EPA/540/4-90/020
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Maine
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, Super/and; 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?
s the 1970s came to a
If ,J 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
notontheNPL. 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 on 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 and
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.
v
-------
VI
-------
\ I he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
i 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
STEP 3
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
-------
azardous waste0
ites? ^ s "*"
V1^s
fr* there Isn't ah s
J
EPA
be taken?
sv V .wri'lv.'.v.v.v«N':v *
f
AV*
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 hi 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 hi
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
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, hi 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 tune to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
viii
-------
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.
^that a. setions fltreat^ s J
\?*&ri^ exist, what's lite -;
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to - If the preliminary
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they "' 5<" '" "
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.
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
---x %
^
the results-
IX
-------
fcm:
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.
considers a site a T :
Rational priority for ,.. %
Seantxp ttsmg \\ '
[Sxiperftind money? ' ,/
< "" "-
p VJ- * , o* *+ "5 '
pL«0 W do people ,f ttldx^ - The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
t..... * .« .*». >,* on the NPL by calHng 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 cpntain 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
f &x ' ' % ..
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a ", After a sitejs
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 an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (PJ/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.
jto the Nft, wjjat: are
to e
V S"
c
XI
-------
SUPERFUND
r
rHow are
~ alternatives
; identified artel
~ evaluated?
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.
the pttblic fcaye Yesi The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
say in the final ' opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
4eci$iOtt? ' concems are carefully considered before a final decision is
* " made.
Xll
-------
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
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
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
, the
^
be
a site,
-------
SUPERFUND
SAW''
*-~*^
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
design is
complete, hbw long
it take to > \ ,
psile anyhow much
it cost?
. f'
V
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, m 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.
",' #
: cleanup
[action is complete, is
___" site automatically
Deleted''from the
mvu . _ ,.;>%".
^^
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".
Ifs 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.
Can EPA make potties
> *vv£
V>X
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
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
Site Description
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
Location
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
-HI r
>
Site Facts:
Environmental Progress
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.
XV111
-------
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.
^ "& v. *.w ''««M««»N5'V&ws.'w. v
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.
tfffffffffff Wffjrff,fftjtfff*. fff.
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 YOIT 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 clean 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 J
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 Maine
Maine is the eastern most state, located in the northeastern corner of the mainland
United States. The State covers 33,215 square miles consisting of the Appalachian
Mountains extending through the state, rugged terrain along the western borders, long
sand beaches on the southern coast, and rocky promontories, peninsulas and fjords on
the northern coast. Maine experienced a 7.2 percent increase in population through
the 1980s and currently has approximately 1,205,000 residents, ranking 38th in U.S.
populations. Principal state industries include the manufacture of paper, wood and
leather products, services, trade, finance, insurance, real estate, and construction.
Maine natural resources also support industries in fishing, tourism, lumber, and non-fuel
mineral production.
How Many Maine Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
2
7
Q
9
Cong. District 01
Cong. District 06
7 sites
2 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
10--
8-1-
«
3 6+
8
* 4 4-
2 --
GW Soil SW Seds
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics) and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
Soil: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), heavy metals (inorganics),
petrochemicals, and asbestos.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and heavy metals (inorganics).
'Appear at 20% or more sites
State Overview
xxi
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy ^^^ Remedy ^^^ Cleanup
Selected ^^r Design ^^r Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 6 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Maine, providing specific information on
threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should you
have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Maine Superfund Office
EPA Region I Superfund Office
EPA Public Information
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region I Superfund Public
Relations Office
(202) 289-2651
{617)573-9645
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(617)565-3417
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. x
*- 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
-------
* *V»J
Page
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
gJL\st?t7 JLWVCliU. XXA\sCUJLU£f <
Site Name
BRUNSWICK NAVAL AIR STATION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
MCKIN COMPANY
O'CONNOR COMPANY
PINETTE'S SALVAGE YARD
SACO MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
SACO TANNERY WASTE PITS
UNION CHEMICAL COMPANY
WINTHROP LANDFILL
H.I. O.'lJ. *J V_»JH,V/O
County
CUMBERLAND
AROOSTOOK
CUMBERLAND
KENNEBEC
AROOSTOOK
YORK
YORK
KNOX
KENNEBEC
JLJUL bJU
NPL
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
.** vjia.iv; v**. JLU.ciAUV'
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
07/02/87 +~
02/21/90 *
09/01/83 * "^ *- "^ «K
09/08/83 *" "^ *-
09/01/83 *- "K ^ «^-
02/15/90 Bl^
09/01/83 "^ "^ «t- *-
10/04/89 "^ "K
09/01/83 "K ^4- ^ ^
-------
-------
-------
BRUNSWICK NAV>
STATION
MAINE
EPA ID# ME8170022018
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Cumberland County
At Rte 24 & 123 in Brunswick
Alias:
U.S. Navy NAS
The Brunswick Naval Air Station is located between the towns of Brunswick and Bath.
