EPA/540/4-90/029
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
New Hampshire
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Supeifund: 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
f -''
GLOSSARY:
Terms.Uised in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
ii
-------
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 knd 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
iv
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 either sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through; the
cleanup pipeline,"! ^^ ^
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES Sl)RE
CLEANUP WOl^KS
|
EPA has gained erjiough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end wheiji the rem-
edy is in place. M^ny com-
plex technologies -I like
those designed to clean up
groundwater must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous jtvaste site
managers are committed to
proper operation ajnd mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring thejcleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job. i
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site eve: \ after the
cleanup work is dc ne. Every
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA'sjobisto
analyze the hazards #id
deploy the experts,^ the
Agency needs citipn input as
it makes choices Jr affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with aSuperfund
site will be those host di-
rectly affected byazardous
waste problems d cleanup
processes, EPA (COMrages
citizens to get inplved in
cleanup decisiom. Public in-
volvement andzomment does
influence EPA J/anup plans
by providing viable infor-
mation about sitonditions,
community conftis and
preferences. j
This State volunmd the
companion Natal Over-
view volume prde general
Superfund backund
information anftcriptions
of activities at estate NPL
site. These volu! 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
-------
v»&*
XV?.,
,^ he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
t;i waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
,,,*." -1-?- 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
-------
>i "if »fp!wr*tr ""i,*?-
SuPERFOiSfE*
V *&**
(*1 (
t, q
\ ^
|How does BPA learn
|a]bout potential ^:
teatdotis waste"% \J3!
sites?
""IS* !s
What happens if
there is an i
^ .
danger?
i , ' ""iM't*
< ! *< (W
JEf ttee isn't an ^
j imminent dangei^
ihow does EFA ,, ^
I determine what, it
ff cleanti^
be taken?
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENC^
EVALUATION |
I
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Informktion
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 wixere 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,lnd 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 Is 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. j
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. i
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION i
i
i
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water- to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now ifs time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it ujp. Or
Vlll
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed
plants, or animals?
the land, water, air, people,
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.
- -v~%
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.
If the
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
j|te insults of Jhe
-------
SUPERFUND"
Mtft t S
1
if!",
s >: s*
P I" o\tfV Chftf^'N.S *.\
*t
requirement that Congress gave them to use Supejfund 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 surrjounding
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. j
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). Thafs why there.are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
i actions performed at any site, whether or not it's ori the NPL.
How cte people
put whether
& site a
r
*deanup using
Superlurtd money?
^Wv
3
£
v>.
I
The public can find out whether a site that concern's them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at jthe 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 was :e sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NP L 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 onljr 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 compar ;d to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineerir g capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also h ive their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfunci 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.
ti*e steps lo
' O V
XI
-------
|l|l 11(11111 III HIIII 111 »»»[»(« \i>
How ate
alternatives
;i»,\
infill in
v * - * r^Ml -
" "l^r\
fll
% \\ ^S- ^*SSfc-.%a*,svN\i*v
Does the public have ^
a say in the final
cleanup decision?
* *< v» f- 1*
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily meajn that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receivp an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the pui pose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent si :e 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, privat^ parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs bafeed on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called k feasibility
study. i
I
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 ijhe 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 comp
pending on the size and complexity of the problerr
ete, de-
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public b^ given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup jplan. 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.
^
.^^
5%
If-
~-A-.vx.v
" ^vr"- %
-V'
S**«*x
\
C^svsst
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
%
<&cti0pL peecteJa !?«-< - ^ J
1 tailored to a site/ does
" the tfeslgri ofLttie
to fee T
Xlll
-------
SUPERFUND
lOnce lii^desljgpn. is
'complete how Ipiig^fr
does intake fai *""
Hctu'ally <
Ifiill Kit | p&WtHiK, * N,
site
n,\\fc
site, special plans for environmental protection, \\[orker 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 the m 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 irlillion per
site. |
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated grotjridwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cjases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required t
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
*?..
XV
-------
TAX
-------
T% he Site Fact Sheets
'" presented in this book
are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
at the site.
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site or part
of the site are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvii
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
Location
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
Cleanup Approach
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.
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats and Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
Site Facts
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
-------
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 dedsionmaking
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. \
i
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, put the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must tjravel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, becope in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
State of New Hamp
New Hampshire is located on the Canadian border between Maine and Vermont, and is
bordered by the Atlantic Ocean on the southwest corner. The State covers 9,279
square miles consisting of a low, rolling coast followed by hilly terrain and mountains
rising out of a central plateau. New Hampshire experienced a 17.9 percent increase in
population through the 1980s and currently has approximately 1,085,000 residents,
ranking 40th in U.S. populations. Principal State industries include manufacturing,
tourism, agriculture, trade, and mining of non-fuel minerals. New Hampshire
manufacturing produces machinery, electrical and electronics products, plastics,
fabricated metal products, and leather goods.
How Many New Hampshire
Sites Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
16
0_
16
Cong. District 01
Cong. District 02
12 sites
4 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
GW Soil SW Seds Air
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy
metals (inorganics).
Soil: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), heavy metals (inorganics),
creosote (organics), and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PBCs).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
heavy metals (inorganics), and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PBCs).
Air: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs).
* 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 11 sites as interim cleanup measure
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in New Hampshire, providing spejcific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental
progress. Should you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
New Hampshire Superfund Office
EPA Region I Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region I Superfund Public
Relations Office
(603) 271-2908
(617)573-9645
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(617)565-3417
A
State Overview
-------
The NPL Progress Report -
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow 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.
xxiii
-------
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of New Hampshire
Pago Site Name
County
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
NPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
AUBURN ROAD LANDFILL
COAKLEY LANDFILL
DOVER MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
FLETCHER'S PAINT WORKS
HOLTON CIRCLE
KEARSARGE METALLURGICAL CORP.
KEEFE ENVIRON MENTAL SERVICES
MOTTOLO PIG FARM
OTTATI & GOSS/KINGSTON STEEL DRUM
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
SAVAGE MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
SOMERSWORTH SANITARY LANDFILL
SOUTH MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
SYLVESTER SITE
TIBBETTS ROAD
TINKHAM'S GARAGE
ROCKINGHAM
ROCKINGHAM
STRAFFORD
HILLSBOROUGH
ROCKINGHAM
CARROLL
ROCKINGHAM
ROCKINGHAM
ROCKINGHAM
ROCKINGHAM
HILLSBOROUGH
STRAFFORD
HILLSBOROUGH
HILLSBOROUGH
STRAFFORD
ROCKINGHAM
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
09/08/83 4- *- * *- *>
065/20/86 * *
09/08/83 "K
03/31/89 *- *
03/31/89 *
09/01/84 * *
09/08/83 *" + + + +
07/01/87 + +
09/08/83 +* + + ^ ^
02/21/90 *-
09/01/84 *- *
09/08/83 *-
09/01/84 + "K
09/01/83 "K ^ «^ ^- ^ ^- '
07/10/86 "^ «^
09/08/83 ** "^ "^ ^
XXIV
-------
-------
-------
AUBURN ROAD
LANDFILL
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD980524086
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Rockingham County
Londonderry
2 miles north of Route 28 on Auburn Road
The Auburn Road Landfill in Londonderry consists of four separate disposal areas: (1)
the former Londonderry Town Dump, which operated during the 1960s and was the
disposal site for over 1,000 drums of chemical waste; (2) a tire disposal area, where
tires and demolition debris and several hundred drums of chemical waste were
dumped; (3) a solid waste landfill, the largest disposal area, active until the entire site
was closed in early 1980; and (4) a septage lagoon, which is next to a mound of
overflow waste from the tire dump. Most of the residents in the area depend on
bedrock wells for their water supply. In 1986, the EPA determined that contaminated
groundwater flowed off site toward the drinking water supply wells at the Whispering
Pines Mobile Home Park and potentially to other private residential wells. The State
ordered the landfill closed early in 1980, after hazardous wastes were identified in soil,
and toxic organics were found in surface water and groundwater. The area surrounding
the landfill is residential and commercial, and the 300 homes and 270 mobile homes
within a 1-mile radius use groundwater as a primary source of drinking water.
