EPA/540/4-90/021
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Maryland
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...
.111
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume
NPL SITES:
A State Overview
.xvii
.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
5 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
-------
INTRODUCTION
-v-
tively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
Otis 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 on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA'sjobisto
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 t& 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
-------
P'f"^ he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
1 x waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
£**""s 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.
vu
-------
bout ote»ti >
,
t danger;%SSSN ^
- . '\^\T^-.^^;:V\\?'.S:-:
how does ]
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.
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 ifs time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
viii
-------
'"<»*s
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.
Sx-W
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.
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
cfttiwr
IX
-------
SUPERFUND
, - ' si *
IHow * »«^«
s&>
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfuhd 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). Thafs 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 wiU 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 GLEANUP 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 arid 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 (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.
xi
-------
SUI'ERFUND
rar-STT-v ,w'^v-. " - s
pow are <$eaxrop
Does Hie p«fol
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.
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
concerns 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 cleanup a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence pf 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
..... ,. i .t.5-. *-X-'- ^ .'
- 'ftV-' v
JL'V fil^' **""
- \ ^"> -^ /- -;-. "":"' '-'-'^\.
V. ^ >' s ^ <' \ ^ - s **^
^M^"*^K^\^^^v^
^%\**88^A5.'!JS^5^^ iv % vt3J& ««'' i\x₯*
^ %" * X11- ~" ^ *~^;
-------
SUPERFUND
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 trie ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
It'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 poUuters 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.
x, V I;,."», ^-"ft." .
^ " ^ ." ''* V. «*
',v,, -x v'%, --r
' ^ ' .
*--.vC"<[ ^ ;^,-''l' - ... ..
* * ^^ - ,,
""" -.: Z . "'£ i
'W' ' '"' ^rt-% ttff ^ ^""^
% vH-1' ^ v> ^\ 'X;\\\SNN wX
* * s^N* *-V N:^v.s^^
^'-'\ - '--,-, \ '^ x:, "^-x-^
^ ssl!1>^'' ^ -
T
»\
is-.
XV
-------
TAX
-------
he 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
Initial Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
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.
xvu
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
Site Description
NPL Listing
History
Site Responsibility:
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts: .-......
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^%
5x
xviii
-------
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.
"wp5^""^
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.
SvB
Site Facts
Additional informaton 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.
XIX
-------
The feet 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 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
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 Sit
State of Maryland
Maryland is the forty-second largest state in the nation, covering 10,460 square miles.
The State is located in the Middle Atlantic region, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to
the Allegheny Mountains. Maryland's population grew by 9.6 percent in the 1980s, and
currently has approximately 4,622,000 residents, ranking 19th in U.S. populations.
Principal State industries include manufacturing and tourism and agricultural crops
including; corn, soybeans, and tobacco. Maryland manufacturing produces electric and
electronic equipment, food and related products, and chemicals.
How Many Maryland Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
1
9
2
12
Cong.
Cong.
Cong.
Cong.
Cong.
District 01
District 03
District 04
District 06
District 07
5 sites
2 sites
3 sites
1 site
1 site
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
S--
0)
8
* 4 +
2 --
GW Soil SW Seds Air
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy
metals (inorganics).
Soil: Heavy metals (inorganics),
volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
creosote (organics), and plastics.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs),
creosote (organics), pesticides, and
plastics.
Air: Heavy metals (inorganics), and
acids.
Appear at 20% or more sites
State Overview
xxi
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process* 7
Site
Studies
Remedy
Selected
Remedy
Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 8 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Maryland, providing specific information
on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should
you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Maryland Superfund Office
EPA Region III Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Center
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region III Superfund Public
Relations Office
(301)225-6953
(215)597-8132
(202) 475-7751
(800) 424-9346
(215) 597-9905
* Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
-------
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. .
xxiii
-------
Jfroj
Page
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
gress Toward uieanup a
She Name
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY LANDFILL
BUSH VALLEY LANDFILL
CHEMICAL METALS INDUSTRIES
KANE & LOMBARD STREET DRUMS
LIMESTONE ROAD
MID-ATLANTIC WOOD PRESERVERS
MIDDLETOWN ROAD DUMP
SAND, GRAVEL, AND STONE
SOUTHERN MD WOOD TREATING
USA ABERDEEN - EDGEWOOD
USA ABERDEEN, MICHAELSVILLE
WOODLAWN COUNTY LANDFILL
C INJtUr OlteS ]
County
ANNE ARUNDEL
HARFORD
BALTIMORE
BALTIMORE
ALLEGHANY
ANNE ARUNDEL
ANNE ARUNDEL
CECIL,.
f
ST. MARYS
HARFORD
HARFORD
CECIL
mine
NPL
Prop.