Of the 3,092-acre Naval Air Station, nine sites totalling at least 15 acres have been
identified as being used in the past for disposal of hazardous wastes. Under the
Installation Restoration Program (IRP), the EPA and the Department of the Navy have
executed an interagency agreement that outlines site cleanup responsibilities between
the two parties. Among the identified sites, three were used primarily for the landfilling
of the station's household, office, and other wastes. Other sites were used for the
disposal of various acids, caustics, solvents, and building materials, including asbestos.
Three additional sites, including a fire training area, an ammunition dump, and the
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) facility have been added to the
investigation. The various landfills at the site were used from 1945 to 1979.
Pesticides, solvents, and waste oils present on the sites could potentially threaten a
nearby public well field, private wells, surface water, and nearby wetlands.
Approximately 3,000 people live on the base, within 1/2 mile of the sites, and nearly
18,000 people served by the groundwater are potentially threatened. The nearest
residence is within 1,000 feet of the sites. The area surface water is used for
recreation, irrigation, and commercial fishing.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 07/02/87
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and heavy metals. Soils are contaminated with VOCs, semi-volatile
organics and heavy metals. The on-site surface water is polluted with
organics and metals. The off-site surface water tests positive for low
levels of cadmium and mercury. Accidental ingestion or direct contact
with groundwater, surface water, or soil could potentially pose health
hazards to people. The area is restricted to the general public, but base
personnel may come in contact with contamination. Harpswell Cove, a
wetland adjacent to the site, is also subject to potential contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
BRUNSWICK NAVAL AIR STATION
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four long-term remedial phases corresponding to
discrete areas of contamination. The Orion Street Landfills north and south and the
Hazardous Waste Burial Area; the Acid/Caustic Pit and Old Acid Pit; the Asbestos
Disposal and Rubble Areas; and the Perimeter Road Landfill and Neptune Drive
Disposal Site are the four units.
Response Action Status
Orion Street Landfills north and south and Hazardous Waste Burial
Area: With assistance from the EPA, these sites currently are undergoing
the investigative process to evaluate the extent and nature of contamination.
These studies will be used to help formulate recommended cleanup technologies. The
Navy will take the lead on cleanup. Engineering design and cleanup activities for all
areas will begin by 1992.
Acid/Caustic Pit, Old Acid Pit: A study for the Acid/Caustic Pit and Old
Acid Pit disposal areas is currently under way to formulate recommended
cleanup technologies.
Asbestos Disposal Site and Rubble Areas: Investigations are planned to
determine the extent of asbestos contamination and to pinpoint cleanup
approaches at the Asbestos and Rubble Disposal areas.
Perimeter Road Landfill and Neptune Drive Disposal Site: A study for
these sites is currently under way to formulate recommended cleanup
technologies.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA assessed conditions at Brunswick Naval Air
Station and determined that no immediate actions are necessary to protect the public
health or the environment. The site is safe while awaiting for cleanup actions to begin.
-------
LORING AIR
FORCE BASE
MAINE
EPA ID# ME9570024522
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Aroostook County
Northeastern Maine
Aliases:
Fire Training Area
US Air Force Loring AFB
Flightline Area
The 9,000-acre Loring Air Force Base has operated as an active military installation
since 1952. An estimated 1,200 people obtain drinking water from wells within 3 miles
of hazardous substances on the base; the nearest well is less than 500 feet from where
transformers were buried. Hazardous wastes generated on the base include waste
oils, fuels cleaned from aircraft and vehicles, spent solvents (many of them chlorinated
organic chemicals), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides. Historically,
wastes have been burned or buried in landfills. There are on-site landfills, some of
which are old gravel pits. Landfills #2 and #3 were used for disposal of hazardous
wastes from 1956 to the early 1980s. In the Fire Department Training Area, large
quantities of hazardous materials were landfilled until 1968 and burned until 1974. The
600-acre Flightline Area, with its industrial shops and maintenance hangars, was a
primary generator of hazardous waste on the base; most wastes were disposed of off
site, although some probably were disposed of on the ground, on concrete, or in the
storm and sewer drains. The site is located in a rural area. The population on the Air
Force base within 1 mile of the site is 8,500. A 2,500-foot channelized portion of a
tributary to Greenlaw Creek receives storm water discharges from several sewers
draining the Flightline Area and the Nose Dock Area, where fuels were handled.
