EPA/540/4-90/022
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Massachusetts
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, B.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets 1
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
11
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
^ s the 1970s came to a
^ close, a series of head-
line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly
known as the Superfund
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
groundwater (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THENPL
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-
iii
-------
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
-------
he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
!Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
vii
-------
|How does EPAJeai|| ^ I
feabout potential: ; \^rk I
fcr. * % SSS *** '' £
wa,s te'
' f~ , - A ^s"^, ,
I pVhat happens i^^£
titere is an
tcfangert
ihow does EPA;
Idetermine what^ii
\*
f
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 it's time 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.
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.
v,-''
ffft* r .^ %»
If the i«
-~ r
tljai a^mpias jfcfereat
fl*&lf Ixbt/ what's
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
> ' "S'f. " *"
^ If Q w 4o«s, EPA
>,|he
site
IX
-------
How do people
\ tout whether SPA T:
PpHoiaal pnority for ^ 5
Sleanup using0 %-" " -4 ^"
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). That's why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to bfe cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not 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.
"V
>«>»;
>'«
xi
-------
8w - v **» \V -^ -^
-How ate aef tiup
dentified and -
s
Does the public
.^j~^- ^ S V, J . \ ^''^ > S
ai say in. the f*nal, - ;1;^
: cleanup decision? ; ""-
^ * ' '
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 NPL7 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 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
tailored fe£a site does
tailored too? - -
.. , , ' s """SS, "
xm
-------
ftie design is ^---1
1 .* -S v,' "" f ' * -SvS
igpmplete, htfw fongMf >|
'
l^"*"""4**""*^"1"1"'',^'" ?
fc-~ , s 7*'
gg^x^^^^rt^V ^ ^^ '""-^^^^ X w.
^.^ - *+^g£& <£<<»&* V-J$£> %,:>£.. .^v.v.v.v.
sV\-x* s W> 5 Sv * v"" «V WX 5 i
^ssss^Xs -K^ ss"11" s""
!v i-^ ifkKnV* -x-
ts^^v-l;
ac
" V?A*V? WAf y TL ,**»!** ^^flS
?doe$ ie costf : *S
fe-^ * . , AS--"^--^^*
fe
iSC"3
SI^«*
KJi. s
h:
r^r1^
; vrf^V ^
I S^t v ,'
i if. -
I g-r.-tR.-tgi. it=
£»^
\v-, ''
s->s^s1-s<-'- ^ <
- -,^-w^ - s' 41
fci»a>i x^H'^ov si^"^
^ ' ^ss^^^*^^'1- ^-f*\l
-,i^*v*'^vl
XV^A N ^ "^ ^** :
- ^ ,to \fe- ", **«* i
^ ^ > '-W.H ^ ^, ^ ^ $.' \S^SSS ^ %-
"^ . -v*^ "* *:**'' 5
°* Vsxsss-, -. -.%%%%x %^ v\s\ -. >
^ -. SSHS ^ H -. ^ SS^SJ«.^ % ^
^T*",,
\ * t"^1^^^^1^ ss 5-. \
3g^~^f^t. -VBSK'fWffffff ^t,"*"* S f X"^ '''°'*\^\ V^%\ ^ S %V^
lOnce ilte cleamtp
laCtiOlt |$ ^rtrttrvltt^
Site $ite
lit
: 5?
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup called the
remedial action are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
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 polluters should pay," after a - , % ^ , ^ - -5 -
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to 51*? **A B^^f P«*tW
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.
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
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.
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA 1D# ABCOOOOOOOO
Site Description
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Threats and Contaminants
'.' ::-:^v
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
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.
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.
tf'fSftfffffff f
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
Site Facts
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
XIX
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to 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 Sites/I
/ i
Commonweal
Massachusetts
The New England state of Massachusetts is located on the Atlantic seaboard bounded
by Vermont and New Hampshire to the north, New York to the West, and Rhode Island
and Connecticut to the south. The State covers 58,527 square miles consisting of
jagged indented coast from Rhode Island around Cape Cod, flat lands yielding to stoney
upland pastures near the central region and gentle hilly country in the west.
Massachusetts experienced a 0.2 percent decrease in population through the 1980s
and currently has approximately 9,240,000 residents, ranking 8th in U.S. populations.
Principal State industries include services, trade and manufacturing. Massachusetts
manufacturing produces electric and electronic equipment, machinery printing and
publishing, instruments, and fabricated metal products.
How Many Massachusetts Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
2
23
£
25
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Cong. District 01, 02, 09 1 site
Cong. District 03, 04, 07, 11 2 sites
Cong. District 05, 12 3 sites
Cong. District 06, 10 4 sites
25--
co 20
*
10 4-
5 --
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), and polychorinated
biphenyls (RGBs).
Soil and Solid Waste: Heavy
metals (inorganics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), polychlorinated
biphenyls (RGBs), creosote
(organics), and pesticides.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs),
polychorinated biphenyls (RGBs) and
creosote (organics).
GW Soil& SW Seds Air
Solid
waste
Contamination Area
Air: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), polychorinated biphenyls
(RGBs) and gases.
*Appear at 20% or more sites
State Overview
xxi
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy
"Selected
Remedy
Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 19 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Massachusetts, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental
progress. Should you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Massachusetts Superfund Office
EPA Region I Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region I Superfund Public
Relations Office
(617)292-5648
(617)573-9645
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(617)565-3417
Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview xxii
-------
The NPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow K) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
*- An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
*- An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
^ An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
* An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
* A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
XXlll
-------
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of Massachusetts
Page Site Name
County
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
NPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
1
3
6
8
11
13
15
18
20
22
25
28
30
32
34
37
39
41
ATLAS TACK CORP.
BAIRD & MCGUIRE
CANNON ENGINEERING CORP.
CHARLES-GEORGE RECLAMATION
FORT DEVENS - SUDBURY TRAINING
FORT DEVENS
GROVELAND WELLS
HAVERHILL MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
HOCOMONCO POND
INDUSTRI-PLEX
IRON HORSE PARK
NEW BEDFORD SITE
NORWOOD PCBS
NYANZA CHEMICAL
OTIS AIR NAT. GUARD/CAMP EDWARDS
PLYMOUTH HARBOR/CANNON ENGIN.
PSC RESOURCES -
RE-SOLVE, INC.
BRISTOL
NORFOLK
PLYMOUTH
MIDDLESEX
MIDDLESEX
WORCESTER
ESSEX
ESSEX
WORCESTER
MIDDLESEX
MIDDLESEX
BRISTOL
NORFOLK
MIDDLESEX
BARNSTABLE
PLYMOUTH
HAMPDEN
BRISTOL
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
02/21/90 4"
09/01/83 4-4-4-4-4"
09/08/83 4" 4- 4- 4" 4-
09/08/83 4-4-4-4-4-
02/16/90 4- 4-
11/15/89 4-
09/08/83 4- 4- 4- 4-
06/01/86 4-
09/08/83 4- 4- 4- 4-
09/08/83 4- 4- * "*-
09/21/84 4-4- 4- 4-
09/08/83 4- '4- 4- 4-
06/01/86 4-4-4-4"
09/08/83 4" 4" 4" 4- 4"
11/21/89 4-
09/08/83 4-4-4-4-4-
09/08/83 4- 4-
09/08/83 4-4-4-4-4-
XXIV
-------
Page Site Name
County
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
IMPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
ROSE DISPOSAL PIT
SALEM ACRES
SH PACK LANDFILL
SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORP.
SULLIVAN'S LEDGE
W. R. GRACE AND COMPANY
WELLS G&H
BERKSHIRE
ESSEX
BRISTOL
MIDDLESEX
BRISTOL
MIDDLESEX
MIDDLESEX
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
06/01/86 "* *' + *-
06/01/86 "^ *-
06/01/86 "fr"
09/08/83 *" *-
09/21/84 "^ " "^ *
09/08/83 "^ "^ "^ «*' «^
09/08/83 * "^ «*-
-------
-------
-------
-------
ATLAS TACK
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MADOO1026319
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 12
Bristol County
Fairhaven
Site Description
The Atlas Tack Corporation formerly manufactured cut and wire tacks, steel nails, and
similar items on a 12-acre site in Fairhaven. From the 1940s until the late 1970s,
wastes containing heavy metals, including high levels of arsenic and cyanide were
discharged into an unlined acid neutralizing lagoon approximately 200 feet east of the
manufacturing building and adjacent to a saltwater tidal marsh in Buzzards Bay Estuary.
The area is residential and commercial. Approximately 7,200 people live within 1 mile,
and 15,150 live within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
A A
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater has been shown to be contaminated with cyanide and
toluene that leached from the site lagoons. The on-site soil is
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including toluene
and ethylbenzene, as well as heavy metals, including beryllium, mercury,
and nickel. Nearby residents risk potential exposure through direct
contact with the soil or by drinking water from contaminated wells. The
marsh south of the lagoon and estuarine areas in Buzzards Bay are
contaminated.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
ATLAS TACK CORP.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA is currently conducting an investigation into the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site. The EPA site
investigation will define the contaminants of concern, and recommendations
for effective alternatives for the final cleanup will be presented when the
investigation is complete in 1991.
Environmental Progress
The EPA has determined that the public and the environment are not at immediate risk
while studies at the Atlas Tack Corp. are being conducted and the final cleanup
alternatives are being determined.
-------
BAIRD & MCGUIRE
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD001Q41987
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Norfolk County-
South Street in northwest Holbrook
Site Description
The Baird & McGuire facility is situated on a 20-acre site in Holbrook and operated as a
chemical mixing and batching company from 1912 to 1983. Later activities included
mixing, packaging, storing, and distributing various products, including pesticides,
disinfectants, soaps, floor waxes, and solvents. Some of the raw materials used at the
site were stored in a tank farm and piped to the laboratory or mixing buildings. Other
raw materials were stored in drums on site. Waste disposal methods at the site
included direct discharge into the soil, a nearby brook, wetlands, and a former gravel
pit. Hazardous wastes were historically disposed of in an on-site lagoon and cesspool.
Also included on site were two lagoons open to rain and large areas of buried wastes
such as cans, debris, and lab bottles and hundreds of bottles of chemicals. The lagoon
area has been capped with clay. The on-site buildings were in various states of
disrepair and unsecured; the EPA has since demolished all but one of the buildings and
the tank farms. The tank farm area has been temporarily capped. The site is
completely fenced and has an operating groundwater recirculation system to contain
the groundwater plume. The site is 500 feet west of the Cochato River, which was
diverted into the Richardi Reservoir, a water system serving nearly 90,000 people in the
towns of Holbrook, Randolph, and Braintree. Currently, the Cochato River is not being
used as a supply source for the Richardi Reservoir. The South Street well field, part of
the municipal water supply for Holbrook, is within 1,500 feet of the site and was shut
down in 1982.
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: 09/08/83
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
BAIRD AND MCGUIRE
Threats and Contaminants
T\
The groundwater is contaminated with pesticide and 'brganic and
inorganic chemicals. Studies found significant levels of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), other organic compounds, arsenic, and pesticides. '
including DDTand chlordane in the Cochato River sediments. The
contamination is highest on site or within approximately 500 feet
downstream of the current site fence. Site soils were found to be
contaminated by VOCs, as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons :,
(PAHs), other organic compounds, pesticides, dioxin, and heavy metals
such as lead and arsenic. Dioxin has alsp been detected in area wetland
soils. The last operating well in the South Street well field was shut down
in "1982 because of unacceptably high levels of organic contamination. ,
The area of the site is fenced; however, high levels of pesticidesjn site
soils and sporadic dioxin contamination pose an imminent threat to
human health from accidental ingestion of contaminated soils'or direct,
contact with the groundwater. The groundwater plume continues to
contaminate the Cochato River sediments; however, no significant health
risk was found,, based on human,contact with contaminated .sediments.
Contact with contaminated sediments by aquatic life was found to'be
acutely toxic. . , ',.,..
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in five stages: immediate actions to limit exposure'to
contamination and four long-term remedial phases addressing the cleanup of the.
groundwater, soils, and sediments and the provision of an alternate water supply.