Final
Deleted
Final
Final
Final
Deleted
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
s oiate 01 maxyicum
Initial She Remedy Remedy Cleanup Cleanup
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
06/16/88 * *
03/31/89 *
12/30/82 * * * * *"
06/01/86 * + * *- *
09/01/83 "^ "* *"
06/01/86 *- 4-
04/18/88 "^ "^ . * ^"
09/01/83 *- *" "*" * *"
06/01/86 "^ *" "* * B^
02/21/90 "*
10/04/89 .+ *"
07/01/87 *- *
-------
-------
-------
ANNE ARUr
COUNTY LANDF,
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980705057
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Anne Arundel County
Glen Burnie
Aliases:
Smucks Dump
Glen Burnie Landfill
Site Description
The Anne Arundel Landfill site is a 130-acre parcel in the suburban Baltimore town of
Glen Burnie that was used by the County of Anne Arundel as a municipal solid waste
landfill for domestic waste until it was closed in 1982. Beginning in 1945,
80 acres of the site were used as a gravel and sand excavation operation owned by a
private individual. During and following the excavation of borrow soils, the site was
used as an "uncontrolled dump" with open burning. In 1968, the site was reported as
having two large surface water ponds, into which the residues from the burning were
placed. By 1969, most of the 80 acres were used for dumping. Anne Arundel County
took over the site and began operations in 1970. In the late 1970s, the State began to
investigate the possible presence of hazardous substances at the site. Monitoring
wells installed in 1980 showed that groundwater was contaminated. The Patapsco
Aquifer, which lies under the site, is the most productive water source in the county
and is an important source of water for public and private wells. An estimated 93,000
people live within 3 miles of the site, which is in a mixed industrial, commercial and
residential area. Approximately 3,000 people live within 1 mile of the site and less than
100 live within 1,000 feet.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
County, State, and Federal actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/16/88
Sampling by the EPA of 11 groundwater monitoring wells in 1983
confirmed that the groundwater was contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), cyanide, and heavy metals including lead. The EPA
also found the sediments of Furnace Creek to be contaminated with lead
and cyanide. Contaminants in the groundwater may pose a threat to
people in the area because the underlying Patapsco Aquifer is a water
supply source for municipal and domestic wells. This water system is
interconnected to Baltimore's water supply. Contamination found in
sediments may pose a threat to the ecosystem of the stream that borders
the site. There is also a threat of explosion due to methane gas buildup.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a single long-term
remedial phase directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: Gas venting pipes have been inserted to prevent methane
buildup.
Entire Site: The State is monitoring drinking well sources to test for the
intrusion of contamination. It is proposed that the County begin an
investigation of the site and a feasibility study of possible remedies in 1990
in preparation for the cleanup. Once these studies are completed, the EPA will make a
final remedy selection.
Environmental Progress
The installation of gas venting pipes to eliminate the danger of explosion from methane
buildup has greatly reduced the potential for the Anne Arundel Landfill site to pose an
immediate threat to the surrounding public or the environment while the site is awaiting
further cleanup activities.
-------
BUSH VALLE
LANDFILL
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980504195
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Harford County
Abingdon
Alias:
Harris Landfill
Site Description
Before 1977, the 29-acre Bush Valley Landfill site was allegedly used for the open
burning of trash. The property, which was privately owned, was used as a /anc/f/7/for
municipal wastes from 1975 to 1982. During this period, the landfill had a State permit
to accept municipal wastes. Between 1979 and 1984, the State issued orders to the
owner to neutralize leachates and build drainage ditches and containment berms as part
of the landfill's operating procedures and closure plans. The owner of the facility never
complied fully with the orders. During a site inspection in 1984, the EPA observed
erosion and leachate seeping from slopes at the landfill. The landfill did not contain
diversion ditches or leachate collection systems and was only partially covered. The
Ferryman Water Treatment Plant supplies approximately 35,000 people from eight
municipal wells. Three of the eight wells are within 3 miles of the site. A few private
wells are nearby, the closest of which is a shallow well 500 feet away.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/16/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
IA
Threats and Contaminants
An on-site groundwater monitoring well contained volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including vinyl chloride from former waste disposal
practices. Also, the EPA observed soil leachate seeping from slopes of
the landfill. Potential risks exist if contaminated groundwater is used as a
drinking water supply. Since water is blended into the system, the entire
population could be affected if one or more of the wells used by the
Perryman Water Treatment Plant become contaminated. Runoff from the
landfill goes to two basins on the site; one of these basins runs into
Bynum Run, which is near the site. A wetland which adjoins the site could
become contaminated, threatening the wildlife in the area.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
BUSH VALLEY LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on
groundwater and soil cleanup at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA is scheduled to conduct a study to determine the
nature and extent of contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup.
After the completion of this investigation, the EPA will start cleanup
activities to address the groundwater and soil contamination at this site.
Environmental Progress
After listing this site on the NPL, the EPA performed a preliminary site investigation and
determined that conditions at the Bush Valley site do not pose an immediate threat to
nearby residents or the surrounding environment while the EPA begins investigations
and performs cleanup activities.