Surface water within 3 miles downstream.of the site is used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
Tests of monitoring wells indicate that the groundwater on the base is
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as methylene
chloride, trichloroethylene (TCE), and carbon tetrachloride and heavy
metals including barium. Soils in the Flightline Area contain significant
amounts of fuel, oil, and various VOCs. Surface water in the Flightline
Drainage Ditch is contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals such as iron.
People on the base are potentially threatened by direct contact with
hazardous substances at the landfills and burn pit because the pit is
inadequately fenced. Other potential threats to the public include
accidental ingestion and contact with contaminated soils and water. A
freshwater wetland Is threatened by contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of
the landfills, fire training area, flightline, and the remainder of the site.
Response Action Status
Landfills: The Air Force will be conducting an investigation of the
contamination associated with Landfills 1, 2, and 3 in 1990. The
investigation will define the contaminants and will recommend alternatives
for the final cleanup.
area.
Fire Training Area: An additional investigation into the contamination of the
fire training area is planned for 1990. The investigation will define the
contaminants and will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup of the
Flightline: An investigation into the contamination in the flight line, nose
dock, and drain ditch areas is scheduled to begin in 1990. The investigation
will determine the various contaminants and will recommend alternatives for
cleaning up these sites.
Remainder of the Site: An investigation into the contamination at 10
additional areas within the site is planned for 1991. At the conclusion of
these studies, the EPA will recommend the best remedies for the final
cleanup of the sites.
Site Facts: Interagency agreement negotiations are slated to begin in 1990 between
the EPA, the Air Force, and the State of Maine. This site is being addressed under the
Installation Restoration Program (IRP), which seeks to identify, investigate, and control
hazardous wastes on military or DOD installations.
Environmental Progress
Following listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA has completed a site assessment and
determined that it presently poses no immediate threat to public health or the
environment. Loring Air Force Base is safe while it awaits results of the investigations
and final cleanup actions.
-------
MCKIN COMPANY
MAINE
EPA ID# MED980524078
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Cumberland County
Mayall Road, 1 mile east of the Town of Gray
The McKin Company operated a waste collection, transfer, and disposal facility on a
portion of this 7-acre site between 1965 and 1978. The facility is located in a rural
residential area about 1 mile east of the center of Gray. The site was formerly operated
as a sand and gravel pit that had been excavated to depths of 6 to 20 feet below the
land surface. The operation was constructed for waste generated when a Norwegian
tanker ran aground on a ledge in Hussey Sound, spilling 100,000 gallons of industrial
fuel. In addition, the plant handled and disposed of a mixture of solvents, oils, and
other chemicals. Approximately 100,000 to 200,000 gallons of waste are thought to
have been processed annually. Operating facilities included an incinerator, a concrete
block building, an asphalt-lined lagoon, and storage and fuel tanks. Wastes may also
have been disposed by spreading them over the ground surface. As early as 1973,
residents of East Gray reported odors in well water and discoloration of laundry. In
1977, the EPA confirmed that contaminated groundwater had reached many of the
local private wells. These water supplies were capped, and the Farmers Home
Administration trucked in water supplies. The public water system was extended to
the affected area in 1978, and all residents were connected to it. In 1988, the EPA and
the State finalized an agreement with over 320 potentially responsible parties to carry
out a cleanup plan. Approximately 300 people live within a 1/2-mile radius of the site.
The nearest residence is 300 feet northeast of the property.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including trichloroethane and trichloroethylene (TCE). The soil is
contaminated with VOCs, petrochemicals, and heavy metals including
arsenic, lead, and mercury. Off-site surface water and groundwater are
also contaminated with VOCs. There is no known current exposure of
residents to the groundwater, since all residents are connected to the
public water supply. Potential threats exist from contaminated
groundwater discharges to the surface springs (Boiling Springs) located
nearby.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
MCKIN COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions to control site contamination,
and two long-term remedial phases focusing on soil cleanup and groundwater
treatment.
