EPA/540/4-90/039
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Rhode Island
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, Supeifwid: 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
^SUv;. ^ X - \^ *.. ^ -.^
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
^ s the 1970s came to a
" close, a series of head-
line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly
known as the Superfund
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
groundwater (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites 6n the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
111
-------
lively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites/ but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory/ and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
not on the NPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response, to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half
have had construction
cleanup activity. La addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies like
those designed to clean up
groundwater must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
IV
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe
what the problems are, what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear about
both environmental progress
across the country and the
cleanup accomplishments
closer to home. The public
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make as a
Nation in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program^ 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.
-------
vi
-------
X\ he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
,; 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
STEP 3
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
' Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
vii
-------
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens people may notice an odd
lazardotxs waste T * ^ taste or foul odor m their drmkmg water, or see half-buried
^ ***. - sk \^i|^x-l leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
**s was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
. v j VTfXf- SB.X O ^V% N
v s^-5" <\^
1 *"; \ \ " % \^t ^V^-l
Is
s*1*; (^-s.\\\^.
r^-^ ^--'^P^^
t :^5 ^ '' >^*^ - \ * ^
vs=S o ^ w.X s "5
' 4 \ -r, A*K f, .v|
,« s- s »>. > ^-\- *\vs». « >V|
^
if there isn't an
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now if s time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
viii
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
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.
>
% =. v v *".
'that 4 setidfis. Hamt^^^
. mag e^ist; whales lie1
%^x-v.v f ^ ^"^f^tyss^tf.
ix
-------
StfflfflBfflfi
rv-f^ «r?c^
S}rl <.
1 f»
-H , " ^"t jss
rfs sv v "*.V\^J
*»'
i'-\K-'v<^.'i-.X
9
IF
t
s
fc
r
s ,4SV if <
tow do people flnllf 1
^ * * -ll-A'i^> % ? v
a site a ^XN I
trleanup using"""" ^vlN-!
_ ^ ft , _ '^ K--.M*X, rv.-'^x*
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). That's why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
SUPERFUND
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 identifyand 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
arid 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.
' tJhfi itas to c
" > ** <^ %
*<&
»,X lS
s^
'*.'
"< .' -V.
-^ -
^x
t;
% %%%^.%%A^.^ /
*$
"" ,*W*
?'': '' <
^, :
'/V*
"-'"^ >--?
XI
-------
SUPERFUND
How are cleanup
1 UV 1 V f> t&J-fll. ?^
I>oes the public haw !
a say mthe $«*& ^>- J
cleanup decision? , \
f *!vs<
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent site investiga-
tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
ronmental risks.
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility
study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their use of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to clean up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
xii
-------
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice, are
published in a report for public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
frequently are large and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it must be
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
v ^v '>,
% wAssvy^.«.
E the
-
to
$-*r "j- f
frr
xiii
-------
StFPERFUND
complete, how lo»g
does it taketo
actually ckatt up the
site and tiow much
does it cost?
& ">
Once the
actiott is complete, is
the site automatically
"deleted"
U-
> site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
f regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup called the
remedial action are as varied as1 the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
If s not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And if s not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
s "'" .v .
SUPERFUND
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.
CootW
XV
fU ' v^. ' v, s ' <. ^""\ ^^
.', ' jv^K' '""-:;, ^,
'Wiw»Xv». ' ^ < r ' % """ > '^ .. _^
V :-,, V"" " - "- """'-' , -^
Z SSf ... f .f . ^ " %. \J
-------
TAX
-------
HOW TO:
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
^-initial Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site or part
of the site - are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
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
CountjrName
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOOO
Site Description
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
J. ^ fff
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
xviii
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats and Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
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
finaj cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
Site Facts
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
XIX
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
State of Rhode Isla
.
Rhode Island is the smallest state in the United States, covering 1,212 square miles.
Bordered by Massachusetts to the north and east, Connecticut to the west and the
Atlantic Ocean to the south, Rhode Island's topography changes from the eastern
lowlands of the Narragansett Basin to the western uplands of flat and rolling hills. The
State experienced a 4,8 percent increase in population through the 1980s and currently
has approximately 993,000 residents, ranking 43rd in U.S. populations. Rhode Island's
principal industries are service industries, and the manufacture of costume jewelry,
machinery, textiles, electronics, and silverware.
How Many Rhode Island Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
11
Q
11
Cong. District 01
Cong. District 02
6 sites
5 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), and gases.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and heavy metals (inorganics).
Soil: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), heavy metals (inorganics),
and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PBC's).
GW SW Soil Seds Air
Contamination Area
Air: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), pesticides, and gases.
'Appear at 20% or more sites
State Overview
xxi
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superf und Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy .
Selected
Remedy
' Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 4 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Rhode Island, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental
progress. Should you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Rhode Island Superfund Office
EPA Region I Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region I Superfund Public
Relations Office
(401)277-2797
(617)573-9645
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(617)565-3417
State Overview
-------
The NPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow (*) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
*- An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
«* An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
*- An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
* An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
«* An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
«* A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities ancf progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
xxiii
-------
JL JLV/4
Page
1
3
5
7
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
5*^93 Al/WCUU VxA^aAAUp «*t.