Approximately 1,050 people live within 3 miles of the site. Two unnamed streams
drain from the site and flow into Cohas Brook, which in turn empties into the
Merrimack River.
Site Responsibility;
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), creosotes, and inorganic chemicals. The soil is also contaminated
with VOCs,-creosote compounds, and inorganics, as well as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides. Whispering Pines Pond
and Cohas Brook are polluted with low levels of VOCs. The fencing of the
town dump, the tire dump, and solid waste areas decrease the likelihood
of exposure to contaminated soils, although the areas adjacent to the
fences are used for riding dirt bikes and horses. Exposure to
contaminated groundwater is eliminated at the present time because the
municipal water supply has been extended to local residents, but bedrock
fractures may promote migration of contaminants into off-site
groundwater and may present a potential threat to private wells outside
the area. The site includes large areas of wetlands and ponds, which are
environmentally sensitive.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
AUBURN RO^D LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: an initial action and three long-term
remedial phases focusing on providing a water supply, capping the site, and pleanup of
the groundwater contamination. j
Response Action Status
1*** Initial Action: The Fe'deral Emergency Management Agency (FEEMA)
temporarily relocated 17 families beginning in early 1986. At that time, the
EPA excavated 1,666 drums in 3 locations and then restored two of the.
excavated areas. Drums were consolidated, covered, and sampled prior to their
disposal off site. A 24-hour security guard was maintained prior to disposal.
fenced the four disposal areas from 1987 to 1988 and posted warning signs.
the EPA excavated 360 drums from the tire dump.
The owner
In 1988,
Water Supply Line: In late 1987, the Town of Londonderry extended the
current water service provided by the Manchester Water Works to 17
. . homes along Auburn Road and to 260 mobile homes in the Whispering
Pines mobile home village-. Nine thousand linear feet of water line were installed.
Londonderry constructed and paid for.the water supply line under an agreement with
the EPA. !
j
Groundwater: In 1989, the EPA selected cleanup technologies that
specified the collection of contaminated groundwater through a sferies of
shallow and deep bedrock wells and the use of groundwater collection
trenches. Inorganic contamination is to be removed using chemical
precipitation. Groundwater will then be treated for removal of ordanic
i :ontaminantspusing a combination of air stripping and, if necessary, carbon treatment.
I to engineering design for this remedy is expected to start in 1991. I
i ' . -.-. |
|i RooL\ CaP: Tne EPA specified that a multi-layer cap be placed over the solid
it the
the cap is
ROI
m
waste-area, the town dump area, and the tire dump area to preve
further spread of contaminants to the groundwater. A design for
planned to start in 1990.
Environmental Progress
The EPA, FEMA, and the Town of Londonderry have acted to protect area residents
from site contamination by relocating affected populations, providing a safe vyater
supply, and removing of a large number of drums containing contaminants. The
planned capping will prevent any further spread of contamination as the grouhdwater
cleanup continues at the Auburn Road Landfill site. i
-------
COAKLEY LAND
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD064424153
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Rockingham County
Greenland and North Hampton
Site Description
The Coakley Landfill site is a 92-acre parcel of land within the towns of Greenland and
North Hampton, and is owned and operated by several municipalities. The landfill area
encompasses 27 acres' in the southern portion of the site. The site accepted municipal
and industrial wastes from the Portsmouth area between 1972 and 1982,' and
incinerator residue from the Incineration Recovery Plant Refuse to Energy Project.
between 1982 and 1985. The primary source of contamination is the landfill itself.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals are the predominant contaminants
found. On- and off-site surface water and ground water are contaminated. The site is
located on a groundwater/surface water divide, and residential wells to the south,
southeast, and northeast of the landfill are contaminated with low levels of VOCs.
Public water service has been extended to the areas with contaminated wells by local
communities. Approximately 79,300 people are served by wells within 3 miles of the :
site. There are also several small commercial facilities, motels, and restaurants nearby.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 05/20/86
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater is contaminated with arsenic, phenol, and methyl
ethyl ketones; off-site groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals
including arsenic, chromium, and lead, and VOCs including benzene and
methyl ethyl ketones. On-site sediments are contaminated with arsenic
and lead. Stream sediments contain contamination from arsenic and
VOCs. Leachate contamination at the site includes VOCs,
tetrahydrofuran, and ketones.. Potential use of groundwater as a water
supply is the main threat to human health. --...
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
COAKLEY LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
i
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions to ensure a safe drinking
water source and a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entjre site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1989, North Hampton extended a municipal vjvater line
to residents who had been supplied by 13 private wells that were
contaminated with VOCs. The State set up an early warning system to
detect well contamination in the entire area. Most area residents now have
uncontaminated water.
Entire site: An investigation was conducted by the State from 1
1987. The goals of the field work were to characterize the hydro,
386 to
conditions at the site including an estimate of the total area of the landfill
and soil deposits, hydraulic properties of bedrock and selected surface streams, and to
identify pathways for contaminant migration from the site. The State completed the
study to determine the alternative technologies for cleanup of the site and a proposed
plan was issued early in 1990. With assistance from EPA, the final decision
-------
DOVER MUNI
LANDFILL
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD980520191
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Strafford County
In Mallego Plains section of Dover
Site Description
The Dover Municipal Landfill is a 55-acre inactive landfill located on Tolend Road in the
Mallego Plains section in the western corner of Dover. Owned and operated by the
City since 1954, the landfill initially accepted domestic refuse from Dover, but by the
1960s it took in drums and loose trash from both Dover and Madbury. Buried materials
include leather-tanning wastes, organic solvents, municipal trash, and sludge from the
Dover wastewater plant. It is believed that drums-were no longer accepted after 1975.
In 1977, the State installed monitoring wells around the area and found that organic
solvents were entering groundwater, posing a potential threat to public water supplies
for Dover and Portsmouth. The State and the Dover City Council closed the landfill in
1980. The site is in a residential area; the nearest home is 100 yards to the southeast.
A nursing home is 2,500 feet away, and a prison and work farm are located nearby.
There are 50 homes within 1 mile of the landfill, and the surrounding area is used for
hunting and berrying. Two water supplies are at risk but are not currently
contaminated: the Calderwood municipal well, 1/2 mile north, which supplies 20% of
Dover's water; and Bellamy Reservoir, 1/3 mile south, which supplies Portsmouth,
Newington, New Castle, Greenland, and portions of Rye, Meadbury, and Durham.
Leachate from the landfill is entering the Cocheco River, 400 feet away from the site at
the closest point. Wetlands .also exist near the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being cleaned up through
a combination of Federal and State
action.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
DOVER MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
'AL1
T\
Threats and Contaminants
Air is polluted with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which rave been
detected above background levels near leachate streams on the site. The
groundwater is contaminated with VOCs, acid and base/neutra\
extractable organic compounds, and heavy metals. Three-residential
wells have been contaminated with organics from the site; however,
water is not currently being consumed from them. Sediments are
contaminated with heavy metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Soil contamination includes polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) loff site and
heavy metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead both on arjid off site.