Response Action Stafus
X1 Immediate Actions: The EPA completed a .hydrological study in connection
with this site. The initial response action taken included the removal of
1,020 cubic yards of hazardous waste, 1 ton of waste creosote, 25 gallons of
waste coal tar, 155' pounds of solid hazardous waste, 47 drums of flammable liquids;
and solids, and 2 drums of corrosives. Additional activity included construction of a clay
cap, installation of a groundwater interception/recirculation system, installation of 5,700
feet of fencing, and extensive soil, groundwater, surface water, and air sampling. The
site was graded, capped, and seeded. The area of the site:is;secured;by;a ;fence'to ;/!
limit contact with contaminants. " r - ; .;: ; ;, ^ ;-i
Groundwater: This remedy involves pumping groundwater and treating,,it
at an on-site treatment plant. Treated groundwater will be discharged to the
aquifer located on site. On- and off-site groundwater monitoring will be
implemented. A groundwater interception/recirculation system currently
operating at the site has significantly reduced the migration of site contaminants.
continued
-------
BAIRD AND MCGUIRE
Soil: This remedy involves the excavation and removal of approximately
120,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils and destruction of contaminants
in the soil by incineration. Wetlands will be restored where contaminated
soils are excavated. The unnamed brook.will be relocated. Air quality will be monitored
during construction and' implementation of the new destruction system. Design of the
incineration system is continuing, and a series of tests to determine the operating
procedures that will most effectively destroy soil contaminants was begun in 1989 at
the EPA's research facility in Arkansas.
Sediments: The groundwater discharge is believed to be partially
responsible for contamination of Cochato River sediments and adjoining
wetlands. Field investigations in 1987 and 1988 determined that
contaminated groundwater and surface runoff from the site continue to be
the principal sources of contamination of the wetlands adjacent to the .site. The EPA
conducted an investigation into the nature and extent of the surface water and
sedjment contamination at the site. The investigation defined the contaminants of
concern and recommended alternatives for final surface water and sediment cleanup.
The investigation also determined that site contaminants were being effectively trapped
in river sediments and were not migrating down-river. The investigation was
completed in late 1989. Approximately 500 cubic yards of sediments will be excavated
and incinerated on site. Design of cleanup actions will take place in 1991, with cleanup
scheduled to begin in 1992.
Water Supply: A proposed plan is being developed in connection with
replacement of the water supply. The plan is scheduled for.release to the
public for review and comment in 1990.
Site Facts: Between 1954 and 1977 the company was fined atleast 35 times by
various State and Federal agencies for numerous violations. A citizen complaint of an
oily substance oh the Cochato River initiated a site inspection, which reported surface
water, groundwater, and wetlands contamination. In 1983, the City of Holbrook
revoked Baird & McGuire's permit to store chemicals and ordered it to dismantle the
existing storage facilities. The EPA issued notice tetters to parties.potentially
responsible for the site contamination. A cost recovery case against the four parties
potentially responsible was filed in 1983, The case was settled on an ability-to-pay
basis in 1987. A final Consent Decree was issued by the EPA and signed by the parties
potentially responsible.
Environmental Progress
The initial cleanup and continuing actions described above have greatly reduced the
potential of exposure to contamination and continue to reduce contamination levels at
the Baird & McGuire site, making the area safer while it awaits final cleanup activities.
-------
CANNON ENGI
CORPORATI
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ED# MAD079510780
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Plymouth County , . /i I
First Street in western Bridgewater
Alias:
Cannons Bridgewater
Superfund Site
The Cannon Engineering Corporation site is situated on 6 acres between Route 24 and
First Street in Bridgewater. In 1974, Cannon developed the site to transport, store, and
incinerate hazardous wastes, but the facility is currently inactive. On-site structures
included 21 storage tanks, 3 buildings, an office/warehouse, and an incinerator. The
operation was licensed in 1979 to store motor oils, oils and emulsions, solvents,
lacquers, organic and inorganic chemicals, plating waste, clay and filter media ".:-. \ ,
containing chemicals, plating sludge solids, and pesticides. The facility had a license'to
operate from 1974 until 1980, when alleged waste handling and reporting violations
prompted the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) to
revoke it. The facility was placed in receivership when its owners were found guilty of
illegal storage and disposal. Operations ceased in 1980, leaving behind about 700
drums and 155,000 gallons of liquid waste and sludge in bulk storage. The qn-site
soils, sediments, buildings, groundwater, and surface waters are contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, and metals to varying degrees. The Cannon
site is associated with three others NPL sites: Tinkham Garage, Sylvester's, and
Plymouth Harbor. Approximately 1,000 people live within 1 mile in this residential and
light industrial area. The nearest residence is 1/8 mile from the site. There are 13 ;
homes within a 1-mile radius that depend on wells. The closest municipal well is in
Raynham, 1 mile from the site. Bridgewater's municipal wells are 3 miles east of the
site.
Site Responsibility: jhe site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Threats and Contaminants -
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
The on-site air contains trace amounts of VOCs, including benzene and
methylene chloride. Groundwater also has been found to contain VOCs
including toluene, as well as heavy metals. Soil and sediments contain
PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides in addition to VOCs and heavy metals. The
surface water is polluted with heavy metals including high levels of iron,
selenium, lead, manganese, and silver. Direct contact and accidental
ingestion of contaminated media pose a potential human threat. Inhaling
VOCs and contaminated fugitive dust are also potential health threats.
The site is fully fenced to reduce the potential for contact with
contaminants. Sensitive areas that could be subject to contamination
associated with the site include wetland areas to the south and Lake
Nippenicket to the west of the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
6
continued
-------
CANNON ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a long-term remedial
phase concentrating on source control and migration of contaminants at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1982, the State removed 155,000 gallons of sludge and
liquid wastes and 711 drums and incinerated the materials off site. In 1988,
the EPA and the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
provided for the removal and disposal of numerous hazardous materials abandoned at
the site. A fence surrounding the site was erected in 1989.
Entire Site: The remedy for the site was selected in 1988 and entails two
cleanup phases, source control and restricting the migration of contaminants.
Source control elements include: (1) fencing the area to restrict access to
soils; (2) treating certain contaminated soil on site by heating.it to remove
contaminants and burning PCB-contaminated soils off site; (3) installing a groundwater
monitoring system; (4) decontaminating and removing buildings and associated
structures; (5) sampling and treating other soils as necessary; and (6} restoration of
wetlands disturbed during site cleanup. Key features of the migration control remedy
include: (1) restricting use of groundwater at the site; and (2) installing additional
groundwater monitoring wells to keep apprised of the appearance or movement of
contaminants. Once contaminated soils are removed, aggravating conditions will abate
and groundwater will clear naturally over time. Cleanup activities, which began in 1990,
will be undertaken by the parties potentially responsible for site contamination, with
guidance from the EPA.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was entered by the U.S. District Court in Boston in 1989
for the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination to conduct engineering
designs and cleanup actions at the site.
The initial cleanup actions described above have removed contaminated materials from
the site and restricted site access, reducing the actual exposure potential of the
Cannon Engineering Corp. site, thereby making it safer while further cleanup activities
are undertaken. These activities will reduce movement of contaminants off site as well
as remove materials that are causing pollution.
-------
CHARLES-GEORGE
RECLAMATI
TRUST
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD003809266
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Middlesex County
30 miles northwest of Boston
Alias:
George C Landfill
From the late 1950s until 1967, the Charles-George Reclamation Trust site, located
1 mile southwest of Tyngsborough and 4 miles south of Nashua, NH, was a small
municipal dump. A new owner expanded it to its present size of approximately 70
acres and accepted both household and industrial wastes from 1967 to 1976. The
facility had a license to accept hazardous waste from 1973 to 1976 and primarily
accepted drummed and bulk chemicals containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and toxic metal sludges. Records show that over 1,000 pounds of mercury were
disposed of and approximately 2,500 cubic yards of chemical wastes were landfilled.
The State ordered closure of the site in 1983. That same year the EPA listed the site
on the NPL and the owner filed for bankruptcy. Samples from wells serving nearby
Cannongate Condominiums and some nearby private homes revealed VOCs and heavy
metals in the groundwater. Approximately 500 people live within 1 mile of the site in
this residential/rural area; 2,100 live within 3 miles. The nearest residents are 100 yards
away. The site is bounded by Flint Pond Marsh and Flint Pond to the east, Dunstable
Brook to the west, and the condo complex to the southeast. Seasonal livestock grazing
occurs in the area.
Site JResponsibiZity:
This site will be addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The air on the site is contaminated with benzene and toluene. Benzene,
arsenic, trichloroethylene (TCE), and 2-butanone have been detected in
the groundwater. Domestic wells contain benzene. Sediments have
been shown to have low levels of benzo(a)pyrene. People may be facing
a potential health threat by drinking, eating, or having direct contact with
contaminated groundwater, soil, or surface water, and from breathing the
air on the site. Flint Pond Marsh, Flint Pond, and Dunstable Brook are
nearby wetlands threatened by contamination migrating from the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUSWASTESITES
8
continued
-------
CHARLES-GEORGE RECLAMATION TRUST
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in five stages: an initial action to limit exposure to
contamination and four long-term remedial phases focusing on a water supply, capping
the site, controlling the migration of contaminants, and treatment of leachate in the
groundwater.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In response to the discovery of contaminated well water in
the adjacent condominium complex in 1983, the EPA installed an insulated
aboveground pipeline to supply residents with an alternate water supply. In
1983 and 1984, the EPA installed a security fence and 12 gas vents, and the site was
regraded to cover exposed refuse. '
Water Supply: At the end of 1983, the EPA approved a remedy that
would provide a permanent water supply to the affected residents. With
EPA funds, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers installed 4 miles of ductile
iron water pipe, constructed a pump station and water storage tank, and arranged for
chlorination services. This project wasi completed [n 1988.
Capping: In 1985, the EPA completed a study on capping the landfill and ,
selected the following remedy: (j) installation of a full synthetic membrane
cover and a surface water diversion and collection system, which will keep
rainwater from spreading contamination; (2) construction of a gas collection
system venting to the atmosphere; and (3) creation of a leachate collection system
around the entire site. Periodic mowing, landscaping, and inspection/maintenance
services will also be provided. The Corps of Engineers has begun building the full
synthetic landfill cap. Final grading will be complete in 1990.
Migration of Contaminants: In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy to
restrict the movement of contaminants off site. Features include: (1)
pumping contaminated shallow groundwater and treating it biologically,
along with leachate collected from the landfill cap system; (2) collecting and
incinerating gas vented from the landfill; (3) excavating and solidifying 500 cubic yards
of contaminated sediments fromDunstable Brook and placing them under the landfill
cap; and (4) groundwater monitoring. The Corps of Engineers is designing the remedy.
The parties potentially responsible for contamination of the site will perform
groundwater and leachate monitoring as part of their cleanup agreement with the EPA.
The parties will also perform groundwater treatability studies to be incorporated into the
Corps'design documents. ,
Leachate: The EPA is currently designing the remedy for this action. It
involves extraction of contaminated groundwater plumes in the
southwestern and eastern portions of the site and combining them with
leachate collected from the landfill cap system for treatment. A biologically
based cleanup technology will be used. Design of the remedy is under way. Cleanup
actions are scheduled to begin in 1991.
continued
-------
CHARLES-GEORGE RECLAMATION TRUST
Site Facts: In May 1983, the EPA issued a notice letter to the Charles-George
Reclamation Trust requesting its cooperation in the cleanup. An Administrative Order:
was signed with the parties potentially responsible for contamination of the site to
perform treatability studies and groundwater/leachate monitoring with assistance from,
the EPA. .,..'."...
Environmental Progress
The provision of a water supply system, capping the landfill area and controlling the
spread of leachate as described above have provided a safe drinking water source and
reduced the actual potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Charles-George
site, making the site safer while it awaits further cleanup activities.
10
-------
FORT DEVENS-SUDBURYCONGI^oN
TRAINING
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD980520670
Middlesex County
4 square miles In Middlesex Co.
includes portions of the towns of Sudbury,
Maynard, Hudson, and Stow
Site Description
Aliases:
Waste Area 7
Waste Area 9
PCB Spill
U.S. Army Natick R&D Labs
Sudbury Annex
This U.S. Army military installation occupies over 4 square miles in Middlesex County
and includes portions of the towns of Sudbury, Maynard, Hudson, and Stow.
Established in the early 1940s, the Annex has served variously as an ammunition depot,
an ordnance test station, and a troop training and laboratory disposal center. It is now
under the custody of Fort Devens, 12 miles northeast, a site also proposed for the NPL
in 1989. The Army has identified 11 potentially contaminated areas on the site
containing explosive residues, chemical laboratory wastes, oil lubricants, and other toxic
materials. In 1985, 100-200 gallons of oil containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
spilled from an out-of-service transformer in a remote abandoned area of the Annex.