She Name
CENTRAL LANDFILL
DAVIS (GSR) LANDFILL
DAVIS LIQUID WASTE
DAVISVILLE NAVAL CONST. BATTALION
LANDFILL & RESOURCE RECOVERY, INC.
NEWPORT NAVAL EDUC./TRAINING
PETERSON/PURITAN, INC.
PICILLO FARM
ROSE HILL REGIONAL LANDFILL
STAMINA MILLS, INC.
WESTERN SAND & GRAVEL
J.YJTJU V7ALG9
County
PROVIDENCE
PROVIDENCE
PROVIDENCE
WASHINGTON
PROVIDENCE
NEWPORT
PROVIDENCE
KENT
WASHINGTON
PROVIDENCE
PROVIDENCE
JLU bU
NPL
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
,*Z V7LO.I.*; VA JCVUUUC iaittJAU
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
06/01/86 "K
06/01/86 *-
09/08/83 *" "^ "^ «*- "K
11/15/89 "^
09/01/83 + "*"
11/15/89 I*"
09/01/83 *-
09/01/83 "* "K ^- "^ «^-
10/04/89 «^
09/01/83 * «^
09/01/83 "^ *" 4- "^ «^-
-------
-------
-------
CENTRAL
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID# RID980520183
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Providence County-
Johnston
Aliases:
Rhode Island Central Landfill
Silvestri Bros. Landfill
Johnston Site
Site Description
The Central Landfill site covers approximately 155 acres of a 600-acre tract in Johnston.
Licensed by Rhode Island and supported by State funds, this active municipal landfill
receives approximately 85% of Rhode Island's solid waste. State records indicate that
1 1/2 million gallons of hazardous wastes generated within the State were disposed of
at the site in 1978 and 1979. In 1982, the owner complied with a State order to close
the areas that had received hazardous wastes. These areas have been excavated,
backfilled, and capped to prevent further contamination of the groundwater and surface
water, and revegetated as part of the closure plan. Approximately 4,000 people live
within 3 miles of the site. The nearest home is 1/2 mile away. Nearby private wells
downgradienttrom the site are contaminated with solvents. The bedrock aquifer may
be contaminated and the adjacent wetlands may also be affected. Cedar Swamp
Brook, used for recreational boating, flows southeast along the southwest perimeter of
the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and surface water are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), including toluene and methylene chloride from
disposal of solvents. People who come in direct contact with or drink
water from nearby wells are under potential health risk, because the
groundwater is reported to contain elevated lead levels. Cedar Swamp
Brook and adjacent wetlands may also contain contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
CENTRAL LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, the owner began a study to determine the extent and
nature of groundwater, soil, and sediment contamination on the site and to
evaluate alternatives for cleanup. Groundwater monitoring and sampling
wells have been completed. The EPA expects to evaluate study findings and select a
cleanup remedy in early 1992. At that point, the EPA will outline the owner's
responsibilities for cleaning up the site.
Site Facts: The owner of the landfill entered into a Consent Order with the EPA,
signed in 1987, to conduct a study of the contamination conditions at the site.
Environmental Progress
Following the listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA has determined that the public and
environment are not at immediate risk from site contamination. The site is safe while
studies at the Central Landfill are being conducted and the final cleanup alternatives are
being addressed.
-------
DAVIS (GSR)
LANDFILL
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID# RID980731459
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Providence County
Glocester/Smithfield
The Davis (GSR) Landfill is a 58-acre inactive landfill located in Glocester and opposite
the Davis Liquid Waste Site in Smithfield, which was placed on the NPL in 1983.
Between 1974 and 1976, the landfill, which was privately owned and licensed by the
State to accept municipal wastes, accepted such wastes from Glocester, Smithfield,
Warwick, and Providence. In 1978, the State declined to renew the permit because the
facility, during the previous year, had violated numerous rules and regulations for
operating solid waste management facilities. Numerous legal actions to close the site
ensued, and the State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State in 1982, at which time
the site was closed, but it was not properly capped or stabilized. The State found both
surface water and groundwater contamination on site, and the EPA confirmed off-site
contamination. No municipal water supplies are readily available. Fifteen people live
within 1,000 feet of the site. Approximately 200 residents who utilize private water
wells live within a 1-mile radius, and within a 3-mile radius there are approximately
4,700 people using private wells. The State believes that contaminated groundwater is
moving toward Waterman Reservoir, which is used for recreation and drinking water.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/01/85
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, and sediments are contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as toluene and benzene and
heavy metals including cadmium and barium. Access to the site is limited
only by a locked gate on the access road. Direct contact and accidental
eating or drinking of contaminated soil, sediment, or groundwater
threaten the health of people, as does inhaling airborne contaminants.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
DAVIS (GSR) LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA has scheduled an initial investigation of the site for
1991. The study will determine the extent and type of contamination and
recommend cleanup strategies. Study completion is planned for late 1993,
at which time the EPA will select a final cleanup remedy and will begin the work.
Environmental Progress
The EPA will evaluate reports on the site conditions and will determine whether
conditions at the Davis Landfill pose an immediate threat to the public or the
environment while the site is awaiting investigation and cleanup activities.