The Cocheco River receives leachate; VOCs have also been dejtected in
the surface water. People on or near the site could be exposed to
contaminants that have evaporated into the air. People using the site for
recreational purposes could touch, accidentally ingest, or inhale
contaminated dust. Drinking contaminated groundwater and swimming
or wading in the contaminated Cocheco River could also expose people to
harmful chemicals. Nearby wetlands are potentially threatened by site
contamination.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase aimed at cleanup of
contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1988, the State began a study of the site to assess the
nature and extent of contamination. The parties potentially responsible for
the site contamination have assumed responsibility for the study that will
identify the alternate cleanup strategies. The EPA will evaluate the study
findings and expects to select a final cleanup strategy for the site in 1990. |
i
Site Facts: The State and City Council closed the landfill in 1988. The EPAiand the
potentially responsible parties entered into an Administrative Agreement to pomplete a
feasibility study of site cleanup strategies. I
Environmental Progress
Following the listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA determined that the Dcj>ver
Municipal Landfill site currently poses no immediate threat to public health or the
environment while it awaits further cleanup activities.
-------
FLETCHER'S B
WORKS
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHDOO1079649
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Hillsborough County
21 Elm Street in Milford
Aliases:
Fletcher Paint on Elm Street
Fletcher Storage Facility on Mill Street
This 2-acre site consists of two neighboring lots owned by Fletcher's Paint Works: a
plant on Elm Street and a storage area 700 feet south on Mill Street. Fletcher's has
manufactured and sold paints and stains for residential use at its plant since 1949. Bulk
paint pigments are stored at the warehouse. The owner is storing several hundred
drums behind the plant, and naphtha and mineral spirits are stored in unlined
underground tanks. Contaminants from the storage facility were found in a drainage
ditch on the adjoining Hampshire Paper Co. property, and this ditch was made a part of .
the site. The State inspected the facility in 1982 in response to a complaint and found
800 drums of alkyd resins and 21 drums of solvent. Leaking and open drums, as well
as stained soil were observed. EPA investigation of the site was prompted by
discovery of contamination of the adjacent Keyes municipal water supply well. Drums
were removed from the Elm Street facility, and a synthetic liner and clean fill have been
placed over the high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at the Mill Street
storage facility. The site is situated in a densely populated residential/commercial area
approximately 1/4 mile from the downtown area. Approximately 11,400 people within
3 miles obtain drinking water from public and private wells. There are three schools
within 1/2 mile of the site. The site is adjacent to and upslope from the Souhegan
River, which is used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Air contaminants consist of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Bagged
asbestos is being stored on the site and the drummed wastes are
contaminated with VOCs, base/neutral solids and liquids, and PCB liquids.
Sediments from the Souhegan River, upslope and adjacent to the site,
and surface waters contain VOC contaminants, including benzene and
toluene, as well as heavy metals including nickel and lead, and PCBs. Soil
contamination consists of VOCs, heavy metals and PCBs in on-site soils,
as well as organic solvents, barium, lead, and nickel. The plant is easily
accessible and is adjacent to a road leading to a popular recreation area.
People on or near the site could risk exposure to contaminants by
accidentally ingesting or inhaling chemicals in the air, water, soil or
sediments.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUSWASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
FLETCHER'S PA^NT WORKS
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions to control site contamination
and a single long-term remedial phase, with major attention being given to the soil and
groundwater cleanup. j
Response Action Status I
i
i
Initial Actions: The EPA mounted an emergency removal effort drt the site
in 1988. Twelve bags of asbestos were contained and sent to an |EPA
approved landfill. Soil and air samples were taken. Air monitoring1 was
conducted regularly during the cleanup activities. The EPA lined the surface o|f the
PCB-contaminated lot with a synthetic liner, covered it with 6 to 8 inches of gravel and
topped it with 1-1/2 inches of stone dust. Safe drummed materials were left b.n site,
but hazardous ones were numbered, consolidated, and packed in new containers and
sent to a federally approved landfill.
Soil and Groundwater: The EPA is conducting an intensive study of soil
and groundwater contamination at the site and will recommend cleanup
strategies. The investigation is expected to be completed in 1992i and a
final remedy selection will be made at that time.
Environmental Progress
With the cleanup actions described above, the EPA has greatly reduced the potential
for accidental soil and dust exposure at both Fletcher Paint Works locations, jllpon
completion of the soil and groundwater cleanup, contamination levels will be (reduced
to meet established health and ecological standards for the site. j
-------
HOLTON CIRCL
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD981063860
REGION I
CONGRESSIONAL DIST..01
Rockingham County
Londonderry
Site Description
Holton Circle Is a development of about 25 homes. The site has a series of residential
wells and one commercial well, known as the Town Garage well. According to tests
conducted in 1984 by the State, the wells are contaminated. The EPA and the State
have been investigating the area since 1985 and have not yet verified a source of the
contamination. The Department of Defense owned the Town Garage well, located
1,000 feet west of the Holton Circle, from the early 1940s to 1968 and operated a radio
beacon there during World War II. The EPA also investigated a small auto repair shop
about 1,000 feet south of Holton Circle. The shop uses 1 to 2 gallons of degreasing
solvents annually. The area around the site consists of mixed rural and residential
properties and is being actively developed. Approximately 7,400 people obtain drinking
water from private wells within 3 miles of Holton Circle.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater in the wells is contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including dichloroethylene and dichloroethane.
People may be exposed to these VOCs by drinking the contaminated
groundwater. The six residences with contaminated drinking water wells
have been connected to a public water supply.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on the
contamination of the groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
HOIJTi
'ON CIRCLE
Response Action Status
Groundwater: The EPA will conduct an investigation into the grbundwater
contamination at the site. The investigation will define the contaminants
and recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation is
expected to be completed in 1992. ;
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA assessed conditions and determinbd that,
besides connecting six residences with contaminated wells to the publice water supply,
no further immediate actions are required to make the Holton Circle site safej while
waiting for cleanup actions to begin. |
10
-------
KEARSARGE
METALLURGIC
CORPORATIO
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD062002001
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Caroll County . ' ' '*';' j
Conway
«i-<
Precision stainless castings were manufactured on this 9-acre site .from -T964 uhtlh"
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation went out of business in 1982. OftheQ abres^-; H|
Kearsarge owned 5; the 4 remaining acres have different ownership but are included
within the site boundaries. The wastes produced from the processes of making the
casts (casting, cleaning, finishing, and pickling) were initially disposed of on site. During
the 1970s and 1980s some of these wastes were drummed and stored oh site, A large
pile of approximately 5,600 cubic yards of solid wastes is located behind a foundry
building. This stockpile contains ceramic sand, scrap metal, rusted drums, and various
other refuse from foundry operations and extends across the Kearsarge property line.
There is an 8-foot high waste pile located behind one of two abandoned buildings that
is surrounded by a chainlink fence. The closest drinking water wells are two wells that
supply water for the municipality and a water supply well for the residential area across
the Pequawket Pond. The municipal wells are approximately 3,000 feet north of the
site and supply most of the water to the area. Pequawket Pond marks the southern
boundary of the site and is used for recreational purposes. Approximately 8,100 people
live within 3 miles of the site, and 2,700 people within 3 miles of the site use
groundwater in the area for drinking purposes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including toluene and trichloroethylene (TCE). Sediment samples taken
from Pequawket Pond indicate the presence of some heavy metals. The
soils in the woodlands area east of the site and in the drainage way area
are contaminated with low levels of VOCs, primarily trichloroethane.