Response Action Status
*"* Initial Actions: In 1979, the State removed 33,500 gallons of wastes and
165 drums of oils and chemicals. From 1985 to 1987, the parties potentially
responsible for the site contamination removed 55-gallon drums from the
site. A fence surrounding the process area facilities was repaired, and a similar fence
was installed across the front of the facility to prevent unauthorized access. Monitoring
wells were also installed. Other actions included cleaning of the tanks, transportation
of the empty tanks off site for salvage, and transportation of liquids and sludges off site
for disposal. The State cleaned and removed all of the remaining aboveground tanks in
1985. j.:.
Soil: The remedies selected by the EPA for soil contamination included
aeration of the soil and disposal off site of 16 drums. All of the selected -
cleanup remedies were performed by the parties potentially responsible and
were completed in 1987. Enclosed thermal soil aeration reduced contaminant levels in
12,000 cubic yards of soils to safe levels.
Groundwater: The remedies selected by the EPA and to be performed by
the parties potentially responsible for the cleanup of the groundwater.
include: (1) installing a groundwater extraction, treatment, and discharge
system; (2) groundwater and surface water monitoring programs to evaluate
the effectiveness of the contamination source control and off-site groundwater
programs; and (3) closing down the site by demolishing buildings, clearing debris,
draining and filling in the lagoon, removing drums and other contaminated materials,
fencing the site, and covering the site with soil and vegetation. The parties potentially
responsible for the site contamination are preparing the technical specifications and
design for the selected groundwater cleanup activities. The cleanup will commence
once the design phase is completed in 1990. Groundwater and surface water
monitoring will continue for 10 years after treatment is complete. The responsible
parties are conducting additional studies of an area east of the lagoon where
groundwater contamination has been discovered, to determine the nature of
contamination and whether a special cleanup effort is needed in this area as well.
Environmental Progress
Many cleanup actions have been completed and others are under way. The health
risks and environmental threat posed by these hazardous materials are being eliminated
as the work progresses. Upon final completion, the soil and groundwater
contamination levels will be reduced to meet established health and ecological
standards for the site.
-------
O'CONNOR
COMPANY
MAINE
EPA ID# MED980731475
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Kennebec County
Along U.S. Route 17 near Augusta
The O'Connor Company site occupies approximately 9 acres within a 65-acre area. The
site includes a large barn that formerly housed scrap operations, an upland marsh, two
lagoons, three former transformer work areas, and a former scrap area where the
company stored and discarded rubbish. The site is bordered by private properties and
residences, woodlands, a small poultry farm, the west branch of Riggs Brook, and its
associated wetlands. In the 1950s, the company began operating a salvage and
electrical transformer recycling business at the site. Operations included stripping and
recycling transformers containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)-laden oil. In 1972,
an oil spill at the site was found to have migrated towards Riggs Brook. Later that
year, at the request of the State, the company began containing all transformer fluids
found on the site in an aboveground storage tank to prevent future spills. When high
levels of PCBs were found in the soils during sampling by the State in 1976, the
company was instructed to construct two lagoons to control further migration of oils
from the site. The upper lagoon, constructed with a concrete retaining wall and a
discharge system, and a lower lagoon, constructed with a horizontal pipe discharge
system and an earthen berm were installed. To reclaim the lagoon areas, the company
pumped water from the lagoons into several on-site storage tanks and excavated the
lagoon sediments. These sediments were in turn deposited into a low area and were
covered by approximately 1 foot of clay soil. This created a barrier for natural surface
water drainage from the site to Riggs Brook and resulted in the formation of a marsh
behind the on-site barn. Approximately 50 people live within a 1/4-mile radius of the
site. The distance from the site to the nearest residence is less than 100 feet.
Site Responsibility: This sjte is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Threats and Contaminants -
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
The groundwater on site is contaminated with PCBs and dichlorobenzene.
The soil on site is contaminated with PCBs, lead and various carcinogenic
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Standing surface water on the
site has been shown to be contaminated with PCBs, aluminum, and lead.