-------
CHEMICAL
METALS INDUS
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980555478
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Baltimore County
Baltimore
Alias:
cm
Site Description
The Chemical Metals Industries site is divided into two areas: a former gas station that
operated on one area and was also used as a dump yard for chemicals, and a
laboratory and manufacturing center that contained chemical processing equipment
designed for recrystallization of solid materials from liquid solutions. Gwynn's Falls, a
tributary to the Patapsco River, is located near the site. There are approximately 10,000
people living within 3 miles of the site. The site is located in a mixed residential and
industrial area, with 20 homes located between the two site areas.
Site Responsibility: This site was addressed through
State and Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Deletion Date: 12/30/82
Threats and Contaminants
Specific contaminants detected in the air, soil, and surface water include
cyanides, ammonia compounds, acids, caustics, and heavy metal salts.
Health threats at the site included direct contact with contaminated air,
surface water, and soils; breathing contaminated air; and drinking
contaminated surface water or accidentally eating contaminated soils.
Danger of fire and explosion from volatized chemicals on the site posed
an additional threat to nearby residents.
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the contamination at the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
CHEMICAL METALS INDUSTRIES
Response Action Status
Entire Site: All materials posing an immediate threat were identified,
removed, and disposed of in 1982. Drums and scrap debris were removed
from the site and liquid organic waste was removed. Liquid inorganic wastes
were treated to make them acceptable for discharge to the city sewer system. The
underground storage tank at the former gas station was filled with concrete slurry. A
clay cap and topsoil were applied and compacted over the site. Sand blasters removed
chemical contamination from the walls of the former gas station. The interior'of the
laboratory and manufacturing area were cleaned and decontaminated. The site was
fenced and police and fire personnel were made available to ensure site security. As a
result of the cleanup activities and subsequent sampling to ensure the effectiveness of
the remedy, the EPA, in cooperation with the State of Maryland, determined that the
site no longer posed a threat to the public. The site was deleted from the NPL in 1982.
Site Facts: The Chemical Metals Industries site was placed on the Interim Priorities
List in October 1981; however, all cleanup actions were completed before the first
proposed NPL was established.
\Environmentol Progress
By performing all cleanup actions described above, the EPA has eliminated or contained
contamination sources at the site. In conjunction with the State, the EPA has
determined that the Chemical Metals Industries site has been cleaned to established
standards and is no longer a threat to the public or the environment.
-------
KANE & LOJVJ
STREET DRUM
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980923783
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Baltimore County
Orangeville Subdivision in Baltimore
Site Description
The 8 1/3-acre Kane and Lombard Street Drums site operated as part of an open dump
between 1962 and 1984 and accepted demolition, municipal, and industrial wastes. The
site and some of the adjacent property have a long history of excavation and filling.
Approximately 1,200 drums containing hazardous materials have been removed from
the site. There are approximately 37,000 people within 3 miles of the site. Residential
developments and a large medical complex are found about 1/3 mile from the site, and
a large park area is about 3/4 mile from the site. A high school and its recreation areas
border the property. The site lies along the edge of an industrial and commercial strip
that borders a railroad and highway network. Herring Run and Back River, downslope
of the site, are an arm of the Chesapeake Bay and are used for fishing, crabbing, and
recreational purposes.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
State and Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including vinyl chloride and benzene, and heavy metals including cadmium,
and mercury from former waste disposal practices. Cadmium has also
been detected in off-site groundwater. Specific contaminants detected in
soils include various volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatics (PNAs), and phthalates. Off-site
soil is contaminated with arsenic, beryllium, lead, PNAs, and phthalates.
Health threats include exposure to contaminated soil and air through
ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact. If bioaccumulation of
contaminants is confirmed, people who participate in fishing, crabbing,
and recreational uses of Herring Run and Back River may also be at risk.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS-WASTE SITES
continued
-------
KANE & LOMBARD STREET DRUMS
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on source control and cleanup of contaminated groundwater.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1984, the EPA removed approximately 1,150
drums from the site. The majority of full drums contained flammable solids.
An additional drum containing PCBs was removed and stored pending
shipment to a disposal facility. The site was covered with 12,000 cubic yards of
topsoil, and surface contours were reshaped to prevent surface water from mixing with
contaminants and moving off site. The EPA also installed a fence for security purposes.
Source Control: The final selection of cleanup technologies to address
contamination include: construction of subsurface containment and
diversion structures around the waste disposal areas, construction of a
multi-layer soil cap, construction of a drainage system, and continued
groundwater monitoring. The EPA prepared the technical specifications and* design for
the selected cleanup technologies and is currently performing the cleanup at the site.
Final cleanup activities are expected to be completed in 1990.
Groundwater: The State is conducting a second investigation to determine
the nature and extent of groundwater contamination underlying the site.
This investigation will identify alternatives for cleanup and is scheduled to
be completed in 1991.
Site Facts: In -1983, the State of Maryland issued an order to the potentially
responsible pa/t/esto conduct cleanup activities. The potentially responsible parties
appealed the order and the State requested the EPA's assistance.
Environmental Progress
Emergency actions have reduced the potential for exposure to contamination at the
Kane and Lombard Street Drums site. Ongoing cleanup activities are designed to
isolate the remaining contamination thereby eliminating threats to public health and the
environment.