-------
DAVIS LIQUI
WASTE
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID# RID980523070
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Providence County
Smithfleld
The Davis Liquid Waste site is a 15-acre disposal facility for hazardous wastes located
in a rural section of Smithfield. Throughout the 1970s, the site accepted liquid and
chemical wastes such as paint and metal sludges, oily wastes, solvents, acids,
caustics, pesticides, phenols, halogens, metals, fly ash, and laboratory Pharmaceuticals.
Liquid wastes were transported in drums and bulk tank trucks and dumped directly into
unlined lagoons and seepage pits. The operator periodically excavated the semi-solid
lagoon materials, dumped them at several locations on the site, and covered them with
soil. Other operations included the collection of junked vehicles and machine parts,
metal recycling, and tire shredding. These activities resulted in soil, surface water,
sediment, and groundwater contamination, both on and off the site. In 1978, discovery
of off-site well contamination prompted the State Superior Court to prohibit further
dumping of hazardous substances on the Davis property. The owner is still using
sections of the disposal area and adjacent property (20 acres) as a staging and storage
area for 10 to 15 million tires. The area is residential; the nearest homes are within
1,500 feet of the site. There are 240 people living within 1 mile and 4,700 people
within 3 miles of the site; the nearest well is 300 feet away. The property is bounded
on the north and south by wetlands and swamp areas.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contamination consists of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and heavy metals including arsenic and lead from the lagoons and
seepage pit areas. The soil, lagoon sediments, and surface water are also
contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals. Residential wells north and
northeast of the site are contaminated with VOCs. People could be
exposed to contaminants by drinking or using contaminated groundwater,
touching contaminated soils on site, or by inhaling chemicals that
evaporate from the soil or surface water. Because the bordering
wetlands have been filled with tires and waste material, water elevations
have increased, resulting in a large area of stressed wetland vegetation.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
DAVIS LIQUID WASTE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial action and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on provision of a new water line and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1985 to 1986, the EPA sampled, packed, and staged
approximately 600 intact and crushed drums and shipped them off site for
approved disposal. At the same time, bottled water for drinking and
cooking was supplied by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
to residences with contaminated wells. This temporary action provided a safe water
supply while a permanent remedy was being investigated.
Water Supply Line: Residents with contaminated wells are being
provided a permanent source of clean water. This water distribution
system will serve 120 lots along Log Road, Burlingame Road, and Bayberry
Road. The new system includes construction of a 300,000-gallon water
storage tank, a water main, pumping stations, and connections to existing residences.
For undeveloped lots, the EPA will bring a service connection up to the property line so
that future connection may take place at the owner's expense.
Entire Site: The EPA has obtained a court order for access to the site to
clean it up. Features of the remedy include: (1) excavation of 25,000 cubic
yards of raw waste and contaminated soils for on-site incineration; (2)
testing of treated soilclean soil will be used as backfill and the rest will
be placed in an EPA-approved landfill on the site; and (3) on-site groundwater treatment
using air stripping followed by carbon filtering to remove the contaminants from the air,
with cleaned water being recirculated into the aquifer. The remedy selected in 1987 for
cleaning up the site is now being designed by an environmental engineering design
firm under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oversight and EPA monitoring.
Site Facts: Discovery of off-site well contamination in 1978 resulted in the State
Superior Court banning dumping on the site. The EPA obtained a Court Order to gain
temporary access to the site. The Department of Justice is preparing a motion for a
"conditional" site access to be entered in the Rhode Island Federal Court. The site
owner has resisted attempts by Federal officials to investigate the site for cleanup and
has continued to conduct business operations within 100 feet of the hazardous
dumping site.
Environmental Progress
The initial cleanup actions at the Davis Liquid Waste site to remove drums and provide
an alternative water supply have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
substances in the drinking water and on the site while it awaits the completion of
planned cleanup activities. ' '
-------
DAVISVILLE
CONST. BA'
CENTER
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID# RIG 170022036
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Washington County
In N. Kingstown, 18 miles south of Providence
Aliases:
Camp Fogarty
Calf Pasture Point Landfill
NCBC Davisville
Allen Harbor Estuary
DOD/NCBC/AUens Harbor Landfill
Covering approximately 1,500 acres, the Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center
{NCBC) is 18 miles south of Providence in North Kingstown. A military installation since
1951, its primary mission is to provide mobilization support to Naval construction
forces. Much of the NCBC-Davisville site is contiguous with Narragansett Bay and
consists of three areas including the Main Center, the West Davisville storage area, and
Camp Fogarty, a training facility 4 miles west of the Main Center in the town of East
Greenwich. Adjoining NCBC's South Boundary is the decommissioned Naval Air
Station Quonset Point, which was given to the Rhode Island Port Authority in 1973.
The Navy disposed of wastes in all four areas. The Navy has identified at least 24 areas
with potential hazardous contamination, but the Department no longer owns several of
them. These areas are being investigated by the Army Corps of Engineers; chief
among them is the Camp Avenue Landfill at the decommissioned Naval Air Station.