Four other electrical transformer units in a remote section of the Annex were found
with bullet holes and dents that had permitted PCB-containing fluids to escape. In
1986, monitoring wells downgradient from Waste Areas A7 and A9 were reported
contaminated with trichloroethane and benzene. Area A7 is a 20-acre gravel pit used
from the 1940s to the 1980s as a laboratory dump, an all-purpose dump, and a burning
ground. Area A9 is a 7-acre parcel used by the State since the 1950s for fire training.
The two areas are separated by an unnamed tributary of the Assabet River. White
Pond, which provides water to 12,000 residents of Maynard, is within 3 miles
downstream of Waste Area A5, a 70-square-foot pit where laboratory solvents were
buried from 1973 to 1979. Approximately 35,700 people obtain drinking water from
public and private wells within 3 miles of the waste areas. A private well is 1,600 feet
from the waste areas. The area is mainly agricultural with interspersed residential
areas. A freshwater wetland is within 600 feet of the pond.
site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 02/16/90
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), including benzene from chemical lab wastes and oils. The soil is
contaminated with PCBs. People in the area are at risk from
contaminated individual and municipal wells. Nearby freshwater wetlands
could be subject to contamination from the site. Puffer Pond, located on
the north of the site, is being considered for recreational development.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
FORT DEVENS-SUDBURY TRAINING ANNEX
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: an initial action and three long-term
remedial phases addressing cleanup of the groundwater, the PCB spill area, and
additional contamination areas.
Response Action Status
transformers discovered, along with some contaminated soil around them.
Initial Action: The Army responded to the 1985 PCB spill by removing 300
gallons of Aroclor and approximately 86 tons of PCB-contaminated soil to an
EPA-approved facility. Workers similarly removed the four additional
Groundwater: The Army will begin an in-depth study of groundwater
contamination in Waste Area A7 in 1990. Recommended remedies for
cleanup are expected to be available by 1992.. ' ' ,
PCB Spill Area: The Army will conduct a detailed study of groundwater
and soil contamination in the PCB spilj area, expected to start in late 1990.
Findings and recommended cleanup remedies are expected to be ready in
1992.
Additional Nine Contamination Areas: The Army will study the nature
and extent of contamination and develop proposed cleanup alternatives at
nine additional areas of the site, beginning in 1990. The Army is also
investigating 4 to 5 additional potential areas of contamination.
Site Facts: Sudbury Annex is participating in the Installation Restoration Program (IRP),
a hazardous waste cleanup operation run by the Department of Defense on its own
facilities.
Environmental Progress
Initial activities have removed sources of contamination, reducing the potential for
exposure to hazardous materials while the Fort Devens-Sudbury Training Annex site is
being investigated to determine final cleanup remedies.
12
-------
FORT DEVEN
MASSACHUS
EPAID# MA7210025154
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Worcester County
35 miles west of Boston
Aliases:
South Post
Central Post
North Post
Site Description
Fort Devens is 35 miles west of Boston. It covers 9,416 acres at the intersection of
four towns: Ayer and Shirley in Middlesex County and Lancaster and Harvard in
Worcester County. Founded in 1917, the Fort trains active duty personnel to support
various Army units. It also has custody of Fort Devens-Sudbury Training Annex, 12
miles southwest, which was listed on the NPL in 1990. Fort Devens can be divided
into three areas: the 2,300-acre Central Post, which is flanked by the 1,500-acre North
Post and the 5,616-acre South Post. Studies have revealed 46 potential hazardous
waste sites on Fort land. Among them are the 15-acre explosive ordnance disposal
range (South Post), where explosives and unusable munitions have been detonated or
burned in open unlined pits since 1979 and where soil sampling has led to the
discovery of heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and explosives
residues; the 50-acre sanitary 'landfill (Central Post), where household wastes, military
refuse, asbestos, construction debris, waste oil, and incinerator ash have been dumped
since the 1930s; and a firefighting training area (North Post), where the possibility for
petroleum, oil, and lubricant contamination exists, as evidenced by stained asphalt,
concrete, and soil. The area is largely rural residential. Approximately 21,700 Fort
employees and Ayer residents obtain drinking water from wells within 3 miles of the
landfill; a Fort Devens well is 1,670 feet from the landfill. An 8-mile section of the
Nashua River lies within the Fort's boundaries.' The 630-acre Oxbow National Wildlife
Refuge is in the east-central portion of Fort Devens on land the Army deeded to the
Department of the Interior in 1973. An 83-acre wetland Is in the refuge northeast of the
ordnance range.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL. LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/15/89
Threats and Contaminants
Monitoring wells near the landfill indicate groundwater contamination
from heavy metals including cadmium, lead, mercury, iron, and arsenic.
The soil near the explosive ordnance disposal range is contaminated with
heavy metals as well as VOCs and explosive residues. Heavy metal
contaminants, including arsenic, chromium, nickel, and lead are also found
in the surface water near the landfill. Potential threats exist for the 630-
acre wildlife refuge containing an 83-acre wetland which is in the center
of Fort lands, the base drinking water wells, the Plow Shop pond located
in Ayer, and the Nashua River along with its surrounding habitat.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
FORT DEVENS
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases that will address
cleanup of the contaminated groundwater, soils, and sediments at the North, Central,
and South Post areas.
Response Action Status
North Post: An investigation is slated to take place in 1990 for the six sites
located on the North Post, a 1,500-acre area. The Army will conduct a
detailed study into the extent and nature of contamination and will
recommend cleanup strategies by 1992. There are two additional potential sites
located on the North Post.
Central Post: An investigation is being planned for 1990 to collect data on
the possible contamination and extent of the threat posed by the 26 sites
located on the 2,300-acre Central Post. The Army will conduct a detailed
study into the extent and nature of contamination and will recommend cleanup
strategies by 1992. An additional 5 potential sites are located on the Central Post.
South Post: The Army will conduct a detailed study into the extent and
nature of contamination starting in 1990 for the 14 sites located on the
5,616-acre South Post and will recommend cleanup strategies by 1992.
There are also 2 other potential sites located on the South Post.
Site Facts: The Fort Devens site is participating in the Installation Restoration Program
(IRP), a hazardous waste cleanup operation run by the Department of Defense (DOD) at
military or DOD facilities.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Fort Devens site to the NPL, the EPA has assessed the actions being
taken by the Army and has determined that there are currently no immediate threats to
public health or the environment. Some intermediate actions may be deemed
necessary based on the investigations while the site awaits further cleanup activities.
14
-------
GROVELAND WELLS
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD980732317
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Essex County
Groveland
Site Description
The Groveland Wells site includes the watershed and aquifer supplying two
contaminated municipal water wells, as well as three properties known to be polluting
groundwater, soil, and surface water in the area. The entire site area covers 850 acres.
Groveland's production wells #1 and #2 were the sole source of drinking water for the
town. Both were shut down in 1979 when the State detected trichloroethylene (TCE)
contamination. The Town instituted emergency conservation measures and
temporarily obtained water hookups from neighboring communities. Groveland
developed well #3 along the Merri mack River in the early 1980s, but the water supply
still falls short of the town's needs and growth trends. The EPA is currently trying to
restrict hazardous waste materials to the highly contaminated Valley Manufacturing Co.
site, where metals and plastic parts have been made since 1963. Operators used
subsurface disposal systems and underground tanks that dispersed liquids into buried
leachfields. They also routinely dumped hazardous materials on the ground. From
1964 to 1972, as much as 20 gallons per month of these materials were released.
Chemicals released in these ways included cutting oils, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and acid bath wastes. An estimated 5,000 people live within 3 miles in this
residential area. The EPA has built a groundwater cleaning plant at well #1. As of early
1989, it was continuously providing a treated public water supply to the town.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, and sediments are contaminated with
VOCs, chloroform, and heavy metals including lead and arsenic.
Accidental drinking of surface waters while swimming, touching
contaminated waters, and inhaling vapors and dusts from the site may
threaten the health of people. The greatest threat is drinking water from
contaminated wells, a danger that has been minimized by the provision of
an alternate water supply. Highly contaminated soil found on the Valley
property could pose a risk from short-term exposure to the workers
involved in site cleanup activities.
Mdtch 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
GROVELAND WELLS
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions to provide a safe water
supply and two long-term remedial phases focusing on groundwater migration and
source control.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA installed a groundwater treatment facility for
Groveland's municipal well station #1. Valley Manufacturing Co., under a
State order, installed a groundwater treatment system just north of the Old
Mill Pond. The treatment system intercepts and treats a defined area of groundwater
contamination. The EPA has been treating municipal supply well #1 with carbon
adsorption to remove VOCs since 1989. The treatment plant operated as a public:
water supply from August through November 1987 and again from the spring through
fall of 1988. It went on line again in early 1989 and is expected to operate on a
continuous basis for the life of the facility.
Groundwater Migration: Beginning in the fall of 1989, the EPA began
conducting a separate study referred to as a "management of migration"
study to evaluate movement of groundwater contaminants and what further
cleanup activities are needed. This will be used to develop a permanent remedy to
address contamination throughout Johnson Creek aquifer. The EPA expects to select
a cleanup plan for the Johnson Creek aquifer in 1991.
Source Control: The EPA began its initial study of site contamination and
cleanup options in 1983. A supplemental study narrowed the focus of
contamination to one location and the following remedy for the Valley area
was selected: (1) in-place vacuum extraction of VOCs from 20,000 cubic
yards of site soils and capture of those contaminants by activated carbon treatment (a
proven, innovative technology); (2) pumping groundwater on the site and treating it by
air stripping, followed by passing through a carbon-containing filter to recapture the
contaminants; (3) reinjecting some of the cleaned water into the ground "above" the
site to speed saturated soil cleanup; (4) discharging the rest of the cleaned
groundwater to the aquifer "below" the site; (5) treatment of air emissions from the
cleanup process; (6) groundwater monitoring; and (7) sealing or disconnecting all lines
to the acid bath finishing process disposal system. Incidental treatment of inorganic
compounds and other contaminants will be provided as necessary in order to efficiently
operate the VOC contaminant treatment system and meet discharge permit limits. The
EPA will use the results of the vacuum extraction pilot study to complete the
supplemental evaluation of alternatives. Engineering design of the remedy began in
mid-1989, and cleanup activities are scheduled to start in 1990.
Site Facts: As of 1983, the town of Groveland had sued the potentially responsible
parties and settled with one of them to undertake a study of the nature and extent of
contamination. The nearby Haverhill site has been determined to be contributing to the
groundwater contamination and has been separately added to the NPL.
continued
16
-------
GROVELAND WELLS
Environmental Progress
Initial construction of water treatment facilities has provided a safe drinking water .
source, and the various cleanup actions taking place at the Groveland Wells site have
reduced the possibility of exposure to hazardous materials and continue to reduce
contamination in groundwater. The EPA's investigation into supplemental treatment
alternatives will identify the final cleanup remedies to make the site safer until a final
cleanup method is ...implemented. . . ........ .= ,...,., . ,r.-- ,-,
17
-------
HAVERHILL MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD980523336
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Essex County
2 miles southeast of downtown Haverhill
Haverhill Municipal Landfill is a 75-acre industrial and municipal facility, which lies. ;
adjacent to the Merrimack River. Two of the landfill's three tracts were used for
disposal of municipal and commercial refuse, while the third received liquid wastes and
sludges. Trimount Bituminous Products operated the site as an industrial landfill
beginning in the late 1930s and started to accept municipal wastes in the 1960s.
Wastes included steel drums, tires, and flammables, including lacquers, paints, oils, :
and glues. Sludges and liquids were dumped near the river, which bounds the site on
the north. Resulting land erosion carried liquid wastes into the river. Monitoring wells
a short distance upgradienttrom the river showed contamination. Until 1975> the
landfill was operated in an unsanitary manner with little compaction of refuse. The
facility closed in 1981. Numerous reports have cited lax security on the property, and
dirt bikers have been observed riding on the site. The area is residential, and the two
nearby towns, Haverhill and Groveland, have a combined population of approximately
51,400.
Site Responsibility:
This site will be addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86 '
T\
Threats and Contaminants
Chromium and arsenic have been found in liquids on site. The soil is
contaminated with benzoanthracene, dibenzofuran, and volatile organic ..,
compounds (VQCs). A nearby creek is contaminated with VOCs and
manganese. The groundwater is contaminated with VOCs and heavy
metals including arsenic, lead, mercury, manganese, and chromium.