Samples taken from Pequawket Pond indicate the presence of heavy
metals including chromium, copper, and nickel. VOCs were detected in
off-site surface water, primarily in the swampy area east of the site and
the catch basins. There is a potential for human exposure to VOCs and
radioactivity by inhalation and ingestion of the dusts and dirt from the site.
The radioactive source is believed to be the underlying Conway Granite, a
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
n
continued
-------
KEARSARGE METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
Threats and Contaminants Continued -
a natural source. The potential exists for exposure to contaminants from
the sediments and surface water in the swamp and drainage arjea, soils,
the waste pile, and contaminated groundwater. The town's drinking
water supply has not been shown to be contaminated;- however, the
possibility exists that the site may contribute groundwater to the
municipal wells during periods of low recharge. Residents have the
potential for exposure through contact with the contaminated sjoils and
surface water in the swamp areas east of the site and direct cqntact with
the soils in the waste pile. j
Cleanup Approach 1
The site is being cleaned up in two stages: initial actions to control site contamination
and a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site. !
Response Action Status
I
Ix" Initial Actions: The site owner arranged for the removal of 30(j) drums
and quantities of contaminated soil and for the installation of 8 ijnonitpring
_«.. wells around the site. Other actions to control the source of contamination
are scheduled for 1990. In addition, 23 monitoring and observation wells were installed
by GEI, Inc. The wells supplemented the 8 monitoring wells previously installed.
Seventeen test pits were excavated and solid waste samples were collected from
drums. Three rounds of groundwater samples were also collected. Surfacej water and
sediment samples were collected from the Pequawket Pond. j
Entire Site: One of the potentially responsible parties, GEI, lnc|,
conducted an investigation into the nature and extent of the contamination
at the site. The State of New Hampshire, under a Cooperative Agreement
with the EPA, then expanded the study and is investigating alternatives for ^he final
cleanup. ]
Site Facts: The State of New Hampshire filed a Civil Action in the Superior |Court of
Carroll County in 1983, asking for civil penalties for disposal of hazardous waste and
ordering the owner to conduct a hydrogeological study. j
Environmental Progress
The initial cleanup actions to remove contaminated drums and soil have greatly reduced
the potential of exposure to hazardous substances, making the Kearsarge area safer
while it awaits future cleanup activities. j
12
-------
KEEFE
ENVIRONMENT
SERVICES
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD092059112
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Rockingham County
Epping
The Keefe Environmental Services site, covering 7 acres in Rockingham County, was
operated as a chemical waste facility from 1978 until 1981, when the company filed for
bankruptcy. Waste storage containers that were present on site at that time included
4,100 drums, four 5,000-gallon and four 10,000-gallon aboveground storage tanks, and
a 700,000-gallon synthetically lined lagoon. Solvents, acids, caustics, heavy metals,
paint sludges, waste oils, and organic chemicals were disposed at the site. Soil and
groundwater on and off site have been contaminated. The site is located in a State- '
protected watershed with wetland areas draining to the Piscassic River. The site is
located in a semi-rural area. There are approximately 12 houses, with a population of
30 people, located along Exeter Road, south of the site. The groundwater aquifer is
used as a water supply for ten residences located nearby and is the major source of
drinking water for approximately 2,000 people within a 3-mile radius of the site. The
Town of New Market has a water supply intake on the Piscassic River 7 miles
downstream from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil at the site, and off-site surface water, are
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)-including
trichloroethane and benzene. The health threats to workers or others
nearby consist of drinking the contaminated water.or coming in direct
contact with hazardous wastes left on the site.. . , , . .
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
KEEFE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Cleanup Approach |.
The site is being cleaned up in three stages: initial actions to control site contamination
and two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the lagoon and the soil and
groundwater. I
- !
Response Action Status
j
Initial Actions: In 1981, when the site operations ceased, the EPA
declared an emergency at the site after determining that the wasjte lagoon
... was about to overflow. The EPA and the State initiated emergency actions
that included drawing down the lagoon to lessen the threat of a spill. In continuing
emergency actions during 1983 and 1984, the EPA and the State removed more than
4,000 drums, four 5,000-gallon aboveground tanks, and four 10,000-gallon abloveground
tanks of hazardous waste. i
Lagoon: The actions for cleanup of the lagoon included removal of the
contents of the lagoon for disposal off site at a regulated facility and
removal of the lagoon liner and the highly contaminated soil adjacent to the
lagoon for disposal at a regulated facility. These cleanup activities were comjpleted in
1984. ....' J
Soil and Groundwater: The cleanup activities chosen by the EPA for the
soil and groundwater include treatment by removing contaminants from the
soil with vacuum pressure, pumping the contaminated groundwater,
filtering volatile contaminants by exposing the groundwater to air, and
absorbing the airborne chemicals by carbon adsorption. Treated groundwatdr will be
discharged to a groundwater recharge area adjacent to the wetland along the site
border. The State recently completed the technical specifications and design for the
selected remedy, and cleanup activities are underway.
Site Facts: A Consent Agreement was entered into with 119 settling potentially
responsible parties in 1986. The EPA filed suit against the non-settling parties in 1989.
Environmental Progress
The cleanup actions described above are under way. The health risks and j
environmental threats posed by these hazardous materials are being eliminated as the
work progresses. Upon completion of the cleanup activities, the soil and groundwater
contamination levels at the Keefe Environmental Services site will be reduced to meet
established health standards for the site.
14
-------
MOTTOLOPIGB
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD980503361
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST; "01
Rocklngham Qounty
Off Blueberry; Hill Road in Raymond
Alias:
Raymond Hazardous Waste Site
Site Description
The 50-acre Mottolo Pig Farm site is ah abandoned pig farm located in ah undeveloped
wooded area. From 1975 to 1979, Richard Mottolo, the owner of the property, ' ;
disposed of chemical manufacturing wastes from two companies in a 1/4-acre fill area
adjacent to the.piggery buildings. During the 4-year period, over 1,600 drums and pa.ils,
of wastes, including organic compounds such as toluene, xylene, and methyl ethyl" >?;
ketone, were disposed of at the site. State studies showed that grouhdwater bQheajh
the site was contaminated and that contaminants were seeping into a brook that " "''
empties into the Exeter River. The Exeter River is a drinking water supply for the
nearby communities of Exeter, Hampton, and Stratham. An estimated 1,600 people
depend on groundwater within 3 miles of the site as a source of drinking water. There
are approximately 200 single family residences within'1 mile of'the site, with the* '
nearest residence approximately;! 50 yards from the source area.' Residential "
border the site property on three sides. ' -..
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actio'ns.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/01/85
- Filial Date: 07/0.1/87
Threats and Contaminants
Specific contaminants detected in groundwateY'ihcf'u^V^feW^W^awd-^l-
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals such as iron, manganese, arsenic,
and z.inc. Contaminated leachatefrom the site seeps into an adjacent ;
brook. A small area of on-site soils contains VOCs. Threats to human
health include drinking contaminated grdundwater/direct"corita'ct-'with or
accidental drinking of contaminated surface water, touching or ' '
accidentally ingesting contaminated soils, and inhaling -contaminated : -
dusts.
March 1990
N-PL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
, continued
-------
MOTToU> PIG FARM
Cleanup Approach
The site is being cleaned up in two stages:
phase focusing on groundwater treatment.
initial action and a long-term remedial
Response Action Status
, i
Initial Action: In 1980, under authority of the Clean Water Act, [the EPA
used emergency funds to excavate and store drums on site. From 1 981 to
_ ..................... 1 982, the EPA removed drums and pails from the site along with 1 60 tons
of contaminated soil, preventing further contamination of the soil and groundwater.