People who trespass on the site would be threatened by coming in direct
contact with or accidentally ingesting contaminants in soils, sediments,
groundwater, or surface water. In addition, eating fish, waterfowl,
livestock, or plants that may have become contaminated would pose a
threat to people. The site is currently surrounded by a chainlink fence
and posted with appropriate warning signs.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
O'CONNOR COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions to limit the spread of
contamination and a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
x* Immediate Actions: The O'Connor Company constructed a fence around
the property and posted warning signs along approximately 5 acres of the
site in 1984. The owner also sampled and analyzed the contents of all
drums and storage tanks on the site and then removed them. In 1987, Central Maine
Power extended the fence to areas where additional contamination was found and
removed additional contaminated material from the site.
Entire Site: The remedies selected by the EPA to be performed by the
parties potentially responsible for the site contamination include: (1)
pumping 150,000 to 195,000 gallons of surface water from the upper and
lower lagoons and marsh and removing it to an EPA-approved off-site
treatment facility; and (2) treating 23,500 cubic yards of contaminated soils and
sediments using solvents to extract contaminants. The contaminated liquid from this
process will be incinerated off site. The residues that contain high levels of lead will be
treated by solidifying the material and removing it. The site will be restored by
backfilling, and the potentially responsible parties will establish wetlands to replace
those lost. Groundwater will be collected, filtered, and treated to contain or remove the
contaminants. The potentially responsible parties will prepare the technical
specifications and design for the cleanup. The cleanup activities will commence once
the design phase is completed in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1984, the EPA issued an Administrative Orderto the O'Connor Company
requiring them to construct a fence and post warning signs and analyze the contents of
all drums and storage tanks found on the site. In 1986, the EPA issued an
Administrative Order to the company and Central Maine Power to conduct an
investigation into the type and extent of contamination at the site and to identify
alternatives for site cleanup. In 1986, the State also issued Orders to the potentially
responsible parties requiring the removal of the hazardous substances present in tanks
and containers at the site. In 1987, the EPA and the State issued a joint Administrative
Order to the O'Connor Co. and Central Maine Power to investigate the nature and
extent of contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup, and also to extend the
existing 5-acre fence to cover an additional 4 acres.
Environmental Progress
The construction of a fence which limits access to the contaminated areas of the site
and the removal of drums and storage tanks have reduced the exposure potential at the
O'Connor Company location. The implementation of the cleanup remedies selected by
the EPA will further reduce site contamination, making the site safer as cleanup actions
progress.
-------
PINETTE'S
SALVAGE Y
MAINE
EPA ID# MED980732291
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Aroostook County
1 mile southwest of Washburn
Pinette's Salvage Yard covers 12 acres and .consists of a vehicle repair and salvage
yard. In 1979, three electrical transformers were removed from Loring Air Force Base
by a private electrical contractor and brought to the site, where they ruptured while
being moved f ronS the delivery vehicle. Approximately 900 to 1,000 gallons of
dielectrical fluids containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) spilled directly onto the
ground. The oil m/grafecf through the soil and may have contaminated groundwater and
surface water. Land surrounding the yard is used for residential, general industrial/and
agricultural purposes. The nearest population center is located approximately 1 mile
northeast of the site. There are 15 people living within a 1/2-mile radius of the site.
The distance to the nearest residence is about 250 feet from the spill area. An
undeveloped forest and wetlands area is also adjacent to the site. The Aroostook
River, a major waterway in Northern Maine, is located approximately 1,500 feet from
the site. The water supply for the eight to ten residences located within a 1/2-mile
radius is obtained from private wells located in the deep bedrock aquifer below the site.
Municipal wells, used to supply the drinking water to local residents, are located 1 mile
from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site groundwater and soil are contaminated with PCBs and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene and chloromethane.
People who come in direct contact with the soil may be exposed to
contaminants by accidental ingestion and skin absorption. Inhalation of
contaminated dusts released from the site is also a threat. A potential
human health threat exists for use of groundwater under future land use
conditions. Current use of groundwater, however, does not pose a threat
because the wells are located upgradientof the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
PINETTE'S SALVAGE YARD
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an emergency action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
x" Emergency Action: In 1983, the EPA excavated 800 cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated soil and transported it to an approved disposal facility.