-------
ROAD
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980691588
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Alleghany County
21/2 miles southeast of Cumberland
Aliases:
Cumberland Cement & Supply
Diggs Sanitation
Site Description
The 210-acre Limestone Road site consists of two parcels of land; the former Diggs
Sanitation Company and the Cumberland Cement and Supply Company. The site
includes large areas of landfilled and dumped commercial, residential, and demolition
refuse on both properties. Approximately 110 tons of chromium-containing sludge
were also disposed of on the properties. Beginning in the mid-1970s, various
contractors were allowed to dump clean fill (housing demolition wastes) on the
property to provide a larger and more level working surface. Allegations were made
that 11 tons'of hazardous waste have been disposed of on the Diggs property as an
extension of previous filling and grading operations. There are approximately 425
people within 1 mile of the site. The site is bordered by several residences and the
Cumberland City Dump. There is one residence on the Diggs property, and 18
residences are within 1/2 mile downgradient of the site. The residences are supplied
with groundwater from private wells.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Inorganic chemicals and heavy metals including zinc and lead were
detected in on-site soils during test pit sampling. The surface water is
contaminated with chromium, cadmium, and zinc. Possible health threats
include direct contact with or accidental ingestion of contaminated soil or
surface water. There is also a possibility that groundwater may become
contaminated through runoff from the soil or surface water.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
LIMESTONE ROAD
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 has selected the following remedies for cleanup of
the site contamination: (1) reshaping site surface contours to manage
water infiltration and runoff; (2) capping contaminated soil on all properties;
(3) fencing of both properties; (4) continued monitoring of groundwater,
surface water, and sediment; (5) completing a historical review of pertinent geological
information; (6) chemically analyzing shale to determine its composition; (7) reevaluating
and establishing background data control points for groundwater; and (8) frequent
groundwater sampling, as well as increasing stream and residential sampling. In
addition, the EPA remedy requires evaluating the effects of natural conditions on the
overall water quality of the area. The parties potentially responsible for contamination
at the site are preparing the technical specifications and design for the selected cleanup
technologies. Cleanup activities will begin once the design phase is completed.
Site Facts: In 1988, the potentially responsible parties entered into a Consent Decree
with the EPA to conduct cleanup activities at the site. The State subsequently filed a
motion to intervene, requesting that it be made a party to the Consent Decree on equal
terms with the EPA. The issue related to the State's role was settled among the
parties, and the decree was amended and signed by the potentially responsible partie's,
the State, and the EPA. The decree was entered in court in 1990.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Limestone Road site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary
investigations and found that the site does not currently pose an immediate threat to
public health or the environment while further investigations, and cleanup activities are
proceeding.
10
-------
MID-ATLAN'
WOOD
PRESERVERS
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD064882889
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Anne Arundel County
Harmans
Alias:
Mid-Atlantic Harmans Wood
Treatment Factory
Site Description
The Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers site is an active wood-treating facility that stands on
a 3-acre parcel in Harmans. It consists of two impoundments that straddle Shipley
Avenue near its intersection with Dorsey Road. Both are enclosed by chain-link
fencing. The operation employs a two-part chromated copperarsenate (CCA) process.
In the first part, workers pressure-treat lumber in an enclosed processing plant; in the
second, the wood is allowed to drip and dry. From 1976 until 1981, operators allowed
the contaminated drippings to fall directly onto the ground. Surface water from the site
drains toward Stoney Run Creek, while the groundwater moves in a northwesterly
direction. The groundwater beneath the site and surface soils are contaminated with
wood-treating metals. The pollution was determined to have come from the overflow of
a CCA storage tank and from lumber drippings, and the owner undertook1 cleanup
activities in 1980. The area surrounding the site is industrial, commercial, and
residential. About 1,180 people within a 3-mile radius depend on approximately 75
wells as a source of drinking water and for a variety of other uses including domestic,
public, commercial, recreational, institutional, industrial, and irrigation. The closest
residence is within 200 feet of the site. Stoney Run Creek flows north through a
wetland area 600 feet west of the site, extending 4 miles before discharging to the
Patapsco River near Elkridge. Stoney Run is restricted to recreational use.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State,
and potentially responsible parties'
actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
MID-ATLANTIC WOOD PRESERVERS
Threats and Contaminants
Heavy metals including arsenic and chromium from former process
wastes have been detected in monitoring wells on site and in an off-
site private well, as well as in the soils on the site. Low levels of
copper were found in the water of Stoney Run. People are at risk
from accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater or from
inhaling contaminated residues in the soils. The wetlands and stream
areas near the site also are subject to contamination from the surface
water runoff from the site or from the inflow of contaminated
groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: Under orders from the State, the owner developed
pJans to remedy the groundwater contamination in 1980. Operational
changes included leaving the drying wood on the concrete drainage pad
longer before moving it to the storage lot and modifying the drainage pad so that it
collects all waste drippings for reuse. All wastes captured by the drip pad are
recirculated within the process system and sludges are shipped off site for disposal.