Potential threats include drinking contaminated groundwater or exposure
to surface waters in a nearby creek. Two public water supply wells in
Groveland were closed in 1979 due to possible contamination. A third
well, 1 1/2 miles northeast of the landfill, may be threatened in the future,:
although no contamination is now reported.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
18
continued
-------
HAVERHILL 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 EPA is currently reviewing existing analytical and
hydrogeologic information to prepare for an entire site study. The in-depth
study of the nature and extent of the contamination at the site is scheduled
to start in 1991. The results of the study, scheduled for completion in 1992, will
identify recommended cleanup strategies.
Environmental Progress
As a result of the closing of the two contaminated public water supply wells, the EPA
determined that the public is not at risk while the Haverhill site awaits further cleanup
activities.
A
19
-------
HOCOMONCO POND
MASSACHUS]
EPA ID# MAD980732341
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Worcester County
Westborough
The Hocomonco Pond site, consisting of approximately 23 acres, included a
recreational pond that was closed by the State in 1980. From 1928 to 1946, the site
was used as a wood-treating operation. The business consisted of saturating wood
products with creosote for preservation. During the operations, wastewater was
discharged into a pit lagoon. The lagoon was excavated on the property to store
spillage and waste from the wood-treating operation. As this lagoon became filled with
waste creosotes, sludges, and water, its contents were pumped into a low depression,
also known as Kettle Pond. The wood-treatment facility operated until the mid-1940s,
when it was converted into an asphalt mining plant. Discarded aggregate and asphalt
are common throughout the site. The last use of the site was as a cement plant where
dry cement was distributed in bulk. The surface water and groundwater have shown
creosote contamination. Approximately 2,500 people who depend on groundwater as a
drinking water supply, and 14,000 people who use the surface water for other
purposes live within 3 miles of the site. The nearest residences are 2,000 feet from
the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, soil, and sediments from the pond and
its shore are contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium,
and chromium; creosotes; and carcinogenic compounds. Public risks
include the possibility of direct contact with or accidental ingestion of the
contaminated soil, groundwater, or surface water.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on interim
source control and groundwater treatment.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTESITES
20
continued
-------
HOCOMOJVCO FCMVD
Response Action Status
Interim Source Control: The cleanup alternatives that the EPA has
selected include site grading, capping, and relocation of the storm drain
pipe currently located next to the east side of the former lagoon. For the
Kettle Pond area, cleanup includes dewatering the pond and lowering the
groundwater level in the immediate area. Soil and waste excavation will take place
based primarily on visible contamination criteria. Additional removal of contaminants
will take place based on the sampling and analysis of soil conducted during excavation.
Hocomonco Pond and a discharge stream will be dredged and contaminated sediments
will be disposed of on site. Removal and on-site disposal of contaminated materials at
three isolated areas of contamination, air and water quality monitoring, and post-c/ostyre
activities are consistent with Federal regulations. The potentially responsible parties
commenced construction of the cleanup remedy in 1989.
Groundwater Treatment: The parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination are conducting a further investigation into the groundwater
contamination, after which EPA will determine an appropriate remedy for
treating the contaminated groundwater.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was filed in the U.S. District Court in 1987, allowing the
potentially responsible parties to conduct preliminary investigations into site
contamination.
Environmental Progress
Following the listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA has completed a site assessment
and determined that the site presently poses no immediate threat to public health or
the environment. Current efforts to control movement of contaminants and to remove
contamination sources will further reduce potential threats. Hocomonco Pond is safe
while it awaits future groundwater cleanup actions.
21
-------
INDUSTRI-P
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD076580950
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Middlesex County
North Woburn
Aliases: '*'
.Mark Phillip Trust
=-> Woburn Site
Industri-Plex 128 Site
Site Description
The Industri-Plex site is a 250-acre industrial park. From 1853 to 1931, the site was
used for manufacturing chemicals such as arsenic insecticides, acetic acid, and sulfuric
acid for local textile, leather, and paper manufacturing industries. Chemicals
manufactured by other industries at the site include phenol, benzene, and toluene.
From 1934 to 1969, the site was used to manufacture glue from raw animal hides and
chrome-tanned hides. From 1969 to the present, the site has been developed for :.
industrial use. Excavation in the 1970s uncovered and mixed 130 years of
accumulation of industrial by-products and wastes. Residues from animal hides used in
the manufacture of glue were buried in pits on the site property. Process wastewater
was settled on site and was discharged to the municipal sewer. Many of the pits, piles,
and lagoons are continuously leaching toxic metals into the environment. Many of the
wastes in the soil were relocated and mixed into piles near swampy areas on the
property. The site currently consists of streams and ponds, active and abandoned
manufacturing facilities, and waste deposits buried on the site. Animal hide residues
are found on approximately 20 acres of the site in four different piles. Portions of
stockpiled wastes sloughed off, releasing hydrogen sulfide gases to the atmosphere
and toxic metals and soils to the pond and wetlands. Residences are located within
1,000 feet of the site, and more than 34,000 people live within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including benzene and toluene. The soil is contaminated with heavy
metals including arsenic, copper, chromium, and lead. Also, a pervasive
"rotten egg" odor has been caused by hydrogen sulfide gas generated by
the decay of the buried animal glue manufacturing wastes. Exposure can
occur due to direct contact with contaminated soil; however, since the
site is mostly vacant now with plans for industrial and commercial.use,
the potential exposure is most likely limited to workers using the site
during future construction. Future employees could be at risk of exposure
to the elevated levels of metals in the soil. The groundwater
contaminated with benzene and toluene has the potential to migrate to
two Woburn municipal drinking wells, which are currently closed.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
22
continued
-------
INDUSTRI-PI^X
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions to control site access and
two long-term remedial phases focusing on site stabilization of contaminants and
control of possible groundwater contamination.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The EPA installed a, 10,000-foot fence to restrict site access
in 1986. Extensive damage to the main areas of the fence occurred, and
drums were dumped illegally on the site. Areas of the fence requiring
repairs were identified by the EPA and work to re-secure the site was completed in
1988. Warning signs were added.
Site Stabilization: In 1986, the EPA selected the cleanup activities that
will be conducted by the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination. To address the problem of approximately 1,000 cubic yards
of contaminated soils and sludges at the site, the site will be graded, a
permeable soil cover cap will be installed over certain areas, institutional controls will be
implemented, water quality will be monitored, and post-closure activities will be
maintained consistent with hazardous waste regulations. To address groundwater
contamination at the site, an interim remedy of pumping hot spot areas and
groundwater treatment to control odors will be implemented. Plans also include the
development of a comprehensive groundwater response plan for the aquifer, air
stripping to remove VOCs by evaporation, and discharge of treated water to the
upgradient portion of the aquifer to help disperse remaining contaminants, and
groundwater monitoring. Remedies selected in connection with odors and air
contamination include stabilization of the side slopes of the various piles, installation of
a gas collection layer, installation of a synthetic and impermeable membrane cap to
prevent rainwater from entering the piles and gases from escaping without treatment,
treatment of gases with either activated carbon or thermal oxidation {the final treatment
selection will be decided after the impermeable cover has been installed),
implementation of an air quality monitoring program, and routine maintenance. The
potentially responsible parties began designing the cleanup remedies in 1988. Once
the design phase is completed, cleanup will begin. .
Groundwater Contamination: An investigation into the extent and nature
of groundwater contamination is planned for 1990. The study will
determine the level of metals and organics in the contamination plume and
will recommend technologies for completing the final-cleanup.
Site Facts: In 1979, in response to illegal filling of wetlands, the EPA obtained a court
order to stop further development activities. The EPA and the State entered into a
Consent Order with Stauffer Chemical in 1982 whereby Stauffer was to conduct an
investigation and recommend cleanup action. The EPA has identified other parties
potentially responsible for wastes associated with the site and is seeking their
cooperation in the cleanup. In 1988, the EPA and the potentially responsible parties
signed a Consent Decree to implement the remedy for stabilizing the site and to
reimburse the EPA for past costs and future oversight costs.
continued
23
-------
INDUSTRI-PLEX
Environmental Progress
Initial actions of fencing and posting warning signs around the site have restricted
access to the Industri-Plex site and made it safer until the final cleanup begins. Upon
completion of the final cleanup remedies, the soil and groundwater contamination
levels at the Industri-Plex site will be reduced to meet established health and ecological
standards for the site.
24
-------
IRONHORS
MASSACHUS
EPA ID# MAD051787323
REGION I
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
..,'Middlesex County
North Billerica"
* Aliases:
<=£> Boston and Maine RR
Iron Horse Park/RSI, Inc. Dump
Iron Horse Park/John Manville Dump
Shaffer Landfill
Billerica Landfill
Pond St. Landfill
Site Description
The Iron Horse Park site, a 533-acre industrial complex, includes manufacturing and
railyard maintenance facilities, open storage areas, landfills, and wastewater lagoons.
A long history of activities at the site, beginning in 1913, has resulted, in contamination
of soil, groundwater, and surface water. An asbestos landfill is located northwest and
adjacent to the lagoons area. Middlesex Canal runs along the length of the northern
boundary. It is drained by Content Brook, which runs through residential areas into the
Shawseen River east of the site. Richardson Pond lies north of the site and is also
drained by the Content Brook. An unnamed brook, which runs northerly through the
site near wastewater lagoons, drains into a marshland near the asbestos landfill.
Approximately 61,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site. There are four day
care centers or nursery schools, two housing units for the elderly, and a walk-in clinic in
the area. A trailer park and condominium complex are located within 1 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
L\
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater and surface water is sporadically contaminated with
organic and inorganic chemicals, and heavy metals including arsenic,
cadmium, lead, and selenium. The soil at the site is contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petrochemicals, and the same heavy
metals as those found in the groundwater. The majority of surface water
contamination is located in the vicinity of Shaffer Landfill. People are at
risk by touching or accidentally ingesting contaminated water, soil, or
sediments. Environmentally sensitive marshland and wetlands are
located near the site and could be subject to contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
25
continued
-------
IRON HORSE PARK
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: initial actions to remove asbestos materials
and three long-term remedial phases to decontaminate the lagoon area, to cap and
control migration of contaminants, and to investigate final groundwater and surface
water cleanup alternatives.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1984, the EPA removed asbestos deposits from various
areas on the site and covered an asbestos landfill with gravel, stone, and
,. - topsoil. The EPA then seeded and fenced the area. By covering the
asbestos landfill, the EPA eliminated the potential for inhalation of fugitive asbestos
dust particles.
Lagoon Areas: The remedy selected by the EPA to be performed by the
owners to clean up the lagoons involves excavation and on-site treatment
of contaminated soil and sludge by bioremediation, with the residue
disposed of in the lagoon area. This action will be followed by covering the
area with clean soil and establishment of a vegetative cover. The owner will then
decontaminate the lagoon system piping and pumps. Development of the design and
specifications for these remedies is currently under way and site cleanup activities are
expected to begin in 1990.
Capping: In accordance with the Consent Agreement, the Shaffer Landfill
area has been closed. The owners have installed a two-layer cover over
the landfill, the bottom layer consisting of low-permeability clay material
and a top layer of soil capable of supporting vegetation. In addition, a gas collection and
a gas vent/flare system have been installed to reduce odors from the landfill. The EPA
is completing an investigation of the Shaffer Landfill area that evaluates the current
cover and considers other capping options. In addition, the EPA will consider leachate
collection and controls to protect groundwater, wetlands, and surface water that
surround the landfill.
Groundwater and Surface Water: An EPA investigation is currently
under way to evaluate the levels and the extent of groundwater and
surface water contamination, potential sources, and the possible means of
migration. The study and selection of final cleanup technologies are expected to be
complete in 1991.
Site Facts: A Consent Agreement was reached in 1984 between the State and the
owners for closure of the Shaffer Landfill area. The agreement established a series of
cleanup activities and a schedule for their implementation at the landfill.
continued
26
-------
IRON HORSE PARK
Environmental Progress
The removal of asbestos materials and the construction of a fence surrounding the
landfill have reduced the exposure potential at the Iron Horse Park site while it awaits
further cleanup activities. The installation of a cap will also control odors and contain
the migration of contaminants into the surface water and groundwater on and off site.
Further planned activities will reduce contamination levels at the site, making it safe to
area residents and the environment.