Entire Site: The remedy selected by the EPA to clean up the site includes
the following: (1) off-site incineration of 300 cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated soil; (2) on-site solvent extraction of an additional 1,700 to
1,900 cubic yards of contaminated soil; (3) installation of a groundwater
collection system, and (4) treatment of the groundwater by first pumping it
through a granular filter to remove the contaminants, followed by carbon adsorption to
remove the organic contaminants. The EPA is preparing the technical specifications
and design for the cleanup of the site. Cleanup activities are scheduled to start once
the design phase is completed in 1990.
Environmental Progress
Removal of PCB contaminated soil has greatly reduced the potential of exposure to
hazardous substances at the site, making the Pinette's Salvage area safer while it
awaits further cleanup activities.
_
10
-------
SACO MUNICIR
LANDFILL
MAINE
EPA ID# MED980504393
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
York County
Foss Road
The Saco Municipal Landfill covers approximately 90 acres and has been owned and
operated by the City of Saco since 1960. The site consists of four distinct disposal
areas. Ar,ea 1 is a closed and capped municipal dump that was used for open burning
of household and industrial waste; Area 2 is an inactive industrial dump that accepted
bulk and demolition debris; Area 3 is a relatively small area of about 1 acre in which
wastes such as tires and leather and rubber scraps from local industries were dumped.
This uncovered area is located on the outside of the service road that circles Area 4.
Area 4 is a recently closed landfill that accepted household waste and tannery sludge
containing chromium and other heavy metals, as well as volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). The sludge was placed in unlined trenches, often directly in contact with
groundwater. Area 2 has a leachate collection system, but there is no evidence of
liners or leachate systems in other disposal areas. The population within a 3-mile radius
is 32,000. Approximately 130 people live within 1 mile from the site. Water and
sediment in Sandy Brook, which flows through the site, and groundwater beneath the .
site have been shown to contain elevated levels of various metals and organics.
Approximately 700 people obtain drinking water from wells within 3 miles of the landfill.
In 1975, the Biddeford and Saco Water Company extended water lines along Jenkins
Road and Route 112;
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 02/15/88
Final Date: 02/15/90
Threats and Contaminants
Wastes produced by local industries may be the source of contaminants
in the groundwater, surface water, and sediments in the Saco Landfill
site. Industries in the area produce leather goods, plastics, vinyl stripping,
machine parts, textiles, foam products, and finishes. Typical wastes from
these industries include heavy metals, chromium, solvents, dyes,
polymers, and phthalates. The groundwater contains elevated levels of
heavy metals including iron, manganese, and toluene. Sandy Brook has
been shown to be contaminated with elevated levels of heavy metals and
VOCs. The site is only partially fenced, making it possible for people and
animals to come into direct contact with hazardous substances. People
who accidentally touch, eat, or drink contaminated groundwater, surface
water, or sediments may be at risk. Surface waters in Sandy Brook also
can transport contamination off site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
SACO MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
alternatives for the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for contamination at the site
will conduct an investigation into the nature and extent of the
contamination. The investigation will also recommend alternatives for the
final cleanup. The investigation is planned to start in 1991.
Environmental Progress
The EPA assessed conditions at the Saco Municipal Landfill and determined that the
actions currently being taken are sufficient to ensure that immediate threat to human
health or the environment is not a concern. Some intermediate actions may be
deemed necessary while awaiting the results of the investigation for the final cleanup
alternatives.
A
12
-------
SACO TANNERY
WASTE PITS
MAINE
EPA ID# MED980520241
Site Description
REGION I
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
York County
Saco
The Saco Tannery Waste Pits site covers 233 acres and was operated from 1959 until
1981, when the Saco Tannery Corporation filed for bankruptcy and stopped site
operations. The site was used as a disposal area for process wastes such as chromium
sludges, acid wastes, methylene chloride, and caustic substances. More than 23
million gallons of wastes were deposited in two lagoons and numerous disposal pits.
Several types of wastes were deposited in Chromium Lagoon 1 until 1968. Waste
streams were separated, and Chromium Lagoon 2 was constructed in 1969 only for
chromium and solid wastes. Smaller pits were constructed for acid wastes from the
grease-rendering fleshing process and for caustic wastes from the patent leather
process. The site is bordered by the Maine Turnpike, Flag Pond Road, residential
property on Hearn Road, and the Scarborough town line. Access to the site is
controlled by a fence along the Maine Turnpike and Flag Pond Road, with a locking gate
at the entrance on Flag Pond Road. Groundwater is the source of drinking water for
residents located south and west of the site. Approximately 20 residences are located
within 1,000 feet of the site and 2,600 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site.