During 1943 to 1953, this landfill accepted drums of waste battery casings and other
wastes. The Navy's studies focus on two areas: the Allen Harbor Landfill in the Main
Center, which received solvents, paint thinners, degreasers, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) from transformers, sewage sludge, and contaminated fuel oil from 1946 to
1972; and the Calf Pasture Landfill, which received "decontamination agents" and
various other contaminants. At this latter site, about twenty 5-gallon cans of calcium
hypochlorite were disposed of in a drainage ditch between 1960 and 1971. In 1973,
thirty to forty 35-gallon cardboard containers of chloride were stored at the site and
deteriorated over time. From 1968 to1974, about 2,500 3-gallon cans were also
disposed of. From 1968 to1974, in the Transformer Oil Disposal Area, 30 gallons of
PCB-containing oil were drained from transformers and poured on the ground east of
Building 37. The surrounding area is single-family residential. Approximately 27,000
people get their drinking water from public wells within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/15/89
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
r
DAVISVILLE NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER
Threats and Contaminants
Heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, silver, mercury, and chromium
were found in the sediments and shoreline of Allen Harbor, which is being
used as a clam fishery. Other contaminants in Allen Harbor include
polyaromatic hydrocarbons, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs),
solvents, and PCBs. Soil contamination is not specified, but dumping
practices involved organic solvents, PCBs, sewage sludge, contaminated
fuel oil, and halogens. Some public wells are located upgradient between
1 and 3 miles from disposal sites. The potential for contamination of
these wells is small. Potential threats exist for the freshwater wetland
which is located adjacent to the Camp Avenue Landfill. Groundwater is
shallow (2-4 feet in some'areas) and the soil is permeable, conditions that
facilitate movement of contaminants into groundwater. In addition, it has
been shown that Allen Harbor, from which clams are harvested, is
polluted. A number of salt marshes that could be affected by
contamination from the site have been identified in the Allen Harbor, Calf
Pasture Point, and Narragansett Bay areas.
Cleanup Approach
The Navy has separated its cleanup efforts into three long-term remedial phases that
correspond to the main areas of contamination it is investigating.
Response Action Status
NCBC Davisville: Three NCBC Davisville phases are recommended for
confirmation studies. The water, sediment, and organisms in Allen Harbor
were sampled as part of the confirmation studies and found to be
contaminated. Given the landfill's location adjacent to the Harbor, it is quite likely that
leachate will migrate into the Harbor. A study of the nature and extent of site
contamination and assessment of possible cleanup choices is scheduled to begin in
1990.
Transformer Area: The Navy took 16 soil samples from the transformer oil
disposal area in 1985 and 6 samples in 1986 and analyzed them for PCBs. A
study of the nature and extent of site contamination and assessment of
possible cleanup choices is scheduled to begin in 1990. The migration potential of
contaminants off site is moderate to high. Groundwater flow is assumed to be toward
Hall Creek, which is 600 feet from the site.
Calf Pasture Point: A magnetometer study was conducted at the Calf
Pasture Point area to locate the cans containing contaminants. Soil borings
were taken in 1985 to determine the depth of contamination. The mobility
of contaminants is moderate to high; however, effect on the groundwater to date is
minimal. A study of the nature and extent of site contamination and assessment of
possible cleanup choices is scheduled to begin in 1991.
continued
-------
DAVISVIIXE NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER
Site Facts: NCBC is participating in the Installation Restoration Program (IRP), a
hazardous waste cleanup operation run by the Department of Defense (DOD) on its
own properties.
.Environmental Progress
Following the listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA has determined that the
contamination at NCBC Davisville does not currently pose an immediate threat to
surrounding residents near the site at the present time. The site is safe while it awaits.
further cleanup actions. :
-------
LANDFILL
RESOURCE
RECOVERY,
RHODE ISLAND
EPAID# RID093212439
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Providence County
1/2 mile east of Slatersville Reservoir
in North Smlthfleld
The Landfill and Resource Recovery, Inc. site is a 28-acre landfillon a 36-acre parcel of
land. The site was originally a sand and gravel pit and was used for small-scale refuse
disposal from 1927 to 1974. In 1974, the site was sold and developed into a large-scale
disposal facility accepting commercial, municipal, and industrial wastes. Until 1979, an
estimated 1 1/2 million gallons of hazardous wastes were accepted and co-disposed
with other wastes in the central portion of the landfill. The hazardous wastes included
many types of bulk and drummed organic and inorganic materials in liquid, sludge, and
solid forms. Landfilling of commercial and residential wastes continued until 1985. In
1979, the operator placed a polyvinyl chloride cover over the area containing hazardous
waste to prevent rainwater from entering. In 1985, the owners closed the landfill and
placed another synthetic cover over nearly the entire landfill. Soil was placed over the
synthetic cover and it was partially planted with vegetation. Although the area is still
rural, there are approximately 10,000 residents in a 25-square-mile area; the area
appears to be undergoing a substantial growth in residential development. Within a 1/
2-mile radius of the site, there are fewer than 50 residences and no multi-residential
housing developments. More than 3,000 people live within 3 miles of the site. An
industrial park is located approximately 3,000 feet to the north, and Air National Guard
installations are approximately 1,000 feet to the east and 3,000 feet to the south of the
site. Most, if not all, residences in the site vicinity obtain their drinking water from
individual wells. Trout Brook, adjacent to the site, and the Slatersville Reservoir, into
which it discharges, are used for fishing and other recreation, but are not public water
supply sources.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
10
continued
-------
LANDFILL AMD RESOURCE RECOVERY, INC.