EPA actions also included limiting site access, sampling and analysis, strengthening of
berms, overpacking containers, and removing and disposing of materials. Tpe EPA
excavated observation pits to determine if surface water diversion was feasible.
i
Groundwater: The parties potentially responsible for contamination at the
site are currently conducting a study to determine the nature and extent of
the groundwater contamination at the site caused by chemical '
manufacturing wastes. The study will define the contaminants
-------
OTTATI & GOSS
KINGSTON
STEEL DRUM
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD990717647
Site Description
REGION I
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Rockingham County
Kingston
Alias:
Kingston Steel Drum/CRT Lakes Container
The Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum site, situated on 35 acres, contains a 1-acre
parcel in the.southwest portion that was leased and known as the Ottati & Goss (O&G)
site and a 6-acre Great Lakes Container Corporation (GLCC) site consisting of a
rectangular parcel bordered on the .east by Route 125. From the late 1950s through
1967, Conway Barrel & Drum Company (CBD) owned the site and performed drum
reconditioning operations on the parcel of land later owned by the Great Lakes
Container Corporation. The reconditioning operations included caustic rinsing of drums
and disposal of the rinse water in a dry well near South Brook. Kingston Steel Drum,
the operator of the facility from 1967, continued the same operations as GLCC through
1973. South Brook and Country Pond became polluted, so CBD established leaching
pits in an area removed from South Brook. The State's Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission reported on-site runoff and seepage from the leaching pits
draining into South Brook and eventually into Country Pond, where fish kills occurred.
Vegetation along South Brook died and swimmers experienced skin irritation. In 1973,
International Mineral & Chemical Corporation (IMC), purchased the drum and
reconditioning plant and operated it until 1976. In 1978, heavy sludges from the wash
tank and from drainings, as well as residues from incinerator operations, were brought
to the O&G site for processing. After O&G operations ceased in 1979, the New
Hampshire Bureau of Solid Waste Management ordered the owners and operators not
to restart operations and to remove approximately 4,370 drums that were at various
stages of deterioration and were spilling organic compounds onto the ground.
Approximately 450 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site. Most of these
residents rely on bedrock wells for their water supply. An estimated 4,500 people live
within 3 miles of the site. A marshy area lies downslope of the site. The Powwow
River and Country Pond, located nearby, are used for swimming and fishing.
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
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued-
-------
OTTATI & GOSS/KINGSTON ftTEEL DRUM
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water,, and soils are contaminated wjith volatile:.
organic compounds (VOCs). The on-site soil also contains polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), metals, and. acids and base/neutral compounds.
Sampling conducted in 1989 indicated no current public threat pvas likely
at the site; however, there is a potential for future threat due to
contaminated groundwater off site. The overburden and bedrock aquifers
are contaminated, but residential water supply wells show no
contamination. Some PCBs have migrated Into South Brook; however, no
PCBs have been detected in the marsh or Country Pdhd waterjor -''- r 1
sediments. Adjacent marshland is'considered.an-environmentairy ; ; ,-
sensitive area and could potentially become contaminated. |
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in five phases, an initial action and four long-term remedial
phases concentrating on soil excavation, groundwater cleanup at two separate areas
and soil cleanup.
i
Response Action Status I
Initial Action: Beginning in 1980, several actions were taken: t(ie site was
secured by fencing, leaking drums were packed and removed, arjid
.-, contaminated soils and debris were removed. About 12,800 tons of soil,
drums, and metals were removed, plus 101,700 tons of flammable sludge, 6,000 cubic
yards of flammable liquid, and other materials. I
i
Soil Excavation: Based on the results of the site investigation Conducted
by the EPA, the selected remedy was to excavate and treat the i
., contaminated soil. The parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination excavated 5,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and sediments, which
were incinerated. An additional 14,000 cubic yards of soil were excavated and treated
using low temperature thermal stripping. The remedial action was completed in the fall
of 1989. !
I
Kingston Steel Groundwater Treatment: Extraction and treatjment of
contaminated groundwater, with eventual discharge of treated I
groundwater, is planned for the remediation of the groundwater|on the site.
One of the potentially responsible parties is currently designing 1jhe
groundwater extraction and treatment system. j
i
Ottati & Goss Groundwater Remediation: Based on the results of the
site investigation, the EPA has selected extraction and treatmenjt of
contaminated groundwater with the eventual discharge of treated
groundwater on the site. This phase of the site cleanup is pend ng final
review and approval. i
Kingston Steel Soil Remediation: The EPA-selected cleanup jat the
Kingston Steel area and the remainder of the site is similar to sqil
s?Ksx£ excavations and cleanups previously performed at the site. '
$SB;=;SI
continued
18
-------
OTTATI &: GOSS/KINGSTON STEEL DRUM
Site Facts: The Justice Department, on behalf of the EPA, brought a civil action suit'.
against several potentially responsible parties in 1980! The court found the defendants!
liable for contamination on and off site. The EPA settled with a group of potentially
responsible parties during the trial and they, under a Consent Decree, have completed
the soil remedy on the Ottati & Goss portion of the site. . :'
Environmental Progress
The EPA has determined that the removal of contaminated soils and sediments has
reduced the potential.for exposure to contamination at the Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel
Drum site. These completed actions and other site cleanups will continue to reduce '
site contamination levels, making the site safer as it approaches final cleanup.
19
-------
PEASE AIR FOR
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NH7570024847
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Rockingham County
Portsmouth, Newingtpn, and Greenland
The Pease Air Force Base site has maintained aircraft since the 1950s on a 4,365-acre
parcel of land. A 1986 Air Force study identified 18 waste disposal areas on] the base,
13 of which received hazardous wastes including organic solvents, pesticides, paint
strippers, and other industrial wastes. Of these disposal areas, 7 were used as landfills,
2 were areas where waste oil and solvents were burned for firefighting exercises, and
4 were areas where solvents and other liquid wastes were discharged. Thej.status of
additional possible disposal areas is under study. All hazardous wastes generated on
the base now are disposed of off site at EPA-regulated facilities. In 1977, a well
supplying drinking water to 8,700 people on the base was found to be contaminated
and was closed. In 1984, the Air Force installed an aeration system to remove
contaminants from all water supply wells. Surface water and sediments are,
contaminated by runoff from one of the-landfills. An estimated 30,000 people obtain
drinking water from public and private wells that are within 3 miles of hazardous
substances on the base. Shellfish are harvested from Great Bay and Little Bay, which
are within 3 miles downstream of the base. The bays also are used for recreational
activities. Because the bays and Piscataqua River are connected to the Atlantic Ocean,
tides can move any contamination into the ocean. The base abuts Great Ba/, which is
a tidal estuary. Both coastal and freshwater wetlands are along surface water migration
pathways from the disposal areas.
Site Responsibility: Tnis site is bein9 addressed through
Federal actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
, Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 02/21/90
The groundwater is contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCEJ.
Sediments of three drainage ditches are contaminated with heavy metals
including lead and zinc. The soil is contaminated with organic solvents
and fuel oils. Surface water runoff from one landfill is contaminated with
heptachlor and lindane. People who live on the base may be threatened
by accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater, surface Water,
sediments, or soil. Some disposal areas on the base are not ienced,
making it possible for people and animals to come into direct contact with
hazardous substances. In addition, eating contaminated fish or waterfowl
poses a health threat. A nearby estuary and coastal freshwatpr wetlands
could be affected by contamination. Potential threats also exist for the
bald eagles that nest in the area. !