Because the area is heavily wooded and is inhabited by a variety of wildlife, it is
frequently used by hunters. The site is also used by snowmobilers in the winter.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic and
lead. Sediments are contaminated with antimony and heavy metals. The
soil is contaminated with antimony, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and heavy metals. Trespassers who accidentally touch, eat, or drink
contaminated groundwater, soil, or sediment would be at risk. The
surrounding fauna are at risk from the contamination, as well as the
wetlands, which cover approximately 6 acres near the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
SACO TANNERY WASTE PITS
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
X"Immediate Action: In 1983, the EPA removed corrosive liquid from three
acid pits and disposed of it at an approved facility. The EPA also neutralized
the remaining sludge in the three pits with lime, covered them with caps,
and erected a fence around portions of the site property.
Entire Site: The EPA and the State of Maine conducted studies into the
contamination at the site. The preferred remedy for site cleanup includes:
(1) covering waste in disposal pits and lagoons with geotextile fabrics and 4
to 6 feet of soil; (2) monitoring the groundwater to detect any continued
contamination; and (3) designating the area as a permanent conservation zone to be
protected by the State of Maine. Treatment alternatives for the waste materials will be
used should contamination continue to affect groundwater. If adequate institutional
controls for the selected remedy described above are not in effect by 1991, an
alternate remedy, which includes the construction of a federally approved landfill on
site, will be implemented.
Environmental Progress
The removal of liquid wastes, the neutralization of sludges, and the capping of the pits
have greatly reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous substances surrounding
the acid pit areas, and protected the public health and the environment. The Saco
Tannery site safer while further cleanup activities progress.
14
-------
UNION CHEMIC
COMPANY
MAINE
EPA ID# MED042143883
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Knox County
Along the south side of
Route 17, west of South Hope
The Union Chemical Company site is located on approximately 12 acres and began
operations in 1967 as a formulator of paint and coating strippers. In 1969, the company
expanded its operation and began handling and recovering petrochemical-based
solvents. In 1979, as part of the recovery process, the company added a fluidized bed
incinerator to burn contaminated sludges and other undetermined hazardous wastes
These types of waste may also have been burned in an on-site boiler that provided heat
and operating power to the facility. Between 1979 and 1984, the plant was cited by
the State for deficiencies or violations of several operating licenses. The State closed
the waste treatment operations in 1984, at which time approximately 2,000 drums and
JO liquid storage tanks containing hazardous waste were stored on the site The on-
site soil and groundwater contamination appear to be the result of improper handling
and operating, practices such as leaking stored drums, spills, use of a septic tank and a
leachtieldtor disposal of process wastewater, and could also be attributed to past
disposal methods. There are approximately 200 people living within a 1/2-mile radius of
the site. 1 hese residents depend on groundwater for domestic use The site is
bounded by Quiggle Brook and is in the 100-year floodplain. Grassy Pond is less than 1
mile upgradient of the site and is an alternate drinking water source serving
approximately 22,800 people in the towns of Camden, Rockport, Rockland and
Thomaston.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/01/85
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Buildings and other plant facilities contain heavy metals, dioxins, and
asbestos. Approximately 2 1/2 acres of the site is fenced and contains the
former processing buildings, two aboveground storage tanks, a former
drum storage area, and incinerator facilities. The on-site groundwater and
soils are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
toluene, xylenes and others. Off-site surface water contamination has
occurred through discharges of contaminated process wastewater into
the adjacent Quiggle Brook and possibly through natural discharge of
contaminated groundwater into the brook. People who accidentally
touch, eat, or drink contaminated groundwater, surface water or soil at
the site could be at risk.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
UNION CHEMICAL COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions to limit the spread of
contaminants and a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1984, the EPA removed all surface drums, over
100,000 gallons of liquid wastes and sludges from aboveground storage
tanks, and some contaminated soil from the site.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination are
currently conducting an investigation into the nature and extent of the
. . contamination at the site. The investigation will define the contaminants of
concern and will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation is
planned to be completed in 1990.
Site Facts: In 1987 and 1988, the EPA, the State, and 288 parties potentially
responsible for contamination at the site entered into two Administrative Orders, In
these orders, the parties agreed to conduct an investigation to examine the possible
cleanup alternatives and have reimbursed the EPA and the State for approximately 80%
of its past cleanup costs. In 1989, the EPA entered into a Consent Decree with nine
additional potentially responsible parties where the parties agreed to reimburse the EPA
for additional incurred costs.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated drums, tanks, and soil have reduced the potential for
exposure to contamination at the Union Chemical Co. site while it awaits results of the
planned investigation and the recommended cleanup alternatives.