A
27
-------
NEW BEDFORD S
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD980731335
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Bristol County
55 miles south of Boston
Site Description
The 18,000-acre New Bedford site is an urban tidal estuary consisting of a harbor and
bay highly contaminated with polychlorinaied biphenyls(PCBs) and heavy metals.
Manufacturers in the area used PCBs while producing electric capacitors from 1940 to
1978. Until the late 1970s, when the use of PCBs was banned by the EPA, factories
discharged industrial process wastes containing PCBs into the harbor. PCB
contamination in the New Bedford Harbor area is widespread as a result of poor
disposal practices. The harbor is contaminated for at least 6 miles from the upper
Acushnet River to Buzzards Bay. Ambient air, surface water,, soils, sediments, and the
food chain are contaminated, as well as industrial plant sites. Approximately 98,500
people are located within 3 miles of the site. A 5-acre northern portion of the Acushnet
River Estuary is contaminated with high levels of PCBs and has been identified as the
hot spot area of the site. The contamination of the harbor and bay sediments by high
concentrations of PCBs and heavy metals has resulted in closing the area to lobstering
and fishing and has, limited recreational activities and harbor development.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date; 07/01/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
L
PCBs and heavy metals, notably cadmium, lead, copper, and chromium,
were identified in sediments, soil, and marine life. Levels of PCBs in
some marine life exceed the regulatory limit for PCBs. The major
potential public health risks in the hot spot area involve direct contact with
contaminated sediments and eating fish and shellfish from the area.
There is an increased carcinogenic risk for people who eat PCB-
contaminated fish from the harbor and estuary on a daily or weekly basis.
Currently, fishing is restricted in these areas to minimize the potential risk.
There is also an increased risk to public health from eating lead-
contaminated plant or animal life. The risk to plant or animal life is
greatest for bottom-dwelling organisms that have direct contact with
contaminated sediments.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
28
continued
-------
NEW BEDFORD SITE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: an initial action and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on the hot spot area and the remaining contaminated areas.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1982, the Coast Guard erected signs warning the public
of the presence of PCBs in the Harbor and Industrial areas. The state
intensified efforts to restrict access to the harbor. Bilingual warning signs in
English and Portuguese were posted along the New Bedford and Fairhaven shoreline.
Wnen the signs were destroyed by winter weather, EPA replaced them. In 1985,
2,000 feet of chainlink fence at two recreational facilities were erected to keep people
out of the contaminated areas.
Hot Spot Area: In 1985, the Army Corps of Engineers began to evaluate
alternatives for addressing harbor contamination. In 1988, the investigation
was expanded, allowing the Corps to conduct demonstrations of dredging
equipment and construction and testing of disposal facilities in the estuary,
while continuing to carry out site sampling, analysis, and research. Hydraulic dredges
were tested, sediment disposal facilities were constructed, and extensive
environmental monitoring was conducted to determine whether removal and
construction activities could occur without spreading contaminants. The engineering
study conducted by the Corps will be used by the EPA to formulate the cleanup
approach for the site. The EPA's selected remedy for the hot spot includes removal
and incineration of contaminated sediments to permanently reduce the migration of
contaminants throughout the harbor area. Specifically, this alternative calls for the
removal of 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the hot spot area at
depths up to 4 feet, and then dewatering the sediments. Wastewater produced during
dewatering will be treated prior to discharge into the harbor. Contaminated sediments
will be treated at a transportable incinerator. Design of the remedy began in 1990.
Remainder of the Site: The EPA is currently developing a study to
evaluate different alternatives for cleaning up the remainder of the site.
The results of this study are scheduled to be released in 1990. The EPA
will then issue a cleanup plan, after which final cleanup activities can begin.
Site Facts: In 1982, the EPA entered into Consent Agreements with two companies to
address the PCB problem on their properties.
EnvirorunefiLtdl Progress
Although much work has yet to be done due to the enormity of this project, progress
has been made toward final cleanup of the harbor and surrounding areas. The initial
actions have restricted exposure to contaminated seafood and reduced the potential of
exposure to hazardous substances.
29
-------
NORWOOD P
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD980670566
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Norfolk County
Kerry Place In Norwood
Aliases:
Grant Gear, Inc.
Dean Street Site
Site Description
The Norwood PCB site is located on 26 acres of mainly commercial and industrial
properties. The site is bordered by Route 1, the Dean Street access road, Meadow
Brook, Pellana Road, and Dean Street. The site consists of several parcels of land,
including the Grant Gear facility, which currently produces gears for industry; properties
in Kerry Place; an automobile dealership; and associated parking areas and adjacent
fields. In 1979, the site was subdivided. The northeastern portion of the site,
approximately 9 acres in size, was purchased by Grant Gear Realty Trust and leased to
Grant Gear Works, Inc. The southern and western portions of the site were further
subdivided, a major portion of which was named Kerry Place. Most of the lots are now
occupied by commercial and light industrial buildings. Beginning in the 1940s, previous
owners or operators of the Grant Gear building used polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in
the production of electrical transformers and other electrical components. In 1983, the
State detected high levels of PCBs in the soil on the site, and the EPA conducted an
emergency removal of contaminated soil. Approximately 8,000 people live within 1
mile of the site.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site groundwater is contaminated with PCBs, trjchloroethylene
(TCE), and vinyl chloride. On-site soil and sediments are contaminated
with PCBs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). People may face a potential health risk by coming in
contact with or accidentally ingesting on-site soil and sediments.
Increased risk may be posed to human health in the future if on-site
groundwater, left untreated, were used as a drinking water source. The
concentrations of PCBs in the sediments in Meadow Brook may pose an
increased risk to aquatic organisms. Exposure to PCB-contaminated soils
may also pose a threat to animal life inhabiting the site area.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
30
continued
-------
NORWOOD PCBS
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action limiting exposure to
contamination and a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of PCBs from the
soil, sediments, and groundwater.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1983, the EPA conducted an emergency removal of over
500 tons of highly contaminated soil from the site and transported it to an
approved disposal facility. In 1986 the State installed a 4-foot-high wire
mesh fence around a 1.5-acre portion of the northwest and southwest corners of the
Grant Gear property and covered contaminated soils within the fenced areas. The
cover consisted of a filter-fabric liner and 6 inches of crushed stone.
Entire Site: The remedies selected by the EPA to clean up the site include
excavating soils, dredge material, and sediments and treating them by
solvent extraction of PCBs, with on-site disposal; flushing or replacing the
site drainage system; collecting groundwater and treating it by removing
the contaminants using air filtering to convert volatile chemicals to a gas, (activated
carbon will be used before or after the air filtration step to remove PCBs); and restoring
the wetlands and minimizing the effects on the wetlands during the cleanup of
Meadow Brook sediments. The EPA is preparing the technical specifications and
design for the cleanup. These activities will commence once the design phase is
completed in 1991.
Site Facts: The State originally investigated the site in response to a telephone call
from an area resident.
;Env^njneri tat Progress
The initial cleanup actions described above have removed contaminated sources and
restricted access to the site, thereby reducing the potential of exposure to hazardous
substances at the Norwood site. These completed actions have made the area safer
while it awaits planned cleanup activities.
31
-------
NYANZA CHEMICAL
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD990685422 ~
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Middlesex County
Megunco Road in Ashland
Alias:
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump
Site Description
The Nyanza Chemical site is a 35-acre parcel of land adjacent to an active industrial
complex. From 1917 to 1978, the site was used to produce textile dyes and
intermediates. Nyanza Chemical operated on this site from 1965 until 1978, when it
went out of business. Large volumes of industrial wastewater containing high levels of
acids and numerous organic and inorganic chemicals including mercury were generated
by these companies. The wastes were partially treated and discharged into the
Sudbury River through a small stream, referred to as Chemical Brook. Over 45,000
tons of chemical sludges generated by Nyanza's wastewater treatment processes,
along with spent solvents and other chemical wastes, were buried on site. The area
that contains the largest amount of buried waste and exposed sludge is referred to as
the Hill section. The current owner leases the old plant to various businesses. The
estimated population within 3 miles is 10,000 people.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with heavy
metals and chlorinated organics. The groundwater and soil are also
contaminated with spent solvents and chemical wastes. The potential
health threats to people include direct contact and accidental ingestion of
contaminated surface water, groundwater, or soil. Wetlands nearby are
contaminated with mercury, and fish in the Sudbury River exceed the
regulatory limit for mercury. Two downstream reservoirs, used as backup
water supplies, also contain sedimentwlth high mercury contamination
levels.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
32
continued
-------
NYANZA CHEMICAL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four stages: an initial action and three long-term
remedial phases focusing on source control and soil cleanup, cleanup of the
groundwater, and cleanup of surface water and sediments.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1987 and 1988, the EPA excavated an underground
storage vault containing 12,025 tons of material; 300 tons of contaminated
soils were incinerated and an additional 356 tons of soils were excavated
and disposed of off site.
Source Control and Soil: The remedies selected by the EPA to control
the source of the contamination and clean up the soil include excavating all
outlying sludge deposits and contaminated soils and sediments associated
with these deposits; consolidation of this material with the Hill sludge
deposits; capping of the Hill area to prevent water from entering; construction of a
groundwater and surface water diversion system on the upgradient side of the Hill-
backfilling the excavated areas to original grade and establishing a vegetative cover in
the wetland areas; and constructing a more extensive groundwater monitoring system
to allow for future evaluation of the cap. Approximately 60% of the 13-acre cap in an
area of existing lagoons, sludge pits, and buried building debris has been covered with
earth from on-site excavations in clean areas. The remaining portion of the area to be
capped has been excavated to bedrock to create a ce//for the disposal of contaminated
soils and solidified sludges from the on- and off-site remediation areas The fencing of
the site is 90% complete. Activities at the site were stopped temporarily because of
the possible existence of dimethyl mercury vapor; construction resumed in 1990 The
Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA have developed a monitoring system for the
vapors.
Groundwater: The EPA is conducting an investigation into the off-site
groundwater contamination. The study will define the contaminants and
will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The study is expected to
be completed in 1991.
Surface Water and Sediments: The EPA also is studying the
contamination of the surface water and sediments of the Sudbury River.
The study will define the contaminants and will recommend alternatives for
the final cleanup. It is scheduled to be completed in 1991.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions described above have reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous
substances by controlling the pathway of contamination migration and isolating wastes
under impermeable caps. These completed actions have made the Nyanza Chemical
site safer while actions continue and the EPA investigates methods to address
groundwater, surface water, and sediment contamination.
33
-------
OTIS AIR N
GUARD/C
EDWARDS
MASSACHUS
EPA ED# MA2570024487
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 12
Barnstable County
Falmouth
Aliases:
DOD/MMR/USAF Sani LandfiU
DOD/MMR/Base LandfiU
POD/MMR/USAF Sani LandfiU
DOD/MMR/Current Fire Training Area
DOD/MMR/Former Firefighting Training Area
Site Description
The Otis Air National Guard Base (ANGB) and Camp Edwards site covers approximately
3,900 acres on a 21,000-acre parcel of land, today known as the Massachusetts Military
Reservation (MMR). Although the occupants and property boundaries have changed
several times since MMR was established in 1935, the primary mission has always
been to provide training and housing to Air Force or Army units. A review of past and
present operations and waste disposal practices identified potentially contaminated
areas, including eight that cover 3,900 acres on the southern portion of MMR. Six of
the eight areas are located within Otis ANGB property boundaries: Former Fire Training
Area, Current Fire Training Area, Base Landfill, Nondestructive Testing Laboratory
Leach Pit, Fly Ash Disposal Area, and a plume of contaminated groundwater from a
sewage treatment plant, which extends 2 miles south. The two remaining waste
areas, the Unit Training Equipment Site and Property Disposal Office Storage Yard, are
at Camp Edwards, which is currently leased to the Army. The materials found at the -. --
eight areas are fly ash, bottom ash, waste solvents, waste fuels, herbicides, and
transformer oil. While the Nondestructive Testing Laboratory operated (1970 to -1978),
waste solvents, emulsifjers, penetrants, and photographic developers were deposited
in the sewer system. Effluent-from the sewage treatment plant was discharged into .
sand beds, where it seepedinto groundwater. In 1984, the U.S. Geological Survey
detected contaminants in the monitoring wells downgradient of the plant. In 1983 and
1984, the Air Force detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in on-site monitoring
wells near the Base Landfill and Current Fire Training Area. Monitoring by the Air
National Guard and the State Department of Environmental Quality has detected VOCs
in more than 200 private wells and in one town well. The municipalities of Bourne and
Sandwich, and the Air Force base have an estimated population of 36,000 people and
have drinking water wells within 3 miles of hazardous substances at the site. Irrigation
wells are also within 3 miles. Ashumet Pond, less than 1 mile from the Former Fire
Training Area, is used for recreational activities. A freshwater wetland Is 3,600 feet
downstream of the area.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/21/89
March 1990
NPL-HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
34
conf/nued
-------
OTIS AIR NATIONAL GUARD/CAMP OTIS
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with VOCs, including trichloroethane,
tetrachloroethylene, and dichloroethylene. To date, the wells are not
contaminated. People would be at risk by accidentally drinking or
touching contaminated groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
This site will be addressed in approximately 50 long-term remedial phases. Initial work
at the site focuses on the Sewage Treatment Plant; Base Landfill Area; Fire Fighting
Areas, Nondestructive Testing Laboratory Leach Pit, and Fly Ash Disposal Area; and the
Training Equipment Site and Property Disposal Office Storage Yard Areas.