The owner also removed 26 cubic yards of contaminated soil from beneath the
chemical storage tank overflow pipe and disposed of it at an EPA-approved facility.
Nevertheless, the EPA's 1983 investigation indicated that excess contamination
remains in the groundwater and that further cleanup may be necessary.
Entire Site: A study of groundwater contamination at the site is under way
and is being financed by the owner. This investigation will explore the
nature and extent of the problems and will recommend the best strategies
for final cleanup. It is scheduled for completion in early 1990.
Environmental Progress
The owner's actions to limit the spread of groundwater contamination and the removal
of contaminated soil from the site have reduced the potential of the further spread of
contamination at the Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers site while the selection of a final
cleanup strategy is being made.
12
-------
MIDDLETO
ROAD DUM
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980705099
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Anne Arundel County
Off Maryland Route 50, near Annapolis
Alias:
Dale Dickerson Dump
Site Description
The Middletown Dump, situated on approximately 2 1/2 acres, is a privately owned
dump off Route 50 near Annapolis. The facility, now inactive, took in rubble and
construction debris for several decades without proper State permits. In 1981, it was
discovered that about 40 drums and four dumpster loads of suspected hazardous
substances were on the site. The owner was forced to initiate cleanup when a drum-
crushing accident spread contaminants over a half acre. That year, the State shut down
the dump because of its violations of State water pollution and hazardous waste laws.
Approximately 5,000 people live within 1 mile of the site; 2,500 people within 3 miles
are served by groundwater in both public and private wells. A stream flowing off the
site enters Whitehawk Creek, which is used for recreation.
Site Responsibility: This site was addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Deletion Date: 04/18/88
Threats and Contaminants
Soil was contaminated with heavy metals such as lead, aluminum,
chromium, zinc, cyanide, barium, and cadmium. Access to the site was
unrestricted, making the risk of direct contact with contaminated areas
possible.
Cleanup Approach
The site was addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
MIDDLETOWN ROAD DUMP
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1983, the EPA conducted an emergency cleanup
to eliminate immediate threats from contamination. EPA workers
performed the following: (1) removed contaminated soil and 5-gallon pails.
of marine paint; (2) sampled the soil to confirm that contaminant removal had been
adequate; (3) installed six groundwater monitoring wells around the site perimeter; (4)
sampled and tested drums; and (5) moved 1 million tires elsewhere on the site to
expedite subsurface investigation. More drums were discovered under the tires. The
EPA removed 68 drums, 70 contaminated tires, and 610 tons of contaminated soil.
Entire Site: The EPA and the State conducted an intensive investigation of
site conditions during and after the emergency removal. The study
evaluated water, soil, and sediment quality in the vicinity of the site. It
revealed that as a result of the previous EPA cleanup actions, the hazardous wastes
were gone, and that no threat to human health remained. The site contains only
uncontaminated trash and tires. Declaring that no further cleanup action was
warranted, the EPA, with agreement from the State, deleted the site from the NPL in
April 1988.
Environmental Progress
The EPA, through emergency removal of hazardous wastes and evaluations of the
extent of contamination at the Middletown Dump, successfully cleaned up the site.
After further studies, the EPA, with concurrence by the State, determined that the site
no longer posed a threat to the surrounding community or the environment, and
delisted the site from the NPL in 1988.
14
-------
SAND, GRl
AND STONE
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980705164
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Cecil County
3 miles west of Elkton
Aliases:
Elkton Quarry
Maryland Sand and Gravel
Site Description
From 1969 to 1974, 3 acres of the Sand, Gravel, and Stone site, which is on a 200-acre
parcel, were used for the disposal of bulk wastes such as processing wastewater,
sludges, and st/7/ bottoms, and about 90 drums of solid and semi-solid waste. The
operator dug pits and disposed of approximately 700,000 gallons of waste into them
including buried drums and sJudges in on-site pits. In 1982, the EPA detected volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in the groundwater at the site, although water samples
from nearby homes were not contaminated. Approximately 570 people live within a 1-
mile radius of the site; 8,000 are within 3 miles. The nearest home upgradientoi the
buried toxic wastes is 800 feet; the nearest home downgradient is 1,800 feet from the
site. Elk Nest State Forest is within 3 miles, as is the Elk River estuary and wetlands.
Mill Creek, a headwater located on the site, is a documented spawning area.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The shallow groundwater has been shown to contain heavy metals
including cadmium and chromium and VOCs including benzene and
toluene from former waste disposal practices. The deep groundwater is
contaminated with lead. Heavy metals, pesticides, and VOCs have been
detected in sediments and surface water. Ponds heavily contaminated
with heavy metals and VOCs have dried, and the sediments have become
topsoil. Trespassers are at risk by touching, inhaling, or accidentally
consuming contaminated soils. Site access is restricted by a fence
around the perimeter of the facility. The bog turtle, an endangered
species, has not been seen on the site since the 1970s.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
SAND, GRAVEL, AND STONE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: immediate actions and three long-term
remedial phases focusing on drum and shallow aquifer cleanup, deep aquifers, and soil
cleanup.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Under State order, the owner removed 200,000
gallons of liquid waste from the site in 1974. In 1985, a temporary fence
was constructed around the site to limit access.
