to complain about odors, fires, spills, and
runoff from the site. In 1985, Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., a potentially
responsible party, entered into an Administrative Consent Orc/erwith the EPA to
conduct an investigation into the type and extent of contamination at the site. In 1989,
the State and Uniroyal agreed to equally fund the installation of a sewer line to convey
leachate from the landfill.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions to provide safe drinking water and to control the source of the
contamination have reduced the immediate threats at the Laurel Park, Inc. site.
Additional cleanup actions and the planned,groundwater treatment will continue to
reduce contamination levels at the site, making it safe to the nearby residents and the
environment.
14
-------
LINEMASTER SWITCH
CORPORATION
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTDOO1153923
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Windham County
Plaine Hill Road in Woodstock
Site Description
The 45-acre Linemaster Switch site has manufactured electrical and pneumatic foot
switches and wiring harnesses since 1952. Facility operations involve the use of
trichloroethylene (TCE), paint, and thinners. Wastes are stored in barrels in sheds near
the factory building. The site boundary has been expanded to 92 acres due to
contamination, extending to Route 171 to the south, Plaine Hill Road to the west, and
Route 169 to the north and east. Approximately 2,100 people are located and obtain
drinking water from wells drawing on the contaminated groundwater within 3 miles of
the site. An on-site well supplies drinking water to the factory and its offices. The site
is surrounded by the Town of Woodstock, a rural community of approximately 5,300
people. Artificial ponds located on the site are used for boating.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, sediments, surface water and soils are contaminated with
TCE. TCE was also detected in Linemaster's main pump house well,
which supplies drinking water to the factory and its offices. Solvents
were detected in the artificial ponds. The site is unfenced, making it
possible for people and animals to come into direct contact with
hazardous substances. Other human health threats include drinking
contaminated groundwater or touching the soil, surface water, or
sediments.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
LINEMASTER SWITCH CORPORATION
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action that provided drinking water
to Linemaster employees and surrounding residents and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: Linemaster began providing bottled water to its employees
in 1986. Also in 1986, the EPA began to provide bottled water to off-site
residents whose wells are contaminated. Presently, all bottled water is
Entire Site: Linemaster's main production well has been equipped with an
air stripper to remove contaminants, and the well now supplies potable
water to the factory and one on-site residence. Several other contaminated
wells, both on and off site, have been equipped with carbon treatment systems to
remove contaminants. A water supply monitoring program has been established for
on- and off-site wells. Monitoring wells have been drilled to determine the extent of
site contamination and to aid in developing a remedy. A small pilot study of vapor
extraction as a means to clean up contaminants proved ineffectual due to the high
water table. Other alternatives are currently being developed. The parties potentially
responsible for the site contamination are currently conducting a hydrogeologic
investigation to determine appropriate actions to eliminate the contamination threat. A
decision is expected in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1986, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection issued
an Abatement Order requiring Linemaster to develop a plan for a hydrological study to
determine the extent and degree of contamination on the site. In 1987, Linemaster
and the EPA entered into a Consent Order to provide bottled water off site, monitor
residential wells, and conduct a hydrogeologic study.
Environmental Progress
Supplying alternative water to affected residents has reduced the potential for exposure
to hazardous substances in the drinking water, and will continue to protect surrounding
households and Linemaster employees until planned cleanup activities are completed.
16
-------
NUTMEG VALLEY ROAD
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD980669261
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
New Haven County
Wolcott
Alias:
Nutmeg Screw Machine Products, Inc.
The investigation of the Nutmeg Valley Road site centers around Nutmeg Screw
Machine Products Company (NSMP), which covers 3 1/2 acres on Nutmeg Valley Road.
The area aroqnd the site is both rural residential and light industrial, with several other
metal-working and metal-finishing shops in the immediate vicinity, including Waterbury
Heat Treating Corporation (WHTC) and Alpine Electronic Components, Inc. (AEC).
WHTC is 300 feet to the northwest of NSMP and performs various heat-treating
operations (annealing and hardening) on metal parts and degreasing, polishing, acid
dipping, and assembly functions; AEC leases part of the NSMP building. NSMP is a
small metal-working and machine shop that has been in business since 1951.