Response Action Status
Sewage Treatment Plant: The National Guard Bureau (NGB) will study the
contaminated groundwater plume from the sewage treatment plant. The
investigation will define the contaminants and recommend alternatives for
cleaning the site. The study is planned to start in 1990.
Base Landfill Area: The NGB will study the contamination at the Base
Landfill. The study is planned to start in 1990 and will define the
contaminants of concern and recommend alternatives for the final cleanup.
Fire Fighting Areas, Nondestructive Testing Laboratory Leach Pit and
Fly Ash Disposal Area: The NGB will conduct an investigation into the
contamination at these areas. The investigation will define the
contaminants, recommend alternatives for the final cleanup, and will begin
in 1990.
Training Equipment Site and Property Disposal Office Storage Yard
Areas: The NGB will study the contamination at these areas, defining the
contaminants and recommending alternatives for the final cleanup. The
study will start in 1990.
Site Facts: The Army and Air Force, through the NGB, are participating in the
Installation Restoration Program (IRP). Under this program, established in 1978, the
Department of Defense (DOD) seeks to identify, investigate, and clean up
contamination from hazardous materials. The Air Force has investigated Air Force
property only. The NGB, which represents both the Army and Air Force, is coordinating
a second investigation that addresses the entire facility. Water lines were installed in
1986 to private residences affected by groundwater contamination. The EPA has
designated the Cape Cod aquifer underlying MMR as a sole source aquifer under the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
continued
35
-------
OTIS AIR NATIONAL GUARD/CAMP OTIS
Environmental Progress
Following listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA has completed a site assessment, in
coordination with the Army, Air Force, and the NGB and determined that the site
presently poses no immediate threat to public health. The site is safe while it awaits
remedial action. In addition, installation of water supply lines to residents affected by
groundwater contamination has reduced that potential health threat.
36
-------
PLYMOUTH HARBOR/
CANNON ENG3
CORP.
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD980525232
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Plymouth County;
1 1 /2 miles northwest of Plymouth
The Plymouth Harbor/Cannon Engineering Corp. site covers 2 1/2 acres in Cordage
Industrial Park. The site is located near the towns of Plymouth, Kingston, and Kingston
Shores. The facilities consist of three aboveground storage tanks and the foundation of
a razed building. Each storage tank is surrounded by a 6- to 8-foot-high earthen berm.
The northernmost tank is about 50 feet from Plymouth Harbor, while the central and
southern tanks are about 180 feet from the Harbor. The storage tanks were originally
constructed in the 1920s and used for storing fuel and oil that were unloaded from
barges. In 1975, the company obtained a license to store motor oils, industrial oils and
emulsions, solvents, lacquers, organic and inorganic chemicals, cyanide and plating
wastes, plating sludge, oily solids, pesticides, and clay and filter media with chemicals.
Cannon Engineering Corp. transported and stored hazardous wastes at the Plymouth
facility and incinerated the wastes at its Bridgewater facility until 1980, when the
facilities went into receivership. Approximately 20,000 people live in the three
communities surrounding the site; 33,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site,
and about 300 people work within 1/2 mile of the site. The area has a number of
beaches, summer cottages, public recreation, and tourist areas. The historic area of
Plymouth Rock is located 1 1/2 miles southeast of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' action.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date:. 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site soil and off-site sediments are contaminated with low levels
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and lead. Pesticides have also
been shown to be present in the on-site soil. The site is fenced to limit
access. Long-term exposure to contaminated on-site soils poses a
potential health threat to people. Plymouth Harbor is used for boating and
water sports.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
37
continued
-------
PLYMOUTH HARBOR/CANNON ENGINEERING CORP.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate action to limit exposure to '
contamination and two long-term remedial phases focusing on source control and an
investigation into cleanup alternatives for the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: In 1983, Salt Water Trust removed the contents and
then cleaned and decontaminated the south tank. The contents of the
central tank were removed by the EPA. A total of 44,022 gallons of oil-
phase waste and 139,877 gallons of aqueous-phase waste were transported to
disposal facilities for incineration. Sludge pumping operations began at the completion
of the oil and aqueous waste removal. An estimated 52,742 gallons of sludge and
8,000 gallons of toluene were removed from the tanks and shipped for disposal at an
approved facility.
Source Control: The remedies selected by the EPA include: (1) removing
the tanks and their pipes and disposing of them at an approved facility; (2)
conducting additional sampling at the site to determine the distribution of
contaminants; (3) sampling of groundwater, surface water, and sediment near the
Harbor; and (4) assessing floodplains to determine possible effects on cleanup actions.
After evaluation, the EPA issued a document in 1985 listing the final decision on the
method of cleanup chosen, and in 1986 and 1987, the EPA cleaned the interiors of the
three empty storage tanks and dismantled them. The pipework, foundations, and 33
drums of wastes already on the site were transported to a licensed disposal facility.
Soil was excavated from two locations on the site, placed in drums, and disposed of.
Once the tanks and other materials were removed, the EPA sampled soil, groundwater,
surface water, and sediments for the presence and distribution of remaining
contamination at the site. The site was fenced at that time.
Investigation: The EPA is studying the results of the sampling program to
evaluate the possible human health and environmental risk presented by
the remaining contamination. Based on this evaluation, the EPA will,
determine whether further cleanup action will be required. ;,: -..
Site Facts: In 1983, a Consent Agreement was reached with Salt Water Trust, the
owners of the site. According to the agreement, the site owners would clean the.
south tank, and the EPA would clean the central tank. A history of complaints of odors
and reports of leaks from the storage tanks on the site prompted the State and the EPA
to investigate the site.
I Environmental Progress
The initial cleanup and removal actions described above have significantly reduced the
potential of exposure to hazardous substances and removed the sources of
contamination at the Cannon Engineering site. These completed actions have made
the site safer while the need for further cleanup alternatives is being studied by the
EPA.
38
-------
PSC RESO
MASSACHUS
EPA ID# MAD980731483
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Hampden County
Palmer
Site Description
The 3 1/2-acre PSC Resources site was a waste oil refinery and solvent recovery plant,
which operated in the 1970s. The facility reclaimed drained oils and solvents from
Massachusetts collection points, treated them with heat, and sold them as lube oil
base stock, road spray, and heavy fuel mixes. Millions of gallons of waste were left
behind in tanks and lagoons when the current owner abandoned the plant in 1978.
After a spill in 1982, the EPA discovered several leaking tanks and containment dikes,
as well as saturated soils. Surface waters, wetlands, and groundwater are directly
threatened by the waste. Approximately 4,500 people live within 3 miles of the site.
The Quaboag River is about 200 feet southwest of the site and is used for swimming
and fishing. The property is near a residential and commercial district and is adjacent to
the town athletic field. The Palmer business district is 1/4 mile from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL. LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/08/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Shallow groundwater contamination consisted mostly of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including benzene and methylene chloride.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), including Aroclor-1248 and Aroclor-
1260, and lead have been found in soil samples. The surface water and
oil in the dikes contain the heavy metals cadmium and lead, as well as
benzene and PCBs. Oil in a rainwater catch basin contains PCBs and
tetrachloroethylene. People may be exposed to contaminants by inhaling
air, touching or ingesting contaminated water or soil, or by eating
contaminated fish. Municipal well fields for the towns of Palmer and
Monson are upgradientof the site, and the threat to drinking water from
groundwater contaminants has not been absolutely defined.
Contaminants have been detected in the soils and shallow groundwater in
the nearby wetlands. The site is located in a 100-year floodplain,
providing conditions .for flooding to wash contaminants from the site into
the Quaboag River.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
39
continued
*
-------
PSC RESOURRCES
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: The tanks were emptied of over 1 million gallons of
hazardous wastes between 1979 and 1984. In 1986, the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) cleaned and
removed the tanks. The DEQE also fenced the site in 1986. .-,.-
Entire Site: The DEQE is studying the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site. The investigation will define the contaminants
and recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The study is planned to
be complete in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1982, acting under authority of the Clean Water Act, the EPA asked the
owner to contain the oil discharge, determine the contents of 22 tanks, and investigate
the possibility of groundwater contamination. The owner complied with all requests.
Environmental Progress
The initial cleanup action described above has greatly reduced the potential of exposure
to hazardous substances, making the PSC Resources area safer while it awaits further
cleanup activities.
A
40
-------
RE-SOLVE,
MASSACHUS
EPA ID# MAD980520621
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Bristol County
North Dartsmouth
The Re-Solve, Inc. site is a former waste chemical reclamation facility situated on 6
acres of land. Between 1956 and 1980, Re-Solve handled a variety of hazardous
materials, including solvents, waste oils, organic liquids and solids, acids, alkalines,
inorganic liquids and solids, and polychlorinated biphenyls (RGBs). Residues from the
distillation tower, liquid sludge waste, impure solvents, and burned tires were disposed
in four on-site unlined lagoons. The lagoon contents were burned periodically to reduce
the volatile organic compounds {VOCs) content. An oil waste that accumulated at the
bottom of the degreaser distillation still was disposed of on one portion of the site
through landfarming. This oil waste was also spread throughout the site to control
dust. Cooling water from the distillation tower was discharged to a shallow on-site
lagoon. In 1974, the State issued Re-Solve a license to collect and dispose of
hazardous waste. In 1980, the State agreed to accept Re-Solve's offer to surrender its
disposal license on the condition that all hazardous waste be removed from the site. In
1981, legal action resulted in all drums, debris, and buildings being removed, but the
contents of the four lagoons remained. Approximately 300 people live within a 1-mile
radius of the site. Two residences are located within 150 yards of Re-Solve. The Re-
Solve, Inc. site is bounded by wetlands, and the land surrounding the site is
predominantly zoned for single family residential use. The bottoms of the lagoons are
situated in the water table, and some contaminants have migrated'to groundwater. All
residences obtain their water from private wells located on their property.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
T\
Groundwater is contaminated with VOCs, RGBs, and lead. Sediments are
contaminated with RGBs and arsenic. Soil is contaminated with RGBs,
VOCs, arsenic, and total organics including trichloroethylene (TCE), vinyl
chloride, methylene chloride, and toluene. Surface water is contaminated
with RGBs and VOCs. Fish from the river and ponds are contaminated
with RGBs, zinc, and mercury. Trespassers may be threatened by
accidentally touching, drinking, or eating contaminated soil, sediments,
groundwater, or surface water. Also, people who eat contaminated fish
would be at risk. The Copicut River, located about 500 feet from the site,
has been designated for the protection and propagation of fish, other
aquatic life, and wildlife. The site is located over an agu/ferthat serves as
a recharge area for part of a nearby town where a new municipal well is
planned. Contaminants are moving off site in surface runoff and
groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
41
continued
-------
RE-SOLVE, INC.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: an emergency removal of sludges and;
soil, and two long-term remedial phases focusing on source control and cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Action: In 1985, the EPA removed sludges from the lagoons
and excavated approximately 16,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil for
off-site disposal in a federally approved landfill.
Source Control: To control the source of the contamination at the site, the
EPA selected a remedy that included removing the contents of the four
unlined lagoons, excavating soil from hot spots, and excavating soil from
the former oil spreading area for disposal at an off-site approved facility. The entire site
was capped to prevent contact with surface and groundwater. These remedies were
completed in 1987. In addition, the EPA removed 148 drums of hazardous waste. The
site was fenced to limit access to the contaminated areas.