Drums and Shallow Aquifer: The parties potentially responsible for site
contamination installed a new fence around the site and posted warning
signs. A groundwater treatability study is in progress by the potentially
responsible party to determine the most effective way to address
groundwater contamination. The design of this remedy is planned for completion in
mid-1992. Drum removal activities were initiated in March 1990.
Deep Aquifers: The potentially responsible parties are conducting a study
to determine the nature and extent of site contamination and to identify
alternatives for cleanup. Phase II, an intensive study of the deep aquifers to
assess the nature and extent of contamination and to identify the best
strategies for cleanup, is also ongoing. Once the EPA selects the remedy, the
potentially responsible parties will proceed with design and cleanup activities.
On-site Soils: An intensive study of on-site soil contamination, Phase III, is
slated for 1990. The parties potentially responsible for site pollution might
undertake this investigation, which will determine the nature and extent of
the problem and will identify the best approaches for cleanup. Design is
scheduled for 1992.
Site Facts: In 1985, a steering committee of potentially responsible parties
volunteered to perform the Phase II study, signing a Consent Order in 1986. Forty-one
responsible parties and the EPA signed a Consent Decree in November 1987 in which
the parties agreed to conduct cleanup actions and to pay a portion of the EPA's past
and future oversight costs.
Environmental Progress
The immediate construction of a fence around the site to limit public access and the
removal of liquid wastes have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials at the Sand, Gravel, and Stone site while further studies and a final remedy
selection'are taking place.
16
-------
SOUTHERN
MARYLAND
WOOD TREAT
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980704852
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Saint Mary's County
Hollywood
Site Description
Four acres of the 25-acre Southern Maryland Wood Treating (SMWT) site, located
about 50 miles southeast of Washington, D.C., were used to treat wood from 1965 to
1978. The facility treated wood with coal tar, creosote, and pentachlorophenol (PCP)
,and is now inactive. Operators disposed of process wastes in six unlined lagoons and
filled a seventh with contaminated water and sludge. In 1982, under an order from the
Maryland Department of Health, the potentially responsible parties attempted to clean
up the site by spraying lagoon liquids and landfarming lagoon sludges in two areas on
site. Sludges were mixed with wood chips and manure and spread over a 3-acre
section of the site. This attempt was not successful, and now the top 3 feet of soil in
this area are heavily contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Soil
under the former lagoon area is also heavily contaminated from seepage from the
lagoons. Surface soil in other areas of the site was contaminated by drippings from
treated wood. The site is surrounded by residential and agricultural areas. About 40
homes are located within 1/2 mile of the site, and 150 homes are within 1 mile of the
site. Approximately 260 people depend on wells within 3 miles of the site for drinking
water.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), PAHs, PCP, styrene, and creosote by-products from the wood-
treatment operations. The main threat to public health associated with
the site is long-term exposure to carcinogens found in PAHs in the
subsurface and surface soils.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
SOUTHERN MARYLAND WOOD TREATING
Response Action Status :
X* Immediate Actions: In 1980, the parties potentially responsible for
contamination of the site excavated and treated part of the contaminated
soil on the site under orders from the State. In 1982, the six lagoons were
completely emptied, backfilled, and graded. Wastewater was used to spray a wooded
area behind the site while excavated sludge was placed in a sludge treatment area east
of the site. The seventh pond was partially excavated. The EPA and the State
conducted additional emergency measures to stabilize the site. By 1986,
approximately 1,400 cubic yards of contaminated soil were excavated from the
northwest bank of the freshwater pond. The soils were then placed onto a synthetic
liner east of the former lagoon area and capped with a synthetic cover. A
decontamination pad was used to clean the heavy excavation equipment.
Entire Site: The cleanup remedies selected for this site in 1988 include: (1)
excavating and on-site incinerating of contaminated soils and sediments; (2)
installing a barrier to control groundwater migration through the pond and
process area; (3) pumping and treating contaminated groundwater and
surface water; (4) backfilling, regrading, and replanting the site where necessary; and
(5) monitoring groundwater, surface water, sediment, and organisms. A UV oxidation
or carbon adsorption method may be used in the cleanup process. A final technology
selection will be determined during the pre-design studies. The cleanup processes will
be completed in different phases; the first phase is to install a barrier wall around the
pond and process area and then constructing a permanent decontamination area. The
design of this phase was finished in 1989. Construction has begun and completion is
expected in 1990. The next phase will accomplish the remainder of the cleanup
process. The pre-design work of the remedy is under way for this phase.
Site Facts: In 1980, a Consent Decree was signed between the State, the EPA, and
SMWT Corporation, one of the potentially responsible parties, to conduct immediate
cleanup actions at the site.