Threats and Contaminants
The air at the landfill vents is contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, and
benzene. The groundwater on site is contaminated with arsenic, lead,
and VOCs from waste liquids disposed of on site and from rainwater
entering the landfilled wastes and causing contamination to move into the
groundwater. The surface water on the site is contaminated with lead.
The only health threat is from gaseous emissions from the landfill. The
landfill is enclosed by a single-strand fence. The only significant
environmental threat is to the wetlands surrounding the site. The
wetlands are being affected by sand eroding from the landfill. The eroded
sand is not contaminated; however, it is filling in the wetlands, destroying
vegetation and decreasing the ability of the wetland area to support plant
and animal life.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1977, the owner installed monitoring wells on site to ensure
compliance with State regulations. The owner closed the landfill in 1985 and
3/4 of the site was covered with a synthetic cap to minimize infiltration of rain
and melted snow. Soil was also used to establish a vegetative cover. The
cap was designed and constructed with gas vents to prevent the buildup of gases
under the cap. These vents are currently sealed. The selected long-term remedy for
this site includes: (1) installation of more substantial fencing; (2) stabilization of the
steep side slopes of the landfill and installation of a synthetic cap over the uncapped
area of the landfill, with establishment of a vegetative cover over the entire landfill; (3}
collection and thermal destruction of underlying gases; (4) excavation of eroded landfill
sands from the wetlands, placing them on site, and vegetation of excavated wetland
areas; and (5) groundwater and air monitoring. Design of these cleanup actions will
begin in 1990.
Site Facts: In 1985, the landfill was closed by the owner under a Consent Order with
the State.
Environine^tai Progress
Closing the landfill, installing a cover, and constructing a fence to limit access to the site
have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Landfill and
Resource Recovery site, while awaiting further cleanup activities to begin.
11
-------
NEWPORT NAVAL
EDUCATION
TRAINING C
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID# RI6170085470
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Newport County
Aquidneck Island
Aliases:
U.S. Navy McAllister
Melville North Landfill
DOD/NETC/McAllister Point Landfill/ STP
Sludge Drying Bed
Gould Island Electroplating
The 1,064-acre Newport Naval Education and Training Center site has been used by the
Navy as a refueling depot since 1900. From 1955 to the mid-1970s, the 6-acre
McAllister Point Landfill, along the shore of Narragansett Bay, accepted wastes
consisting primarily of domestic refuse, acids, solvents, paint, waste oil, and oil
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Similar wastes were deposited at
the 10-acre Melville North Landfill, located in a low-lying wetland area along the shore
of the bay. It was sold to Melville Marine Industries/Hood Enterprises in 1984. Also in
the Melville North area are a sludge bed at an old sewage treatment plant, where oily
waste was disposed, and a buried fuel tank farm. Three additional tank farms are
located in the Melville area and one in Midway. Sludge from nearby tank farms was
dumped on the ground or burned in chambers. On Gould Island, there is a disposal
area on a steep embankment along the shoreline that contains domestic trash, scrap
metal, wood, pipes, rusted drums, two diesel fuel tanks, concrete blocks, and possibly
electroplating and degreasing wastes. Gould Island Bunker 11 contained 10 drums
with unknown contents that were removed in 1982. The bunker was later demolished.
The site is in the southwest portion of the island within 100 feet of Narragansett Bay.
A portion of Gould island is now under State control and is accessible to the public by
boat The Gould Island Electroplating Shop produced wastes similar to those deposited
at the disposal area. The wastes were probably dumped directly into the bay. The
shop is not accessible to the public. Surface water and groundwater flow from the
landfill into the bay, which is used for boating and fishing. One tank farm is 300 feet
from a coastal wetland. An estimated 4,800 people obtain drinking water and 220
acres of land are irrigated from private wells within 3 miles of hazardous substances at
the site. Approximately 10,000 people live within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/15/89
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
12
continued
-------
NEWPORT NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING CENTER
Threats and Contaminants
Monitoring wells detected heavy metals, including lead and copper, in the
groundwater. Sediments collected from Narragansett Bay contain lead,
copper and nickel. Initial studies have shown that none of the areas
within the site pose an immediate threat to human health. However, the
site warrants a study to assess potential long-term impacts. Tidal action
of the Narragansett Bay may spread contamination to nearby wetlands.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on the
McAllister Point Landfill, Gould Island, and the remaining sites.
Response Action Status
McAllister Point Landfill: An investigation into the contamination at
McAllister Point Landfill and Tank Farm #1 area will begin in 1990. The -.-
investigation will define the contaminants and recommend alternatives for
the final cleanup.
Gould Island: A separate investigation into the contamination at Gould
Island is scheduled to begin in 1991. It will also define the contaminants on
the island and recommend alternatives for the final cleanup.
Other Site Areas: Another investigation into the contamination remaining
at the rest of the site will begin in 1991. The investigation will define the
contaminants and recommend alternatives for the final cleanup of these
areas. Once the site investigation for each of the contamination areas has been
completed, the EPA will evaluate the study findings and will select final cleanup
remedies to address contamination at the site.