Substances gsed in the machining processes include a kerosene-like cutting oil,
machine lubrication oils/ and agents used for cleaning and degreasing (carbon
tetrachloride). Carbon tetrachloride, cyanide wastes, and cutting oils were dumped
onto the ground at an estimated rate of up to 15 gallons per day, according to the State.
This practice was followed for approximately 14 to 20 years, ceasing by 1980.
Approximately 10,500 people draw drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of
the site. There are 43 industries and 25 residences using groundwater as a water
source at this site. Within a 3-mile radius of the site lie the towns of Waterbury, with a
population of approximately 103,800, and Wolcott, with a population of approximately
13,200.
site Responsibility: jhjs site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/23/87
Final Date: 03/31/89
I
Threats and Contaminants
Contamination has been documented in 25 industrial wells. The
groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
heavy metals, and high levels of cyanide. The soil is also contaminated
with VOCs and heavy metals including lead and copper. Contamination
has been documented in the groundwater beneath the site. The primary
health threats to area residents are from drinking or direct contact with
contaminated water or soil.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
NUTMEG VALLEY ROAD
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The State has been supplying bottled drinking water
to affected residents since 1987. Also, carbon filters have been installed on
the industrial wells to reduce contamination levels. Interim measures have
included the extension of public water supplies to the area.
Entire Site: The EPA plans to conduct an investigation into the soil and
groundwater contamination at-the site and develop strategies for final
cleanup. The study is expected to start in 1992 and is scheduled for
completion in 1993. Once completed, the EPA will evaluate the study findings and
select the final cleanup remedies for the contamination at the site. .
Environmental Progress
The initial actions described above have provided safe drinking water to affected
residents and reduced contamination levels in the industrial water supply, making this
site safer while it awaits completion of the site.investigation and final cleanup.
18
-------
OLD SOUTHINGTQ
LANDFILL
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD980670806
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Hartford County County
Old Turnpike Road in Southington
Site Description
The Old Southington Landfill is a 10-acre site that may have been used as early as the
1920s until 1967 as a municipal disposal area. During this time the landfill was open to
residents and businesses of the town. In 1967, the Town of Southington closed the
landfill. Closure procedures included compacting loose refuse, covering the landfill with
at least 2 feet of clean fill material, and reseeding the grasses. Between 1973 and
1980, parts of the landfill were subdivided and sold for commercial development.
Several residential and commercial structures now occupy the closed landfill and
adjacent areas. The former landfill is located approximately 700 feet southeast of the
former municipal Well No. 5, which was installed in 1971 by the Town of Southington
Water Department as a public water supply. In 1979, the municipal well was closed
because groundwater analyses indicated the presence of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) at levels that exceeded State standards. The well has not been reopened. The
site is located about 3,500 feet east of the Quinnipiac River. A drainage ditch is located
on site and flows into Black Pond, which is used for recreational purposes, as well as
for duck hunting and fishing.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with VOCs
including trichloroethane. On-site workers and trespassers could be
threatened by touching or accidentally ingesting contaminants in the
groundwater, surface water, or soil. Black Pond, used for recreation,
hunting, and fishing, is threatened by site contaminants; ingestion of
contaminated fish, waterfowl, and plants may pose a health threat.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
19
continued
-------
OLD SOUTHINGTON LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The potentially responsible parties are currently conducting an
investigation into the contamination at the site. The investigation will define
the contaminants and will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup.
The investigation is planned to be completed in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1987, the EPA issued an Administrative Order to three parties potentially
responsible for the contamination of the site to perform a study to determine the nature
and extent of contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA assessed conditions at the site and
determined that contamination from the Old Southington Landfill site does not currently
pose an immediate threat to area residents and surrounding environments and no
emergency actions were required to make it safe while waiting for cleanup actions to
begin.