Entire Site: The remedies selected by the EPA to prevent the migration of
contaminants include: (1) excavating 22,500 cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated soil located above the groundwater table, treating the soil on
site by removing the contaminants by dechlorination, and then placing the
soil back on site with 18 inches of gravel capping; (2) excavating 3,000
cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediments from wetland areas and treatment by
dechlorination; (3) conducting studies to determine if the dechlorination process can be
used on a full-scale level; (4) restoring the wetlands; (5) pumping the groundwater to
keep the contaminant plume from moving, treating it by exposing the water to air to
evaporate the contaminants, carbon filtering to recapture the contaminants, and
discharging the treated water back into the aquifer; (6) monitoring the groundwater,
surface water, and wetlands; and (7) controlling the future use of groundwater. The
technical specifications and design for the cleanup are being prepared by the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination. The cleanup activities will commence
once the design phase is completed in 1991. Also, emissions from the soil excavation
and treatment will be monitored, and groundwater and surface water will be monitored
quarterly to evaluate the effectiveness of the cleanup. Fish sampling will be performed
at downgradientstations. Drinking wells also will be monitored for traces of
contamination. The cleanup of PCB sediments will require disturbing and temporarily
losing the wetlands. These effects are unavoidable; however, a wetlands restoration
program will be implemented.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed in 1988 under which the parties potentially
responsible for contamination of the site agreed to conduct the cleanup activities and to
reimburse the Government for past costs and future oversight costs.
continued
42
-------
RE-SOLVE, INC.
Environmental Progress
Removal of the contamination sources such as soils and sludges from the site have
reduced the health risks and environmental threats posed by the site while design of
final cleanup actions are underway.
43
-------
ROSE DISPOSAL PIT
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD980524169
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Berkshire County
Lanesborough
Site Description
The Rose Disposal Pit site is a 1 1/2-acre waste disposal area. The site occupies a
section of a 14-acre residential lot bordering Balance Rock State Park, which is forest
land, and the former Balance Rock Cafe; cropland and pastures are also nearby.
Beginning in 1951 and continuing through 1959, waste oils and solvents from the
General Electric Plant in nearby Pittsfield were disposed of in an open trench at the site.
In 1980, the State Department of Environmental Quality Engineering inspected the site
and found 15,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Two plumes of contaminated
groundwater were discovered moving to the east and south away from the disposal
area. Approximately 100 people live within 1 mile of the site and may be affected by
the contaminated drinking water.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with PCBs and VOCs including
trichloroethylene (TCE), benzene, and vinyl chloride. The sediments, soil,
and surface water at the site and a nearby wetlands are contaminated
with PCBs and VOCs. VOCs, as well as vinyl chloride, a known human
carcinogen, have been found in downgradientdrinking wells. The
contaminant plumes extend from the pit eastward into the park and to the
south, to be carried off by a small unnamed stream.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on groundwater cleanup and source control.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
44
continued
-------
ROSE DISPOSAL PIT
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: GE erected a storm fence and covered the site with plastic
in 1984. GE then pumped out a pocket of contaminated oil found beneath
the surface to prevent rain or snow from further spreading the
contamination. An alternate permanent water supply was also provided to the
restaurant and residences affected by the plume.
Source Control and Migration Management: The selected remedy will
control the source of contamination, and control and manage the migration
of contaminants. GE will perform all cleanup work, Source control includes
excavation and on-site incineration of approximately 15,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and sediment. Soils excavated will be those above the water table
that contain concentrated contaminants. Source control remediation is estimated to
take 2 years after the design is complete. Migration of contaminants will be controlled
by active restoration of the shallow aquiferby air filtering the VOCs to a gas and then
using carbon adsorption to remove the now airborne contaminants. Groundwater will
be treated to reduce contaminants to levels that will meet drinking water standards.
Sediments and surface water iii the small pond located near the disposal area will also
be treated, and the pond will be restored to its original wetlands character after
remediation. Treatment of the VOCs will render the PCBs relatively immobile in the
saturated zone of the disposal area. Since PCBs will be present in the groundwater,
institutional controls including deed restrictions will be needed to prevent groundwater
use and any excavation below the water table within the disposal area. These remedial
activities are scheduled in 1991 after design work is complete. Incineration will involve
the use of an innovative form of on-site incineration that will include an initial thermal
extraction phase instead of a chemical extraction phase to separate contaminants from
soil.
Site Facts: In 1984, the EPA issued a joint enforcement order requiring GE to conduct
removal activities at the site. In 1989, the EPA and GE signed a Consent Decree to
perform the cleanup and to reimburse the EPA for past and future oversight costs.
The initial cleanup action'described above has reduced the potential of exposure to
hazardous materials at this site from direct contact or drinking contaminated materials,
making the Rose Disposal site safer while it awaits the planned actions to control the
source and migration of contaminants and the restoration of site soils and nearby
wetlands.
45
-------
SALEM ACRE
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD980525240
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Essex County
Salem
Site Description
From 1946 through 1969, the 262-acre Salem Acres site received sludge, grit, and
grease from the South Essex Sewerage District through an agreement, with the
owners. The site also received tannery waste. The sludge was placed in eight unlined,
uncovered disposal pits on approximately 4 acres. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
methylene chloride, arsenic, and chromium were found to be present in the soils.
Residential housing bounds the site on the south and east. Approximately 65,000
people live within 1 mile, and 127,000 people live within 3 miles of the site. One of the
disposal pits is approximately 20 feet from Strongwater Brook. The site lies on the
divide of two drainage basins that channel both surface water and groundwater directly
into two major aquifers.
Site Responsibility:
The site will be addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site soils and sludge are contaminated with PCBs, methylene
chloride, arsenic, and chromium. Children playing in the area are at risk by
coming in contact with, or accidentally ingesting on-site soils or sludge.
The sludge pit areas are now fenced, and access to them is restricted;
however, the wetlands areas are still accessible. Emergency capping of
the pits has largely eliminated them as a current source of exposure.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being cleaned up in two stages: initial actions limiting the spread of
contamination and a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
46
continued
-------
SALEM ACRES
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The EPA covered the sludge pits with a synthetic cap and
constructed concrete cut-off walls to prevent further releases into the
wetlands.
Entire Site: The South Essex Sewerage District is conducting an
investigation into the nature and extent of the soil and sludge
contamination. The investigation will define the contaminants of concern
and will recommend alternatives for final cleanup. The investigation is planned to be
completed in 1990.
Site Facts: "On May 26, 1987, the EPA signed a Consent Orator with the South Essex
Sewerage District to have the District perform the studies to examine the nature and
extent of contamination and the technical options for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The EPA has assessed conditions at Salem Acres and has determined that the initial
capping actions have reduced the potential for exposure to contamination, while the
site awaits the results of the investigation for final cleanup alternatives.
47
-------
SHPACK LANDH
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD980503973
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Bristol County
On the Attleboro/Norton town line
Site Description
The Shpack Landfill covers 8 acres, 5 1/2 acres of which are within the Town of Norton,
and the remaining 21/2 acres are in the City of Attleboro. The /and/7//was operated
from 1946 until 1965 when a court order forced its closing. This landfill received
domestic and industrial waste, including inorganic and organic chemicals, as well as , ,
radioactive waste. The area near the site is fairly rural and is a wooded swamp.
Approximately 40,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site. Municipal water
supplies for both townships do not extend to the area around the site. Therefore,
residents in this area use private drinking water wells, most of which withdraw water
from the bedrock aquifer. The distance from Shpack Landfill to the nearest residential
well is about 150 feet. There are 27 private wells within 1 mile of the site which serve
103 people. The two municipal water supply well fields for Norton are situated in the
shallow aquifer and are located 3 miles east and 5.25 miles northeast of the area.
Municipal well fields for Attleboro also are completed in the shallow aquifer and are
located 12,000 feet and 24,000 feet west of the study area. The Shpack Landfill
directly borders the currently operating 50-acre Attleboro Landfill.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
n
The groundwater has been shown to contain volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), including vinyl chloride, and trichloroethylene (TCE), as well as
heavy metals, including chromium, barium, copper, nickel, manganese,
arsenic, cadmium, and lead. Sediments on the edge of the swamp and
soils contain radionuclides including radium and uranium. Surface water
in the swampy area is contaminated with radium, and alpha and beta
particles, as well as organic compounds. The site is fenced to limit
access. People who trespass on the site may be exposed to
contamination by accidentally touching or ingesting contaminated
groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments. In addition, contaminants
may be transported off site by flooding of the swamp.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
48
continued
-------
SHPACK LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase to investigate the
extent of contamination and to select cleanup alternatives for the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation into the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site will be conducted. The investigation will define
the contaminants of concern and will recommend alternatives for the final
cleanup. The investigation is planned to start in 1990.
Site Facts: The Shpack Landfill is currently under the supervision of the U.S.
Department of Energy.
\Environmental Progress
Fencing the area has reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous substances on the
Shpack Landfill site while the investigation into the cleanup alternatives is taking place.
49
-------
SILRESIM CHEMICAL
CORPORATE
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD000192393
Site Description
REGION I
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Middlesex County
Lowell
The Silresim Chemical Corporation site covers approximately 4 acres in an industrial
area. Starting in 1971, Silresim began reclaiming a variety of chemical wastes, waste
oil, solvents, and sludges containing heavy metals. In 1977, Silresim declared
bankruptcy and abandoned the site, leaving behind 30,000 decaying drums and several
large storage tanks. The State began to clean up the site in 1981. The site is located 1
mile south of the central business district of Lowell and less than a mile from several
residential areas. Approximately 10,000 people live within 1 mile, and an estimated
24,000 people live within 3 miles. Groundwater flows generally to the northwest
towards Meadow Brook, which drains into the Concord and then the Merrimack River.
The Merrimack River is the source of water for three neighboring cities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date; 07/01/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals.
The soil is polluted with VOCs, pesticides, and PCBs. Low levels of dioxin
also are present in the soil. People could be exposed to contaminants by
coming in contact with off-site soils and groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an interim action and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
50
continued
-------
SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION
Response Action Status
Interim Action: Before the site was listed on the NPL, the State removed
all chemical wastes in aboveground storage containers, fenced the site, and
dismantled buildings. In 1983, the EPA monitored the air and sampled soils,
finding contamination both on and off site. The EPA raised the height of the fence from
6 to 8 feet. The EPA covered highly contaminated areas with 9 inches of crushed
gravel and an overlaying cap of clay. This work was finished in 1984. In 1986, damage
to the original fence was repaired. Subsequent sampling revealed an additional area of
soil contamination that the EPA then enclosed. In 1986, the EPA discovered dioxin, so
the fence was relocated to prevent public access, and a temporary gravel cover was
laid over the contaminated soil to prevent contact.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for contamination at the site
are conducting investigations into the contamination, and will assess with
the EPA the alternative technologies for cleanup. Activities include
groundwater sampling, monitoring, well installation, and sampling vents for air
contamination. Surface soil testing and sampling beneath the clay cap will determine
the extent of soil contamination. These activities are scheduled to end in 1990.
Site Facts: The EPA negotiated with a group of the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination to conduct the studies to determine the nature and extent of
contamination and to develop alternative cleanup technologies.. In the past, some
residents and doctors of the community had attributed health effects to site
contamination.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions to fence the site and cap areas of contamination have reduced the
potential for accidental exposure and the further migration of contamination from the
Silresim Chemical site. These actions have eliminated the immediate threats posed by
the site while ongoing investigations identify alternatives for addressing groundwater
and soil contamination.