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
20
continued
-------
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of
the landfills, fire training areas, and spill sites.
Response Action Status
Landfills: The Air Force is conducting an investigation into the
contamination of several landfills at the site. The investigation, started in
1989, will define the contaminants and will recommend alternatives for the
Fire Training Areas: The Air Force also started an investigation in 1989
into the contamination of the two fire training areas. The investigation will
define the contaminants at these areas and will recommend alternatives for
the final cleanup.
Spill Sites: The Air Force is planning to conduct an investigation into
contamination of the spill sites. The investigation, planned to start in 1991,
will define the contaminants at the site-and will recommend alternatives for
the final cleanup.
Site Facts: The EPA issued a special notice letterlo the Air Force in 1989 to initiate an
Interagency Agreement negotiation among the EPA, the Air Force, and the State of
New Hampshire. Pease Air Force Base is participating in the Installation Restoration
Program (IRP). The base holds a permit as a hazardous waste generator and storage
facility and is allowed to discharge treated wastewater into the Piscataqua River. The
Air Force plans to close the base; plans for future use of the property are under
discussion.
EnvironmentalProgress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA, in cooperation with the Air Force and the
State of New Hampshire, assessed conditions at the site and determined that there
were no immediate actions required to make it safe while waiting for cleanup actions to
begin.
21
-------
SAVAGE MUNI
WATER SUPPL
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD980671002
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Hillsborougli County
2 miles west |>f Milford
[
Alias!:
Milford Well and! Trailer Park
Site Description
The Savage Municipal Water Supply site covers about 30 acres west of the cienter of
Milford and consists of a municipal well and the underlying aquifer, the water-bearing
layer of rock and gravel from which the Town of Milford gets its water. The Savage
Municipal Well operated from 1960 to 1983, during which time it supplied 4CJ% to 45%
of Milford's water. The remainder of the water came from the Keyes and Ko|kko Wells.
During Savage's years of operation, several metal industries opened plants near the
well, along the Souhegan River. Investigations at the site began in 1983, as part of a
statewide water sampling program. Sampling detected contamination, and tjhe well
was closed. Following the closing of the well, the State began investigation^ to locate
the source of contaminants, which also were present in water samples takeiji at, nearby
industries. The land surrounding the Savage Well is planted with feed corn iptended for
silage. A stream that receives discharge from two industries, Hendrix Wire and Cable
and Hitchner Manufacturing, flows through the farmland prior to discharging [to the
Souhegan River. Hitchner manufacturing has purchased the well from the Town of
Milford.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HJSTORY
Proposed Date: J09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), including trichloroethylene (TCE) and vinyl chloride ancj heavy
metals, including lead, chromium, and mercury. The soil is contaminated
with VOCs. The stream on site is contaminated with VOCs and lead.
Trespassers who accidentally touch, drink, or ingest contaminated
groundwater, surface water, or soil are potentially at risk.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
22
i continued
-------
SAVAGE MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase to investigate the extent of contamination and to determine cleanup alternatives.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the EPA provided bottled water to the 75 ; ,
residents of Milford Mobile Home Park affected by contaminated well
water and then connected the park to the municipal water supply. -."
Investigation: The parties potentially responsible for the site ": ;
contamination are currently conducting an investigation into the nature and
extent of the contamination at the site. The investigation will define the ,.,..
contaminants of concern and will recommend effective alternatives for the*/-
final cleanup. The investigation is planned to be completed in 1991. ' :W
Site Facts: In 1987, the EPA and the parties potentially responsible for the , ,
contamination of the site signed a Consent Orderto conduct an investigation at the '
site.
The provision of an alternate drinking water source has reduced the potential for
exposure to hazardous materials at the Savage Municipal Water site while the
investigation is completed and cleanup activities begin.
23
-------
SOMERSWORT
SANITARY LAN
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD980520225
I
RJEGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Strafford County
Blackwater| Road
Site Description
The Somersworth Sanitary Landfill is located on 26 acres of land approximately
1 mile southwest of downtown Somersworth. The City operated a disposal site on the
property from the mid-1930s until 1981. Originally, the town burned residential,
commercial, and industrial wastes at the site. In 1958, the dump was converted to a
landfill. Unknown quantities of sludges, solvents, acids, dyes, metals, laboratory or
pharmaceutical wastes, and potash were disposed of at this site. Four grouqdwater
monitoring wells installed as part of site closure plan activities indicated that yolatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and inorganic contaminants were present. The landfill is
located in a predominantly residential area of Somersworth. Forest Glade Papc, which
was reclaimed as a recreational park in 1978, sits atop the easternmost 10 acres of the
site. An apartment building for elderly residents, a fire station, and a National Guard
Armory abut the property to the east, and an elementary school is located
approximately 2,300 feet northeast. Approximately 11,000 people live in Somersworth.
The former Somersworth Municipal Supply Well #3 is located approximately 2,300 feet
from the landfill. This well was closed in 1984 and is being dismantled becadise of
historically high levels of iron and manganese. Prior to 1984, it supplied apprpximately
10% of the town's total water supply and was used during peak periods. Most of the
residences in the area obtain drinking water from the Somersworth municipal supply
system; however, there are at least seven private wells in the area. Peter's Marsh
Brook, located adjacent to the western edge of the landfill, is a tributary of Tate's
Brook, which, in turn, is a tributary of the Salmon Falls River. Both the City o|f
Somersworth and the City of Berwick, Maine withdraw water from the river for their
drinking water supplies. Water intakes are located approximately 1 1/2 miles from the
landfill.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
I
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
24
continued
-------
SOMERSWORTH SANITARY LANDFILL
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with VOCs. Sediments are
contaminated with xylenes and heavy metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead. The on-site soil is contaminated with VOCs,
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals. Peter's Marsh
Brook and Tate's Brook have been shown to contain VOCs and heavy
metals including arsenic and mercury. There are no barriers restricting
access to the landfill from the park. Peter's Marsh Brook is considered to
be the primary receptor of groundwater contamination. If private water
supply wells were installed or reopened in this area or near Peter's Marsh
Brook, long-term exposure to contaminated drinking water would pose
health risks.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase to investigate the
extent of contamination and select cleanup alternatives.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
are currently conducting an investigation into the nature and extent of
contamination at the site. The investigation will define the contaminants of
concern and will evaluate alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation is planned
to be .completed in 1991.
Site Facts: The EPA entered into a Consent Agreement requiring the parties
potentially responsible for contamination at the site to conduct a study of site
contamination. The settling parties have agreed to pay past State and Federal costs for
the site and oversight costs, as well!
Environmental Progress
Following listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA has determined that the site
contamination presently does not pose an immediate threat to public health or the
environment. Currently no actions are needed to make the site safer while waiting for
final cleanup actions to begin.