20
-------
PRECISION PLATING,
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD051316313
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Tolland County
Vernon
Precision Plating Corporation has been chrome plating various metal parts and fixtures
on this 3-acre site since 1970. The chrome plating process includes alkaline cleaning,
chemical etching, rinsing, buffing, and polishing. Wastes generated during this process
include rinse waters containing heavy metals, batch wastes of alkaline cleaner, and
spent plating and etching acids. Before 1983, rinse waters were discharged to a storm
drain outside the building. Process plating acids and chrome plating wastes were
stored on the ground in drums and in a 500-gallon tank. In 1979, Vernon's Health
Department found the well serving Hillside Industrial Park to be contaminated with
hexavalent and trivalent chromium. The rupturing of drums and the tank by a snow
plow was determined to be the cause of the contamination. The company, and later
the EPA, confirmed that the groundwater underlying the site had become
contaminated. An estimated 10,800 people obtain drinking water from public and
private wells within 3 miles of the site. Surface waters in the area are used for
recreational fishing. The site is within 1 mile of a freshwater wetland.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater underlying the Precision Plating site is contaminated
with hexavalent and trivalent chromium as a result of the spillage of
contaminants at the site. The site is unfenced, making it possible for
people and animals to come into direct contact with hazardous
substances. The health of people who use contaminated groundwater as
a water supply may be threatened.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
21
continued
-------
PRECISION PLATING
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action to reduce the threat of
exposure and a single long-term remedial phase, which will concentrate on cleanup ot
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Lx Initial Action: The State issued orders to the owners of Hillside Industrial
Park and Precision Plating to study and clean up the site. Precision Plating
complied with the order by installing five shallow monitoring wells on site,
. i - <->/-> ~..u:,-,,,^rAr- <-.-£ /-./-M-i+an-virvatoH cnil In arlrlitin
ISHSBSigStfc UVJI IIUIIGVJ VVILII \.\\\s ^J\^\j\ *->/ n^..^ & ..- . -j-J'j.'
sampling surface water, and removing 20 cubic yards of contaminated soil. In addition,
Precision Plating and Hillside Industrial Park are providing alternate drinking water
supplies to High Manor Mobile Home Park.
Entire Site: In 1990, the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination began a study of sources and the extent of contamination at
the site. Once the investigation has been completed and reviewed by the
EPA, a final cleanup remedy for the site will be selected.
Site Facts: In 1986, the State issued orders requiring Precision Plating and Hillside
Industrial Park to provide drinking water to affected residents.
Environmental Progress
By providing drinking water to nearby residents, the potential of exposure to hazardous
substances has been reduced, and these households will continue to be protected until
cleanup activities are completed at the Precision Plating site.
22
-------
REVERE TEXTILE PRINTS
CORPORATION
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD004532610
Site Description
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Windham County
Sterling
The Revere Textile Prints Corporation site covers 2 acres in Sterling. The textile
processing facility first operated over 50 years ago as the U.S. Finishing Company. In
1978, a town employee allegedly observed Revere Textile employees dumping barrels
of wastes into the Moosup River. The facility was destroyed by fire in 1980. Following
the fire, a number of drums were evident in the ruins of two buildings on site. The
property was sold in 1980. On site at the time were over 1,500 drums leaking dyes,
paints, solvents, and heavy metals onto the ground. The State detected over 30
compounds in the drums and soil on site and issued an order against the new owner to
clean up the site. In 1982, ownership of the site was transferred to Sterling Industrial
Park Corporation. After several State inspections and rounds of sampling, the drums
were removed in 1983 by the new owner. An unknown quantity of contaminated soil
was also removed. On-site monitoring wells were sampled in 1984 and found to be
contaminated. Approximately 350 people live within 1 mile of the site, while 4,500
people live within a 3-mile radius. The Moosup River is downgradient of the site and is
also contaminated. This river is used for recreational purposes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/01/86
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with antimony, methanol, and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including toluene and trichloroethylene (TCE).
The soil is contaminated with barium and VOCs including ethyl benzene
and xylene. Surface water is contaminated with TCE and magnesium.
People who accidentally touch, drink, or ingest contaminated
groundwater, surface water, or soil may be at risk. Residents in the area
depend on the groundwater as their sole source of drinking water.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
23
continued
-------
REVERE TEXTILE PRINTS CORPORATION
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA is currently studying the contamination at the site.
The investigation will define the contaminants and will recommend
alternatives for the final cleanup remedy. Once the investigation is
complete, the EPA will review the study findings and select the final cleanup strategies
for site contamination.
Site Facts: In 1980, the State issued an order against the owner to clean up the site.