51
-------
SULLIVAN'S L
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD980731343
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 12
Bristol County
New Bedford
Site Description
The 12-acre Sullivan's Ledge disposal area, in the northwestern corner of New Bedford,
operated as a quarry until about 1932. In 1935, the City of New Bedford acquired the
site through tax title foreclosure. Between the 1940s and the 1970s, local industries
used the quarry pits and adjacent areas for disposal of hazardous material and other
wastes including electrical capacitors, fuel oil, volatile liquids, tires, scrap rubber,
demolition materials, and brush and trees. After a fire at the site in the 1970s, the City
backfilled the only existing open pit and covered all exposed refuse. In 1982, when the
Massachusetts Department of Public Works drilled test borings as part of a plan to
build a commuter parking lot, electrical capacitors, which may have caused
polychlon'nated biphenyl (PCBs) contamination, were unearthed. Approximately 98,500
people live within 3 miles of the site in this residential area. Within 1 mile of the site
are two nursing homes and three schools. The Whaling City Country Club golf course
is immediately north of the site. An unnamed stream borders the site and discharges
into Middle Marsh, which is on the golf course. Immediately north of the marsh lie
railroad tracks, the Apponagansett Swamp, and the City of New Bedford municipal
landfill.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
In 1982, the EPA detected PCBs in ambient air. Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in the on-site and immediately off-site groundwater
increase with depth. Inorganic compounds and PCBs are also present in
the groundwater. Soils have eroded from the site into the unnamed
stream and have been transported from the site. Sediments in the
unnamed stream, Middle Marsh, four golf course water hazards, and a
portion of the Apponagansett Swamp are contaminated with PCBs. The
soil is contaminated with PCBs and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). The soils along the eastern and southern boundaries contain the
highest contaminant concentrations. People may become exposed to the
contaminated dusts stirred up at the site. At the heavily used golf course,
people may be exposed to contaminants in soil and sediments,
particularly from dry intermittent stream beds.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
52
continued
-------
SULLIVAN'S LEDGE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being cleaned up in three stages: an initial action to limit the spread of
contamination and two long-term remedial phases aimed at cleanup of the entire site
and the Middle Marsh.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: The City of New Bedford constructed a fence around the
site in 1984 to 1985 to limit the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials at the site.
Entire site: The EPA has chosen the following remedies for cleaning up
the site: (1) prepare the site for cleanup activities by establishing security
measures, connecting the site to power lines, and furnishing sanitary
facilities; (2) excavate, solidify, and dispose of soils on the site; (3)
excavate, dewater, solidify, and dispose of sediments from the stream and the golf
course water hazards; (4) construct an impermeable cap over an 11-acre area to cover
the quarry pits and contain the contaminated surface soils and sediments that would be
solidified and placed on site; (5) divert and line a portion of the unnamed stream to
prevent water from being pulled into extraction wells; (6) install an active pumping
system to collect contaminated shallow bedrock groundwater, a passive collection
system to collect contaminated seeps and shallow groundwater, and a groundwater
treatment system to treat collected groundwater; (7) restore and enhance the wetlands
to reasonably similar hydrologic and botanical conditions that existed prior to
excavation; (8) monitor the site with 5-year reviews; and (9) use institutional controls to
ensure that the bedrock groundwater will not be used for drinking water, since it cannot
be cleaned to drinking water standards. These actions will be designed in 1990, and
work is scheduled to begin in 1991.
Middle Marsh: In 1989, EPA began a study of the contamination in the
Middle Marsh. Monitoring wells have been installed to determine if
contamination has migrated to the golf course, the extent of PCB
contamination is being studied, and the presence of contamination in
aquatic organisms is being assessed. The need for treatability studies will be
determined. Results are expected in late 1990.
Ejii$fip>rifneittal Progress
Fencing the area has limited the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the
Sullivan's Ledge site while awaiting further cleanup actions to address contaminated
sediments and groundwater resources.
53
-------
W. R. GRACErr
AND COME
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MADOO1002252
REGION I
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Middlesex County
Off Independence Road
In Acton and Concord
Site Description
The W. R. Grace and Company site covers approximately 200 acres. The site was the
former location of the American Cyanamid Company and the Dewey & Almy Chemical
Company. These companies produced sealant products for rubber containers, latex
products, plasticizers, resins, and other products. Operations at the W. R. Grace facility
included the production of materials used to make concrete, container sealing
compounds, latex products, and paper and plastic battery separators. Effluent wastes
from these operations flowed into several unlined lagoons (the Primary Lagoon,
Secondary Lagoon, North Lagoon, and Emergency Lagoon), and solid and hazardous
wastes were buried in or placed onto an on-site industrial landfill and several other
disposal areas. These other waste sites include the Battery Separator Lagoons, the
Battery Separator Chip Pile, the Boil Lagoon, and the Tank Car Area. In addition, the
by-products of some chemical processes were disposed of in the Slowdown Pit.
Discharge to all lagoons and the Battery Separator Area ceased in 1980. Investigations
in 1978 indicated that two municipal wells, Assabet #1 and #2, were contaminated. As
a result of these findings, the Town took precautionary action and closed the two wells.
The site is bounded in part by Fort Pond Brook and by the Assabet River.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and heavy metals including lead, arsenic, chromium, and nickel.
Sediments are contaminated with cadmium. The soil and sludge are
contaminated with arsenic, vinyl chloride, and benzene. Trespassers may
be at risk by touching or accidentally ingesting contaminated
groundwater, surface water, sediments, soil, or sludge.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
54
continued
-------
W. R. GRACE & COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: an interim action and two long-term
remedial phases that will focus on aquifer restoration and landfill and lagoon closure.
Response Action Status
Interim Action: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination
removed tanks from the site in 1982 and 1983.
Aquifer Restoration: The parties potentially responsible for contamination
have installed an aquifer restoration facility. This has been in operation
since 1985 to stop discharge of contaminated groundwater into the
Assabet River, Fort Pond Brook, and various other ponds.
Landfill and Lagoon Closure: The EPA's recommended cleanup plan
includes: (1) excavating and transporting off-site for incineration the highly
contaminated material from the Slowdown Pit; (2) excavating and stabilizing
the material in the Slowdown Pit, the Primary Lagoon, Secondary Lagoon,
North Lagoon, and Emergency Lagoon by mixing it with cement, lime, and fly ash to
form a solid; (3) excavating the soils from the Battery Separator Lagoons, Boiler
Lagoon, and Tank Car area; (4) placing both the stabilized and non-stabilized materials
excavated from the site in the existing industrial landfill and covering these materials
with a cap to prevent surface water or rain water from coming into contact with the
buried contaminants; (5) closing the Chip Pile area; (6) modifying the Aquifer
Restoration System to address emission controls; and (7) monitoring each area.
Site Facts: The company entered into a Consent Decree with the EPA in 1980 to
conduct a study of the site. Since 1973, residents in South Acton have filed complaints
about periodic odors and irritants in the air around the W.R. Grace plant.
Environmental Progress
The interim cleanup action described above has greatly reduced the potential for
exposure to hazardous substances in groundwater and leaking tanks, making the W.R.
Grace area safer while selected cleanup activities are designed and constructed.
55
-------
WELLS G & I
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD980732168
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Middlesex County
City of Woburn
Site Description
Wells G & H were two municipal wells developed in 1964 and 1967 to supplement the
water supply of the City of Woburn, and the site covers a total area of 330 acres. The
wells supplied 25% of the city's drinking water. In 1979, city police discovered several
55-gallon drums of industrial waste abandoned on a vacant lot in the vicinity of the site;
these drums were subsequently removed. Both of the wells were shut down in 1979.
The population of Woburn is approximately 36,600 people. The area surrounding the
site is predominantly residential; some non-residential properties are fenced to limit
unauthorized access. The area includes commercial and industrial parks as well as a
greenhouse and many residential gardens. The Aberjona River flows through the
middle of the site. Surface water runoff irom the site is directed through drainage
systems toward the river and its tributaries. Many of the areas around the site are used
for recreation.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), including trichloroethylene (TCE), heavy metals, including arsenic
and lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Sediments are
contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), arsenic, and
lead. Soil is contaminated with PAHs, PCBs, VOCs, and heavy metals. A
pond that receives drainage from Wildwood Industrial Park is used by
children for fishing and swimming. Children also use an undeveloped
portion of Olympia Nominee Trust, located near the site, for riding dirt
bikes. People are at risk if they accidentally touch or swallow
contaminated surface water, groundwater, soil, or sediments. The site is
located on land that serves as a recharge area for the aquiferfrom which
the Woburn Municipal Wells G & H drew water.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
56
continued
-------
WELLS O&H
Cleanup Approach
The site will be cleaned up in three stages: immediate actions limiting the spread of
contamination and two long-term remedial phases focusing on source control and
contaminant migration and cleanup alternatives for the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The party responsible for contamination secured the
site with a fence and a guard. Drums containing PCB sludge and solid
materials, as well as a pool of contaminated liquid located near the aquifer,
were removed to an approved facility.
Source Control and Contaminant Migration: The EPA's selected
remedy includes excavating and incinerating 2,100 cubic yards of
contaminated soils on site and backfilling the excavated areas; treating
. additional contaminated soil in place by extracting soil vapors for treatment
with activated carbon; and pumping contaminated groundwater from the aquifers and
removing the contaminants by using a stream of air that is forced through the water.
Contaminants removed by the air stream are further treated prior to being released into
the atmosphere. The EPA is negotiating with the potentially responsible parties to
prepare the technical specifications and design for the cleanup. These activities will
commence once the design phase is completed in 1991.
Entire Site: The EPA is conducting an investigation into the nature and
extent of contamination in the Aberjona River and the area surrounding the
wells. The investigation will define the contaminants of concern and will
recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation is expected to be
complete in 1992.
Site Facts: The EPA has issued three orders against the potentially responsible parties
to conduct a hydrogeological investigation of the site.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated materials and the fencing of the Wells G & H site have
reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the site while it awaits the
commencement of the soil treatment remedy and the results of the investigation into
the possible alternatives for cleanup of the remaining site contamination.
57
-------
-------
Tv his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
- fact sheets for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The terms and abbreviations contained in this glossary
are often defined in the context of hazardous waste management
as described in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfund program. Thus, these terms
may have other meanings when used in a different context.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforce-
able 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 de-
scribes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforce-
ment options that the government may exercise in the
event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties. This Order is signed by
PRPs and the government; it does not require approval by a judge.
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.
Ambient Air: Any unconfined part of the atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity of contaminated air sources.
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 ground water.
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.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants naturally and break them down into nonhaz-
ardous components.
G-l
-------
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.
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorption].
Closure: The process by which a landfill stops accepting wastes and is shut down
under Federal guidelines that ensure the public and the environment is protected.
Consent Decree: A legal document, approved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between EPA and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the potentially responsible parties are re-
quired to perform and/or the costs incurred by the government that the parties will
reimburse, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options that the gov-
ernment may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties.
If a settlement between EPA and a potentially responsible party includes cleanup ac-
tions, it must be in the form of a consent decree. A consent decree is subject to a public
comment period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent],
Containment: The process of enclosing or containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in ponds and lagoons, to prevent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserving operations and produced by distillation
of tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
bons [see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating sediments, soils, and surface water, creo-
sotes may cause skin ulcerations and cancer with prolonged exposure.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes, soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
Dewaten To remove water from wastes, soils, or chemicals.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move
toward lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradient of a contaminated groundwater
source are prone to receiving pollutants.
G-2
-------
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer,
or industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes discharged into surface waters.
Emulsifiers: Substances that helps in mixing materials that don't normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh water from rivers and salt water from nearshore
ocean waters are mixed. These areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt marshes,
and lagoons. These water ecosystems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and wildlife.
Fly ash: Non-combustible residue that results from the combustion of flue gases. It can
include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site containing exceptionally high levels of contami-
nation.
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.
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.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice is commonly used for disposal of com-
posted wastes.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching .[v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid, .
G-3
-------
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.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability. A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against potentially responsible parties, although EPA may
undertake certain investigatory and planning activities. The 60-day period may be
extended if EPA receives a good faith offer [see Good Faith Offer] within that period.
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.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used in plastics manufacturing and are by-
products of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye, and resin manufacturing. Phenols
are highly poisonous and can make water taste and smell bad.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater flowing from a specific source. The
movement of the groundwater is influenced by such factors as local groundwater flow
patterns, the character of the aquifer in which groundwater is contained, and the den-
sity of contaminants.
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.
Polydhlorinated 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.
G-4
-------
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.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium, and uranium-235 and -238, which break
down and produce radioactive substances due to their unstable atomic structure. Some
are man-made and others are naturally occurring in the environment Radon, which is
the gaseous form of radium, decays to form alpha particle radiation, which can be easily
blocked by skin. However, it can be inhaled, which allows alpha particles to affect
unprotected tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Uranium, when split during fission
in a nuclear reactor, forms more radionuclides which, when ingested, can also cause
cancer. Radiation also occurs naturally through the breakdown of granite stones.
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.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower edges of landfills.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Stabilization: The process of changing an active substance into inert, harmless mate-
rial, or physical activities at a site that act to limit the further spread of contamination
without actual reduction of toxicity.
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].
G-5
-------
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.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a stream or other water body.
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-6
------- |