Site Facts: This site is being addressed under the Installation Restoration Program
(IRP), which is a federally funded Department of Defense (DOD) mechanism to identify,
investigate, and control hazardous waste on military and other DOD installations.
Following listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA has completed a site assessment and
determined that the Newport Naval Center does not pose an immediate threat to public
health or the environment at the present time. The Newport Naval Center site is safe
while it awaits cleanup actions.
13
-------
PETERSON/
PURITAN, IN
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID# RID055176283
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Providence County
Along the Blackstone River in
Cumberland and Lincoln
Alias:
Blackstone Valley
Site Description
The Peterson/Puritan plant was built in 1962 and began packaging aerosol consumer
products. During the mid-1970s a change was made in the product formula due to
Federal restrictions on fluorocarbons. The plant began using carbon dioxide and several
gaseous hydrocarbons. In 1976, the plant was rebuilt following a major fire. The site
"study area" is comprised of an industrial park, extraction areas, an inactive landfill, an
inactive solid waste transfer station, the Dexter Quarry/Dupaw Dump and numerous
interspersed areas of undeveloped land along the Blackstone River. Production wells
for public water supplies are located within the site study area. The Martin Street and
Lenox Street wells in the Town of Cumberland and the Quinnville well field in the Town
of Lincoln were closed and remain out of service. Attempts to flush contaminants from
the wells were abandoned after repeated efforts to remove the contaminants failed.
With the expansion of the municipal water supply system, residential wells in
Cumberland and Lincoln were abandoned. Lincoln residents currently obtain their
water from the Providence water system. The Peterson/Puritan site is located in a
mixed industrial and residential area. There are approximately 12,000 people living
within a 4-mile radius of the site; the nearest residence is less than 1/4 mile away.
Approximately 17,000 people are affected by the contaminated groundwater.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with chlorinated solvents, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including acetone and benzene; phthalates; and heavy
metals such as chromium, lead, and mercury. Sediments are
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Surface water is
contaminated with low concentrations of VOCs. People are at risk should
they come in contact with or accidentally drink or eat contaminated
groundwater, surface water, sediment, leachate or potentially
contaminated soil. The site is located in a floodplain, which may cause
water, sediments, plants, and animals to become contaminated.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
14
continued
-------
PETERSON/PURITAN. INC.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The party potentially responsible for contamination at the site
is currently studying the nature and extent of the contamination. The
investigation will define the contaminants of concern and will recommend
alternatives for site cleanup. Once the study is completed in 1991, the EPA
will evaluate the recommended alternatives and select the final cleanup remedy.
Site Facts: After a preliminary investigation in 1982, the EPA identified the Peterson/
Puritan facility as the major source of the contamination in the Quinnville well field. The
Town of Lincoln filed a lawsuit against Peterson/Puritan, Inc. based on these findings.
In 1984, the company reached a settlement with Lincoln and assisted the Town with
the cost of the Town's new water supply. The company also installed a recovery well
on its property for the purpose of capturing contaminated groundwater underlying its
property. In 1987, an Administrative Order was issued to Peterson/Puritan, Inc. to take
over from the EPA and conduct the site investigation. A draft report of the
investigation's findings has been submitted to the EPA as of early 1990.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions have provided a safe drinking water supply to affected area residents
and preliminary cleanup of contaminated groundwater has commenced. The EPA
continues to assess the conditions at the Peterson/Puritan site and has determined that
there are currently no immediate actions required to make the site safe while it awaits
the results of the investigation into cleanup alternatives.
A
15
-------
PICILLO F
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID# RID980579056
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Kent County
Piggy Hill Lane in Coventry
Alias:
Candy Box Farm
Site Description
The Picillo Farm site is a portion of a former 100-acre pig farm. More than 19,000
drums of hazardous waste and an undetermined bulk volume of liquid chemicals were
disposed of into several uniined trenches on an 8-acre area of the farm. The site was
discovered in 1977, when a fire and explosion occurred. After requiring the property
owners to halt the illegal disposal operations, the State of Rhode Island conducted an
emergency removal of drums containing sodium aluminum hydride. From 1980
through 1982, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and the
EPA excavated the trenches and removed the majority of the wastes. The
contaminated soil was stored on site in three piles. These piles were moved off site in
1988. More than 2,000 people live within 3 miles of the site and are potentially
affected by contaminated groundwater. Fifty residences are located within 1 mile of
the site; two are within 1/4 mile. All residences rely on private wells for their water, but
these wells are sampled once a year by the Rhode Island Department of Health. The
site lies near the upper Roaring Brook watershed, which is a tributary to the Moosup
River. Groundwater and surface water runoff flows away from the disposal site
towards an unnamed swamp. Great Cedar Swamp, and Whitford Pond, which is used
to irrigate a cranberry bog.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Air on the site contains volatile organic compounds (VOGs) and pesticides.
On-site groundwater is contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and VOCs including toluene and xylene. Off-site groundwater and
surface water in the swamp are contaminated with VOCs. On-site soil is
contaminated with phenols, PCBs and VOCs. Potential threats include
direct contact with contaminated soil, surface water, or sediments
drinking of groundwater, and inhalation of VOCs. Contaminated surface
water and sediments may pose ecological risks, especially to the nearby
wetlands.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
16
continued
-------
PICIIXO FARM
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: an emergency action and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on cleanup of groundwater and surface water and controlling
the source of the contamination. :
Response Action Status
Emergency Action: In 1982, the EPA and the State conducted an
emergency action by removing 3,300 buried drums from two trenches on
the site. Bulk wastes were also removed. Contaminated soils were dug
from trenches and stockpiled on site.