Environmental Progress
Excavating, treating, and capping contaminated soils at the Southern Maryland Wood
Treating have prevented the further spread of contaminants and have reduced the risk
to the public while the site awaits the completion of the permanent cleanup remedies
selected.
18
-------
USA ABER
EDGEWOOD
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MD2210020036
Site Description
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Southern Harford County and southeastern
Baltimore County
Aliases:
USA Aberdeen Proving Ground
US Coast Guard - Upper Chesapeake Range
USA Edgewood Arsenal
US Coast Guard - Poole Island Range
The Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) occupies 79,000 acres of land and water near the
head of Chesapeake Bay. The APG consists.of two areas that are listed separately on
the NPL: the Edgewood area and the Michaelsville area. The Edgewood area is 13,000
acres and includes Gunpowder Neck, Pooles Island, Carroll Island, and Graces
Quarters. The Edgewood area is separated from the Michaelsville area by the Bush
River. The Edgewood area was used for the development and testing of chemical
agent munitions. From 1917 to the present, the Edgewood area conducted chemical
research programs, manufactured chemical agents, and tested, stored, and disposed of
toxic materials. The Edgewood area has large areas of land and water and numerous
buildings, which are contaminated or suspected of contamination. Virtually every land
portion of the area is reportedly contaminated or potentially contaminated. Substances
disposed of in the area include significant quantities of napalm, white phosphorus and
chemical,agents. On-site area surface water includes rivers, streams and wetlands.
There are 38j600 people living within 3 miles of the site. On-site residences house
military personnel and military dependents. Four Edgewood area standby water supply
wells in the Canal Creek area previously served approximately 3,000 people. The Long
Bar Harbor well field of the County Department of Public Works and the well field used
by the Joppatowne Sanitary Subdistrict serve 35,000 people within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/01/85
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
Preliminary on-site groundwater sampling has identified various metals,
phosphorus, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including chloroform
and benzene. Preliminary on-site soil contamination sampling has
identified various VOCs, metals, and unexploded ordnance in surface and
subsurface soil. Preliminary on-site surface water sampling has identified
various metals, phosphorus, and VOCs. People who accidentally touch or
ingest contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments may
be at risk. The wetlands area is a designated habitat for bald eagles.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
19
continued
-------
USA ABERDEEN - EDGEWOOD
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: As an initial action, the Army conducted an environmental
monitoring program in 1977 and 1978 at the Edgewood area. Evidence
was found of substantial groundwater and surface water contamination.
Contamination at the Edgewood area has been identified in separate study areas which
will be addressed in future cleanup actions. Within each study area there may be . -
multiple cleanup phases. The areas include: Canal Creek, Old-O-Field, J-Field, Carroll
Island, Graces Quarters, Westwood Area, and the Other Edgewood Areas. The Canal
Creek study area is 700 acres and surrounds both branches of Canal Creek. There is a
landfill and closed pilot plant in this area. The area is primarily contaminated with white
phosphorus. The Old-O-Field is 700 acres and has six former disposal pits which are
contaminated with mustard gas and lewesite. Four disposal/burn areas have been
identified on the J-Field. Contaminants include various chemical agents and
ammunitions. Carroll Island is 850 acres/and the area was used for air testing of
chemical agents. Burning pits and small dump areas were used for disposal of water.
Graces Quarters includes 890 acres and was used for chemical agent and biological
stimulant testing. Some disposal activities may have been conducted. Westwood
Area is 523 acres and the area was used as a bomb-drop target area. There is an active
solid waste landfill in the area which is permitted to receive only rubble and asbestos
wastes. Other Edgewood areas include all areas not covered by specific study areas.
Work plans outlining the schedule and objectives of environmental investigations were
completed for each of these study areas in 1989. These studies will be conducted
between the present time and 1993 and will result in defining the contaminants for
each area and identifying alternatives for site cleanup once completed. The EPA will
select cleanup remedies to be carried out by the federal government.
Site Facts: The Aberdeen Proving Ground is participating in the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP), the specially funded program established in 1978 under
which the Department of Defense (DOD) has been identifying and evaluating its past
hazardous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants at
military or other DOD installations.
Environmental Progress
The EPA and the Army have isolated various areas of contamination at the USA
Aberdeen-Edgewood site and have completed the work plans for cleanup of these
areas. Once these studies are reviewed and the final cleanup alternatives are selected,
the Army will begin the work to clean up the site contamination areas.