A new owner. Sterling Industrial Park Corporation, complied with the order in 1983.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions to remove drums and contaminated soils from the site have reduced
the potential for accidential exposure to hazardous wastes, while studies are ongoing to
identify final cleanup remedies for the Revere Textile site.
24
-------
SOLVENTS RECOV
SERVICE OF
NEW ENGLA
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD009717604
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Hartford County
Southington
Site Description
Solvents Recovery Services of New England is a fenced 2 1/2-acre facility in the town
of Southington and is currently in operation. The facility operates as an EPA-approved
hazardous waste treatment and storage facility. The facility receives various industrial
solvents that are distilled for reuse or blended for use as a fuel product. From 1957 to
1967, stillbottom sludges were disposed of in two unlined lagoons. In 1967, sludge
disposal was discontinued, and the lagoons were drained and covered with fill. After
the lagoons were closed, wastes were incinerated in an open pit on site or disposed of
off site. In the 1970s, the State ordered that the incineration practice be discontinued.
Other past and present operating practices on site, such as accidental spills or poor
housekeeping, may have constituted additional sources of contamination. No
hazardous waste disposal currently takes place at the site. The Town of Southington
Well #4 is approximately 2,000 feet south of the site, and Well #6 is located 1,300 feet
to the south of the site. Both of these wells were closed in 1979 because of
contamination. The population within a 3-mile radius of the site is 36,000. The area of
the site is a mixture of commercial, light industrial, and some agricultural uses. The
facility is located approximately 500 feet west of the Quinnipiac River.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with isopropyl alcohol, acetone,
toluene, and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The soil is
contaminated with lead, cadmium, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
VOCs. People who accidentally drink contaminated groundwater would
be at risk. However, since the two municipal wells have been taken out
of service, this health threat is reduced.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
25
continued
-------
SOLVENTS RECOVERY SERVICE OF NEW ENGLAND
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases directed at groundwater
cleanup and source control.
Response Action Status
Groundwater: In 1983, the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination to pump and treat groundwater by air stripping the
contaminants in the facility's cooling water tower. The treated water is
subsequently discharged through a drainage ditch to the Quinnipiac River.
Solvents Recovery Services has installed the on-site groundwater pumping system,
which is currently operational. The off-site groundwater pumping system is not yet
operational.
Source Control: Solvents Recovery Service is currently conducting an
investigation into the sources and the nature and extent of site contamination
, to identify alternatives for cleanup. The EPA will evaluate the investigation
findings to select the final cleanup remedies for the contaminated areas.
Site Facts: In 1983, Solvents Recovery Service signed a Consent Decree with the EPA
requiring the installation of a system to recover groundwater on and off site and a plan
for on-site storage and management of hazardous wastes.
Environmental Progress
The closure of the contaminated drinking well has eliminated the threat of exposure to
affected residences while pump and treat operations continue to reduce groundwater
contamination to safe levels at the Solvents Recovery site.
26
-------
YAWORSKI WASTE
LAGOON
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD009774969
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Wlndham County
Canterbury Township
The Yaworski Waste Lagoon is a dewateredand backfilled lagoon, approximately 800
feet by 300 feet and 12 feet deep. From about 1948 to 1973, drummed material and
bulk wastes including textile dyes, solvents, resins, acids, caustics, stHlbottom sludges,
and solvent-soaked rags were disposed of in the lagoon. Periodically, flammable liquid
waste was burned in several pits in the lagoon area until 1965, when the Connecticut
Department of Health ordered a halt to on-site burning of waste. The combined efforts
of local residents and State and local officials concerned about adverse human health
and environmental effects from disposal operations at the site led to the end of all
dumping at the site in 1973. In 1976, the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection (CTDEP) directed James Yaworski,, the .site owner, to assess the
environmental hazard posed by the site. Mr. Yaworski was required to install
monitoring wells adjacent to the lagoon. Sampling of these wells detected
contaminated groundwater. In 1980, CTDEP ordered Mr. Yaworski to employ a
professional engineering firm to conduct an environmental study of the property. The
firm recommended closing the lagoon by covering the waste and, in 1982, CTDEP
ordered Mr. Yaworski to close the lagoon in accordance with the engineering firm's
report. After a fire in 1982, the EPA decided that additional information was needed
about the site to better assess the potential,.threat to human health and the
environment. The population of Canterbury is approximately 1,600. The nearest
residence that uses groundwater is 1,600 feet upgradienttrom the site and across the
Quinebaug River. The site is surrounded by agricultural land and bordered by the
Quinebaug River. It lies within the 100-year floodplain.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater samples taken from areas immediately adjacent to the
lagoon revealed the presence of low levels of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and heavy metals. Inorganic contaminants were found in the
sediments in the wetlands area just south of the lagoon. The soiJ is
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and soil samples taken from areas immediately
adjacent to the lagoon revealed the presence of low levels of VOCs. The
contaminants seeping through the dike into the wetlands pose a risk to
people who come in contact with it.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