Source Control: The remedy selected by the EPA and performed by the
parties potentially responsible for the site contamination included: (1)
disposal of 3,500 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soils and 3,000 cubic
yards of phenol-contaminated soils on site in an approved landfill; (2)
installation of a fence; (3) installation of a surface drainage control system; and (4)
closure of the site. These remedies were completed in 1988; groundwater monitoring
will continue. The Rhode Island Department of Health samples private wells in the
vicinity once a year. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management is
responsible for operation and maintenance activities for the cleanup remedies.
Groundwater and Surface Water: The EPA is studying the on- and off-site
groundwater and surface water contamination. The investigation will define
the contaminants and will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The
study is expected to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1988, the EPA entered into an agreement with four parties potentially
responsible for contamination of the site. These companies removed contaminants
and closed down the site under close monitoring by the EPA in 1988.
Environmental Progress
With the cleanup actions described above, the EPA has greatly reduced the potential
for accidental contact or exposure to contaminated soil and dust. Removing the
contaminated soil from the trenches also.removed the source of contamination to
drinking water, which will be cleaned up in future actions.
17
-------
ROSE HILL
REGIONAL
RHODE ISLAND
EPAID# RID980521025
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Washington County
Rose Hill Road
The Rose Hill Landfill site is a former municipal landfill located in the Town of South
Kingstown. The Town leased the land for a domestic and industrial waste disposal
facility, which operated from 1967 to 1983. In 1983, the site was closed, and the
operator reportedly graded and seeded the disposal areas. A transfer station for
municipal waste, currently owned and operated by the Town, is located on a portion of
the site. Three separate areas on the site received waste: a solid waste landfill, a bulky
waste disposal area, and a sewage sludge landfill. An estimated 17,300 people obtain
water from wells within 3 miles of the site. The area is residential, with a forest, fields,
and sand/gravel extraction activities nearby. It is bordered by the Saugatucket River,
and Mitchell Brook flows through the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
IV
Threats and Contaminants
On-site monitoring wells contain several volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), including chloroform, benzene, and xylenes, as well as heavy
metals. Observations indicate that Mitchell Brook, an unnamed brook,
and potentially the Saugatucket River, could be affected by contaminated
runoff from the site. Three private wells adjacent to the site are
contaminated with low levels of organic compounds, as is on-site soil.
The site is not completely fenced, making it possible for people to come
into direct contact with hazardous substances. Saugatucket Pond, 2,000
feet downstream, is used for fishing and swimming. A freshwater
wetland is 500 feet downstream and also could be subject to
contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
18
continued
t
-------
ROSE! HILL, REGIONAL LANDFILL,
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1985, the Town of South Kingstown Utilities Department
extended the municipal water line to nearby residents with contaminated
wells, with the exception of one resident who refused hookup. An
investigation into the nature and extent of site contamination and recommendations for
alternative cleanup strategies is scheduled to begin in the spring of 1990. Once
completed, the EPA will evaluate the recommended cleanup alternatives and will select
final remedies for groundwater, surface water, soils and other contamination areas
identified in the study.
Erwirjonmental Progress
With the provision of a safe drinking water supply to the affected residents, the EPA
has determined that the site does not currently pose an imminent threat to the public or
the surrounding environment. EPA will continue to assess conditions at the site as
studies and selection of cleanup alternatives progresses.
A
19
-------
STAMINA
MILLS, INC.
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID# RDD980731442
REGION I
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Providence County
North Smlthfield
Site Description
Stamina Mills is on a 5-acre parcel of land and began operation in 1924 as a textile mill
known as Forestdale Manufacturing Company. It was closed for an undetermined
period of time during the Depression and changed ownership in the 1940s. In 1969, a
solvent scouring system for removing oil and dirt from newly woven fabric was
installed. Some time during that year, a trichloroethylene (TCE) spill of 100 to 300
gallons occurred and was never cleaned up. In 1974, the solvent system was
abandoned and the mill subsequently was closed. In 1977, a fire destroyed the
manufacturing complex; the site has been vacant and unused since then. In 1980, in
response to the discovery of private well contamination, the Rhode Island Department
of Environmental Management and the Town of North Smithfield installed a public
water line to area residences. However, not all residences connected to the service;
the EPA provided resources to complete connections to those residences in 1984. By
1987, all residences were on public supplies. The Village of Forestdale, with a
population of 960, is within a 1/2-mile radius of the site. A school and private
residences with 260 people are within 1/4 mile of the site. Industrial and commercial
facilities with 1,224 people are within 1/2 mile of the site. The site is bordered by
wetlands and the Branch River to the south.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
T\
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
primarily TCE and its constituents. Sediments are contaminated with
TCE, dieldrin, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The soil is
contaminated with TCE, the pesticide dieldrin, and heavy metals including
lead, arsenic, and cadmium, as well as PAHs. Surface water is
contaminated with VOCs and nickel. People who trespass on the site are
potentially at risk from contact with contaminated soils, surface water, or
groundwater. In 1986, a security fence was erected to prevent entry to
the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
20
continued
-------
STAMINA MILLS, INC.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions limiting the spread of
contaminants and a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup alternatives for the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1980, the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management and the Town of North Smithf ield installed a
public water line to area residences and provided bottled water to those
residences that were not connected to the services. In 1984, the EPA provided
resources for connections to the public water system. By 1987, all residences were on
the public water supply. In 1986, the EPA also installed a fence to prevent entry to the
site. In 1988, the EPA removed 2 tanks from the site, pumped the waste from the
tanks, and sent it to an approved hazardous waste facility.