20
-------
USA ABERD
MICHAELSVIL
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MD3210021355
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Southern Harford County
Aliases:
USA Edgewood Arsenal
Coast Guard - Poole Island Range
US Coast Guard - Upper Chesapeake Range
Site Description
The Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) occupies 79,000 acres of land and water near the
head of-the Chesapeake Bay. The APG consists of two areas that are listed separately
on the NPL:^ the Michaelsville area and the Edgewood area. The Michaelsville area
consists of 17,000 acres, including the 20racre Michaelsville Landfill, the Phillips Field :
Disposal Area, and the White Phosphorous Burial Site, and it is separated from the
Edgewood area of the site by the Bush River. The area contains firing ranges, impact
areas, vehicle test tracks, and laboratories in support of the testing activities. The
Michaelsville Landfill operated as a sanitary landfill from the 1970s until 1980. The
landfill received household garbage and refuse from the installation. The Phillips Field
Disposal Area includes the active Phillips Field Landfill, Disposal Areas 1 through 4, and
two grease pits. The active Phillips Field Landfill is a construction debris landfill and lies
on top of an older landfill that is unlined and is about 16 feet deep. The White
Phosphorous Burial Site is believed to be within a 15-acre area in the Chesapeake Bay
near Mosquito Cree,k. Reportedly, munitions were buried under 2 feet of soil at the
location. The Michaelsville area is bordered on the west by the Bush River and to the
northeast and south by the Chesapeake Bay. The area is drained by seven creeks plus
the Bush River. There are 38,600 people living within 3 miles of the site. Residences
located on the Michaelsville Landfill area of the site house military personnel-and
dependents. , ;, .
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed
.'.',' through Federal actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/01/85
Final Date: 10/04/89
Preliminary groundwater and surface water sampling has identified
various heavy metals, phosphorous, and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Soil is contaminated with pesticides. People who accidentally
touch or ingest contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil or
sediments may be at risk. There also is a possible risk of bioaccumulation
of contaminants in the food chain.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
21
continued
-------
USA ABERDEEN, MICHAELSVILLE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The Army has begun excavating pesticide-contaminated
soil at the golf course and sampling is under way. Abandoned
underground storage tanks are also being removed. Soil sampling around
Entire Site: Contamination at the Michaelsville area has been identified in
separate study areas which will be addressed in future cleanup actions.
The areas include the landfill source, groundwater, the Phillips Field
Landfill, the White Phosphorous Area, the Fire Training Area, and the other areas. An
investigation is underway and is expected to be completed in 1993. The study will
define the contaminants for each area, evaluate the health and environmental risks, and
will identify alternatives for site cleanup.
Site Facts: The EPA and the Army entered into an Interagency Agreement in March
1990. Under this agreement, the Army will conduct investigations and cleanup
activities at the site. The USA Aberdeen, Michaelsville site is participating in the
Installation Restoration Program (IRP), the specially funded program established by the
Department of Defense (DOD) to identify, evaluate, and control the migration of
hazardous wastes at military or other DOD installations.
Environmental Progress
The EPA and the Army have excavated soil in one area of contamination and sampled
it Underground storage tanks are being removed, and the Army has isolated various
areas of contamination at the Michaelsville site. Further investigations leading to the
final selection process for cleaning up the various areas are currently being conducted.
22
-------
WOODLA
LANDFILL
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980504344
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Cecil County
Woodlawn
Alias:
Woodlawn Transfer Station
Site Description
Cecil County owned and operated the 37-acre Woodlawn County Landfill from 1965 to
1979, when it was closed under a State order. Before becoming a landfill, the property
was a privately owned sand and gravel quarry. Operators filled two large quarry pits
with agricultural, municipal, and industrial wastes. According to State records, the only
documented hazardous waste disposal at the site was polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sludge
by the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. This sludge was initially disposed of
throughout the site, but in 1977, two designated disposal cells were put into use.
However, EPA and State analyses showed contamination of on-site groundwater as
well as stream sediments 200 feet from the site. When the EPA sampled home wells
in 1987, all were free of contamination. An estimated 5,700 people draw drinking
water from public and private wells within 3 miles of the site. The nearest private well
is within 400 feet of the landfill. All homeowners adjacent to the site use private wells
as their sole source of water. The contaminated stream enters Basin Run, a State-
designated trout stream, about 2 miles from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with PVC, benzene, toluene, and lead.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and lead are found in stream
sediments. Possible health threats include drinking or coming in direct
contact with contaminated groundwater or stream sediments.
Economically valuable trout streams are located in the vicinity that may be
threatened by site contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
23
continued
-------
WOODLAWN COUW1Y LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: The parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination capped the PVC sludge in 1981 to keep rainwater from
spreading the pollution, and they installed monitoring wells. The State
samples on-site monitoring wells twice a year.
Entire Site: The potentially responsible parties agreed to undertake an
intensive study of soil and groundwater contamination at the site and to
recommend the best approaches for cleanup. The investigation began in
1988 and is scheduled for completion in 1991, after which the potentially responsible
parties, under EPA monitoring, will clean up the site using the EPA-selected remedies.
Site Facts: The EPA signed a Consent Order with the Firestone Tire and Rubber
Company and Cecil County in 1988 to conduct a site investigation.
Environmental Progress
Capping the PVC sludge has eliminated the possibility of rainwater spreading the
contaminants from the Woodlawn County Landfill while further investigations and
cleanup activities continue.
24
-------
his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
fact sheets for the State of Maryland. The terms and
abbreviations contained in this glossary are often
defined in 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.
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.
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.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contaminated water, or eat contaminated food.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil, sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
G-l
G-5
-------
------- |