27
continued
-------
YAWORSKI WASTE LAGOON
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed through a single long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
will be responsible for containing the waste in the lagoon by constructing
an impermeable cover that complies with all environmental laws, improving
the dike around the lagoon to ensure that it can withstand floods,
establishing a groundwater protection standard known as an Alternate Concentration
Limit (ACL), and monitoring the groundwater for 30 years to confirm that the ACL
standard is met. Design of the technologies to be used in the remedy described above
is expected to be complete by 1990; A groundwater treatment method will be installed
if, after implementation of the source control remedy, groundwater contamination
remains above the ACLs.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA assessed site conditions and determined that
the site contamination does not currently pose an immediate threat to area residents
and surrounding environments while waiting for cleanup actions to begin at the
Yaworski Waste site.
28
-------
lt]" "41
his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
-' fact sheets for the State of Connecticut. The terms and
abbreviations contained in this glossary are often
dejihedin the context of hazardous waste management as de-
scribed in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work per-
formed under the Superfund program. Therefore, these terms
may have other meanings when used in a different context.
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH (less than
7.0) that are used in chemical manufacturing. Acids in
high concentration can be very corrosive and react with
many inorganic and organic substances. These reactions
may possibly create toxic compounds or release heavy
metal contaminants that remain in the environment long
after the acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforceable agreement between EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of the
Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforcement options
that the government may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially respon-
sible parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the government; it does not require
approval by a judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A legally binding document issued by EPA direct-
ing the parties potentially responsible to perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
EPA does not issue unilateral orders for site studies).
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
Cap: A layer of material, such as day or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the cap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Closure: The process by which a landfill stops accepting wastes and is shut down
G-l
-------
under Federal guidelines that ensure the public and the environment is protected.
Consent Decree: A legal document, approved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between EPA and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the potentially responsible parties are re-
quired to perform and/or the costs incurred by the government that the parties will
reimburse, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options that the gov-
ernment may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties.
If a settlement between EPA and a potentially responsible party includes cleanup ac-
lions, it must be in the form of a consent decree. A consent decree is subject to a public
comment period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes, soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
Dewaten To remove water from wastes, soils, or chemicals.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move
toward lower elevations. Therefore, wells dozvngradient of a contaminated groundwater
source are prone to receiving,pollutants.
Downslope: [see Downgradient].
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain system constructed of perforated pipes,
which is used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater, with particular emphasis on the chemis-
try and movement of water.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
G-2
-------
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs,
such as pyrene, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope emersion oils, and caulking compounds. PCBs are also produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are extremely persistent in the environment be-
cause they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant. Burning them pro-
duces even more toxins. Chronic exposure to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
is also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower edges of landfills.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the process of recovering spent solvents.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, colorless liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as a solvent and as a metal degreasing
agent. TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled, ingested, or through skin contact and
can damage vital organs, especially the liver [see also Volatile Organic Compounds].
Upgradient: An upward slope; demarks areas that are higher than contaminated areas
G-3
-------
and, therefore, are not prone to contamination by the movement of polluted groundwa-
ter.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroeth-
ylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic
chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their
volatile nature, they readily evaporate into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low .water solubility, environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil and groundwater.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface or groundwater and, under
normal circumstances, capable of supporting vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to sustaining many species of fish and
wildlife. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands may be
either coastal or inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish (a mixture of salt and
fresh) water, and most have tides, while inland wetlands are non-tidal and freshwater.
Coastal wetlands are an integral component of estuaries.
G-4
------- |