A
25
-------
SOUTH MUNIC
WATER SUPPL
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD980671069
Site Description
I
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Hillsborougp County
Sharon Road, 2 miles s^uth of Peterborough
The South Municipal Water Supply site covers 250 acres in a rural portion of the
Contoocook River Valley. The well was installed in 1952 and provided watei^ to the
Town of Peterborough for nearly 30 years. The South Municipal Water Supply Well
served approximately 4,600 people. In 1982, the State conducted a routine sampling of
the water supply and found contaminants in the South Well, at which time the well was
shut down. The source of this contamination was thought to be the New Hampshire
Ball Bearings (NHBB) facility, located 1,200 feet west of the well, which has!
manufactured precision ball bearings at the site since 1946. In 1955, the cofnpany
purchased the 24 acres it now occupies. Major source areas include discharges from
three drainage outfalls, an inactive leachfield, and drainage from a tank truck! used to
haul waste from the facility. Floor drains in the plant were sealed in 1983. A brook 200
feet from the plant drains into a wetland area and Noone Pond before emptying into the
Contoocook River. Discharges to the leachfield and sump ceased in 1972 v\|ith the
connection of the town sewer line. Periodic on-site dumping of a 275-gallor] tank truck
containing waste solvents ceased in the late 1970s. The population of the Town of
Peterborough is over 5,000. Less than 100 single family residences are locc
1 mile of NHBB, and the nearest private residence is located approximately
from the facility.
ted within
1,000 feet
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 109/01/83
Final Date: 0^/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soils, and surface water are contaminated vjith volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including chloroform, benzene, and toluene.
Sediments are also contaminated with VOCs and polychlorinaied
biphenyls (PCBs). People who accidentally eat, drink, or touchj
contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments may be at
risk. Included within the site area is the Contoocook River/ NOjOne Pond
system and a wetlands area that could be at risk from contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
26
continued
-------
SOUTH MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY WELL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on
contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The investigation to determine the nature and extent of
contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup was completed by
New Hampshire Ball Bearings and the final decision on the method to be
used to clean up the site was reached in 1989. The methods of site
cleanup selected by the EPA include: constructing a groundwater pump
and treatment system, vacuum extraction for small areas of soils contaminated with
VOCs, and excavation with off-site disposal for sediments contaminated with PCBs.
Site Facts: The EPA and New Hampshire Ball Bearings signed a Consent Order in
1989 in which the company agreed to conduct a study of the contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
The EPA has conducted studies of the conditions at the South Municipal Water Supply
site and has determined that there are currently no immediate actions needed to make
the site safer while waiting for the selected cleanup actions to begin.
A
27
-------
SYLVESTER SI
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD099363541
i
REGI
CONGRESSIO
Hillsborou;
Nashua
N 1
[ALDIST.-02
County
Alias:
Gilson Road Site
Site Description
The 6-acre Sylvester hazardous waste dump site was used as a sand borroyvpitior an
undetermined number of years. During the late 1960s, after much of the sand had
been removed from the property, the operator of the pit began an unapproved and
illegal waste disposal operation, apparently intending to fill the excavation. Household
refuse, demolition materials, chemical sludges, and hazardous liquid chemicals were
dumped at the site. The household refuse and demolition materials were ijsually
buried, while the hazardous liquids were allowed to percolate into the ground adjacent
to the old sand pit or were stored in steel drums that were placed on the gijound. The
illegal solid waste activity at the site was first discovered in late 1970. The [first
indication that hazardous wastes were also being dumped occurred in 1978 when State
personnel observed drums being stored at the site. A court order was issued in 1979
prohibiting all further disposal of hazardous wastes on the site. The site is in a
residential area, with approximately 1,000 people living in an adjoining mob le home
park, and there are five private water wells within 1/4 mile of the site. The site is 680
feet from Lyle Reed Brook, which flows through the trailer park and enters jthe Nashua
River, a source of drinking water. The Merrimack River is 11 miles downstream and is
also a source of drinking water.
is
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING JHISTORY
Proposed Date[ 12/30/82
Final Date: d>9/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Approximately 900,000 gallons of hazardous wastes were discharged to
leachfields on site in 1979, contaminating hundreds of thousands of
gallons of groundwater. The groundwater is contaminated wjith heavy
metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs}. Lyle Reed Bi,ook also is
contaminated with VOCs and metals. The main health threat associated
with the site is drinking or direct contact with contaminants iifi the
groundwater and surface water. Groundwater is not currentlj/ used since
all residents are connected to a separate municipal supply. Qontaminants
may leach into the bedrock aquifer, however, capping the site has greatly
reduced the likelihood of continued contamination of the surface water.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
28
continued
-------
SYLVESTER SITE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two completed
long-term remedial phases to cap the site and to extract and treat the groundwater.
Response Action Status
immediate Actions: In 1979, the State removed 1,000 drums from the
site. In early 1980, the EPA constructed a fence around the dumping area
and removed 1,314 accessible surface drums. The groundwater
contaminant plume movement was monitored and an access road built. Between 1981
and 1982, the EPA installed a groundwater interception and recirculation system to
temporarily pump and recirculate the contaminated groundwater to prevent it from
reaching Lyle Brook and from further contaminating the aquifer.
Capping: The State constructed a slurry wall surrounding a 20-acre area
and built an impervious membrane cap to prevent any further contamination
of on-site groundwater.
Groundwater Treatment: A 300-gallon-per-minute groundwater treatment
facility was constructed to remove toxic substances in the groundwater.
The treatment process consists of a combination of physical, chemical, and
biological treatments. The process involves pumping the groundwater from within the
slurry wall containment area and then exposing it to air to remove contaminants. A
review of the effectiveness of the treatment is currently being evaluated by the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
Site Facts: Several Consent Decrees were entered into by the EPA, the State, and
numerous potentially responsible parties to provide for reimbursement of past costs
and the undertaking of cleanup designs and actions at two of the three other sites
involved.
Environmental Progress
The removal, fencing, capping, and groundwater containment activities described
above have greatly reduced the risk of exposure to hazardous materials at the Sylvester
site. Cleanup actions at the Sylvester site have reduced contamination levels; the
evaluation conducted by the State will determine whether further actions are needed.
29
-------
TIBBETTS RO
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD989090469
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Strafford \ County
Barririgton
Site Description
The Tibbetts Road Site occupies approximately 2 acres. The site was used jfor storing
drums collected from 1946 to 1958. Many of the drums were leaking and rjusted and
contained thinners, solvents, antifreeze, kerosene, motor and transmission joil,
polychlon'nated biphenyls (RGBs), grease, and brake fluid. The EPA removed all the
deteriorating drums in 1984. Approximately 2,100 people living within 3 miles of the
site depend on groundwater for drinking water. The New Hampshire Watef Supply and
Pollution Control Commission found'drinking water wells serving approximately 20
people to be contaminated. The site is situated in a residential area upgradlentfrom a
lake used for recreational purposes. I
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
IMPL LISTING hjISTORY
Proposed Date: J04/10/85
Final Date: 07/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soils are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), including benzene, trichloroethylene (TCE), toluene,
and xylenes, according to tests.conducted by the New Hampshire Water
Supply and Pollution Control Commission. People who accidentally ingest
contaminated groundwater or soil are at potential risk. I
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions to limit the spread of
contamination and a long-term remedial phase to investigate the extent off soil and
groundwater contamination and cleanup alternatives.
1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
30
continued
-------
TIBBETTS ROAD
Response Action Status
immediate Actions: In 1984, the EPA removed 350 deteriorated and
leaking drums stored within 50 yards of private residences and disposed of
them at an approved disposal site. Residents were temporarily relocated
while the drums were being removed. During the summer of 1985, the EPA and the
State conducted an investigation to determine if any additional materiajs needed to be
removed from the site. Low levels of dioxin were detected in the soil and VOCs in the
drinking water. The EPA and the State began a joint soil removal effort. Between 1985
and the summer of 1988, PCB- and dioxin-contaminated soil was incinerated and the
solvent-contaminated soil was excavated and disposed of by the State. A water supply >
system was constructed to provide drinking water to the 26 families with contaminated
wells. '.. '..'''