16
-------
WINTHROP
LANDFILL
MAINE
EPA ID# MED980504435
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Kennebec County
Winthrop
The Winthrop Landfill is a 13-acre site located along the western shore of Lake
Annabessacook and consists of two adjacent properties: the Winthrop Town Landfill
and the privately owned Savage Landfill. The site was initially used in the 1920s as a
sand and gravel pit. In the 1930s, parts of the site received municipal, commercial,
and industrial wastes. The site accepted hazardous substances between the early
1950s and mid-1970s. It is estimated that over 3 million gallons of chemical wastes,
mostly complex organic compounds, including resins, plasticizers, solvents, and other
process chemicals were disposed of at the site. Late in 1979, the town attempted to
expand the landfill, but this revealed numerous rusting and leaking barrels. The town
decided to close the landfill and construct a transfer station on the site. The Savage
Landfill contracted to accept municipal solid waste and debris from two small
neighboring towns and also accepted wastes from Winthrop to extend the life of the
town landfill. Wastes were openly burned until 1972, and landfilling occurred from
1972 until 1982. There are 63 residences within 1/2 mile of the site. Wetlands are
located near the site and Lake Annabessacook is used for recreational purposes.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the landfill were found to be
migrating off site in the groundwater. The soil has been contaminated
from drums containing inorganic and organic chemicals and municipal
wastes. Potential risks exist if contaminated soil or groundwater is
accidentally ingested. The area is fenced to protect against direct contact
with contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
WINTHROP LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the entire site and groundwater treatment.
Response Action Status
X1 Immediate Actions: The potentially responsible parties and the Town of
Winthrop have extended the town water supply to residents previously on
well water drawing from an contaminated aquifer below the landfill.
Entire Site: An impermeable clay cover has been constructed over the
landfill to contain the landfilled wastes, thereby reducing the quantity of
contaminated leachate entering the groundwater. A fence has been placed
around the landfill to protect against direct contact with the site, and deed
restrictions have been imposed prohibiting use of the landfill, for activities other than the
remedial action and prohibiting excavation in the area of the landfill.
Groundwater Treatment: Engineering design work consisting of geologic,
hydrogeologic, and treatment alternatives studies will be conducted by the
parties potentially responsible. The studies will provide data for the design
of a suitable treatment system. The parties potentially responsible for the
contamination will install an extraction system to treat and eliminate groundwater
contamination, should it be necessary.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree ordering the above actions was signed by the EPA and
the potentially responsible parties and file.d with the U.S. District Court in 1986.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternative water supply to affected residences in the area of the
Winthrop Landfill and the installation of a fence to restrict site access have reduced the
potential of exposure to hazardous materials at the site while it awaits further cleanup
activities.
18
-------
* his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
- fact sheets for the State of Maine. The terms and ab-
-,--, , - xo foliations contained in this glossary are often defined
in fhe^context of hazardous waste management as described in
the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work performed
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).
Aeration: A process that promotes breakdown of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
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.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called groundwater.
G-l
-------
GLOSSA!!
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay 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.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
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-
tions, it must be in the form of a consent decree. A consent decree is subject to a public
comment period. . .,^
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater, with particular emphasis on the chemis-
try and movement of water.
Installation Restoration Program: The specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has been identifying and evaluating its hazard-
ous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from those
sites.
Interagency Agreement: A written agreement between EPA and a Federal agency that
has the lead for site cleanup activities (e.g. the Department of Defense), that sets forth
the roles and responsibilities of the agencies for performing and overseeing the activi-
ties. States are often parties to interagency agreements.
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.
G-2
-------
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.tj: 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.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances produced from petroleum in refinery operations
and as fuel oil residues. These include fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are the bases from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are made. These chemical substances are often
toxic to humans and the environment.
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.
Polychlormated 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.
Remedial: A course of study combined with actions to correct site contamination
problems through identifying the nature and extent of cleanup strategies under the
Superfund program.
Sediment- The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.
G-3
-------
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile contaminants from a substance [see Air
Stripping].
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
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
------- |