Soil and Groundwater: An investigation is currently being conducted by
the EPA to determine the extent of soil and groundwater contamination
remaining at the site and alternative technologies for cleanup. This
investigation is scheduled to be completed in early 1992. -
Environmental Progress
The removal of the drums and soil from the Tibbetts Road site and the provision of a
new water supply have reduced the potential for exposure to contamination. These
actions help to protect the public health and the environment while the site awaits
further cleanup action.
31
-------
TINKHAM'S G
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD062004569
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Rockingham County
Londo:ideriy
Site Description
The Tinkham's Garage site covers about 375 acres in Londonderry. Duringi 1978 and
1979, oil, oily wastes, washings from septic tank trucks, and other substances were
discharged at the site. In 1978, residents complained of foam and odors in| a small
unnamed brook, which then prompted an investigation revealing that improper waste
disposal had occurred. The State ordered the site owner to prevent further degradation
of surface water and groundwater. In early 1983, wells of the Londonderry Green
Apartment complex and several other private wells were closed due to contamination,
and residents were provided with municipal water. The open and wooded Jand that
comprises the majority of the site is bordered by residential and agricultural land.
Approximately 400 people reside within a condominium complex on the western
boundary of the site. Additional residences include private, one-family homes within
site boundaries to the north. I
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING IHISTORY
Proposed Datej 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants j
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were identified in the surface water
and groundwater on site and in areas adjacent to the site. Trje soils
located in the field behind Tinkham's Garage and in some condominium-
complex leachfields have also been shown to contain VOC contamination.
A potential threat to residential wells adjacent to the site may exist if the
contaminated groundwater continues to be used as a water Source. The
contaminated area in the field behind the garage poses a threat if people
accidentally eat, drink, or come in direct contact with the soil^, surface
water, or groundwater. I
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
32
continued
-------
TINKHAM'S GARAGE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase to conduct a study of cleanup alternatives.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The State issued a health order in early 1983, advising
residents not to drink well water. Bottled water was provided, and a
municipal water supply line was installed and operational by the fall of 1983.
\ Entire Site: In 1987, the EPA entered into an agreement with 23 of the
W parties potentially responsible for the site contamination to conduct a study
before the cleanup technologies were designed. The following three areas
of contamination were identified as needing attention: the soil in the
garage area; the groundwater in the general area of the garage and the condominium
complex; and a soil pile that contains soil removed during earlier excavations of
leachfield soils. The remedies selected include: (1) excavation of approximately 10,800
cubic yards of contaminated soils behind Tinkham's Garage; (2) field work and analytical
modeling to determine the need for removal of additional potentially contaminated soils
in the condominium complex; (3) on-site treatment of contaminated soils by vacuum
extraction; (4) regrading and revegetation of excavated source areas after treated soils
have been returned to their original locations; (5) reconstruction of any removed
leachfields; restoration of wetlands where contaminated soils are excavated; (6)
extraction and off-site treatment of contaminated groundwater at the Town of Derry's
wastewater treatment works, which may require off-site pretreatment; and (7)
groundwater monitoring on and off site. The work is to begin in 1990 and is scheduled
for completion in 1991.
Site Facts: The potentially responsible parties, under a Consent Decree, have agreed
to undertake1 the cleanup design and activities at the site. This site is closely associated
with the Sylvester's, Plymouth Harbor, and Cannon Engineering NPL sites.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate drinking water source has reduced the potential for
exposure to contamination at the Tinkham's Garage site, and has protected the public
health while it awaits planned cleanup activities.
33
-------
-------
"*
his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
fact sheets for the State of New Hampshire. The terms
. , , and abbreviations contained in this glossary are often
defined in the context of hazardous waste management as de-
scribed in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work per-
formed under the Superfund program. Therefore, these terms
may have other meanings when used in a different context.
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH (less than
7.0) that are used in chemical manufacturing. Acids in
high concentration can be very corrosive and react with
many inorganic and organic substances. These reactions
may possibly create toxic compounds or release heavy
metal contaminants that remain in the environment long
after the acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforceable agreement between EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of the
Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforcement options
that the government may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially respon-
sible parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the government; it does not require
approval by a judge.
Aeration: A process that promotes breakdown of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air stream. The air may be further treated before :
it is released into the atmosphere.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called groundwater
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH (greater than 7.0), which tend to be corro- :
sive in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed with acids, they neutralize each other,!
forming salts. -'..
G-l
-------
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth used to prevent the migration of opntami-
nants.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil, sand, or gravel has been dug up f^r use
elsewhere. j
Cap: A layer of material, such as day or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the pap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off. J
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]. j
Closure: The process by which a landfill stops accepting wastes and is shut jdown
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 partiesjare re-
quired to perform and/or the costs incurred by the government that the parjdes will
reimburse, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options tha^t 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 clejanup ac-
tions, it must be in the form of a consent decree. A consent decree is subjectlto a public
comment period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent]. |
Cooperative Agreement: A contract between EPA and the states wherein ajState agrees
to manage or monitor certain site cleanup responsibilities and other activities on a cost-
sharing basis. |
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserving operations and produced by distillation
of tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatijc hydrocar-
bons [see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating sediments, soils, and surface wjater, creo-
sotes may cause skin ulcerations and cancer'with prolonged exposure. j
I ;
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes, soils, or chemicals, usually using! solvents.
Downslope: [see Downgradient].
G-2
-------
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.
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
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.
Intake: The source where a water supply is drawn from, such as from a river or water-
bed.
Interagency Agreement: A written agreement between EPA and a Federal agency that
has the lead for site cleanup activities (e.g. the Department of Defense), that sets forth
the roles and responsibilities of the agencies for performing and overseeing the activi-
ties. States are often parties to interagency agreements.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.L]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Neutrals: Organic compounds that have a relatively neutral pH, complex structure
and, due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed into the environment. Naphthalene,
pyrene, and trichlorobenzene are examples of neutrals.
G-3
-------
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 lat a site or
initiate enforcement actions against potentially responsible parties, although EPA may
undertake certain investigatory and planning activities. The 60-day period rnay be
extended if EPA receives a good faith offer [see Good Faith Offer] within th^t period.
I . -
Outfall: The place where wastewater is discharged into receiving waters. |
Overpacking: Process used for isolating large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or leakage of contaminating materials. Leak-
ing drums may be contained within oversized barrels as an interim measur^ prior to
removal and final disposal. |
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering of water or other liquids through subsur-
face rock or soil layers, usually continuing downward to groundwater.
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. j
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater flowing from a specific source. The
movement of the groundwater is influenced by such factors as local groundjwater flow
patterns, the character of the aquifer in which groundwater is contained, anld the den-
sity of contaminants, j
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs,
such as pyrene, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found injmotor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and can cause cancer. i
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a ^ariely of
purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesive!;, 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. Burningjthem pro-
duces even more toxins. Chronic exposure to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
is also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act. |
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for
-------
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 radionudides which, when ingested, can also cause
cancer. Radiation also occurs naturally through the breakdown of granite stones.
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.
Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in the ground used for storage of liquids, usually
in the form of leachate, from waste disposal areas. The liquid gradually leaves the pit
by moving through the surrounding soil.
Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank after the treatment process.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by digging a trench around a contaminated
area and filling the trench with an impermeable material that prevents water from
passing through it. The groundwater or contaminated liquids trapped within the area
surrounded by the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile contaminants from a substance [see Air
Stripping]. ,
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid runoff for drainage or disposal.
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.
G-5
-------
""-"". \
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 Comjpounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent}.
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. ' - !
Upslope: Upstream; often used relative to groundwater [see Upgradient]. |
i
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 f jor 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
------- |