Entire Site: The EPA is investigating the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site. The investigation will define the contaminants of
concern and recommend alternatives for the final cleanup.
Environmen iol Progress
The initial actions of providing a public water supply and fencing of the site have
reduced the potential of people to be exposed to the contamination at the Stamina
Mills site. A deteriorating tank and some drums containing low pH hazardous
substances will be removed and properly disposed of in the near future; further
reducing the potential for exposure to contamination while the site awaits final cleanup
activities.
21
-------
WESTERN S^
& GRAVEL
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID# RTJD009764929
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Providence County
Burrillvllle, adjacent to Douglas Pike
Western Sand & Gravel, a 20-acre site located in a rural residential area of Burrillville,
was a sand and gravel quarry operation from 1953 until 1975. The quarrying operation
is continuing. From 1975 to April 1979, approximately 12 acres of the 20-acre site were
used for the disposal of liquid wastes, including chemicals and septic waste. Over
time, the wastes penetrated into the porous soil and contaminated the groundwater.
Contents of tank trucks were emptied directly into twelve open lagoons and pits, none
of which were lined with protective materials. The pits were concentrated on a hill that
slopes to Tarkiln Brook, which is used for recreational purposes and drains into the
Slaterville Reservoir. The State closed the disposal operation because nearby residents
complained of odors. Approximately 600 people depend on groundwater within a 1-
mile radius of the site. Eight homes were found to have contaminated wells.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), including toluene, trichloroethylene (ICE), trichloroethane,
benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlproethane, and others. The water of Tarkiln
Brook contains similar contaminants. The soil also is contaminated with
VOCs. Prior to the capping of the soil and sludge and the installation of
carbon filters, potential exposure to VOCs may have occurred by
inhalation, swallowing, or direct contact with contaminated soil or
groundwater. ,..-:
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
22
continued
-------
WESTERN SAND & GRAVEL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: initial action to limit the spread of
contamination and three long-term remedial phases concentrating on installation of a
permanent water supply, capping of the contaminated soil and sludge, and
investigating the extent of groundwater contamination and cleanup alternatives
Response Action Status
x* Initial Action: Early in 1980, the State began to pump one lagoon-dry to
halt leachate movement. The chemicals and sludges in three remaining
chemical lagoons were solidified and covered with polyethylene to prevent
leaching. Approximately 60,000 gallons of waste were removed. A groundwater
recirculation system was installed.
Water Line: The EPA will install a permanent alternate water supply to
service approximately 56 parcels of land, and the parties potentially
responsible have installed carbon canister filters as a temporary protective
measure in all the homes in the affected area until the permanent water
supply is functional. Construction of the water line is scheduled to be completed by
the fall of 1990.
Capping: The parties responsible for the contamination have installed a 2
1/2-acre cap over the areas of contaminated soil and sludge. Also included
are fencing, fence maintenance, and posting of the site and cap.
Investigation: The potentially responsible parties are conducting an
investigation to determine the extent of contamination and to evaluate
alternatives for cleanup of the groundwater. This investigation is scheduled
to be completed in the summer of 1990. A final decision of the methods that will be
used to clean up the site is scheduled to be completed later in 1990.
Site Facts: Approximately 45 parties potentially responsible for site contamination
entered into a Consent Decree with the EPA and agreed to pay for past costs, to
construct a cap, to conduct an investigation to determine the nature and extent of
contamination, and to identify alternatives for cleanup of contaminated groundwater.
The responsible parties will also pay the EPA to construct the permanent alternate
water supply. ,
The initial actions have included fencing and capping the contaminated areas of the
Western Sand & Gravel site and installing the carbon canister filters. These actions
have reduced the exposure potential, thereby protecting human health and the
environment, while the site awaits further cleanup activities.
23
-------
-------
his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
jAf! fact sheets for the State of Rhode Island. 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.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A legally binding document issued by EPA direct-
ing the parties potentially responsible to perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
EPA does not issue unilateral orders for site studies).
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called groundwater.
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
G-l
-------
GLOSSARY
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the cap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Closure: The process by which a landfill stops accepting wastes and is shut down
under Federal guidelines that ensure the public and the environment is protected.
Consent Decree: A legal document, approved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between EPA and title parties potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the potentially responsible parties are re-
quired to perform and/or the costs incurred by the government that the parties will
reimburse, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options that the gov-
ernment may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties.
If a settlement between EPA and a potentially responsible party includes cleanup ac-
tions, it must be in the form of a consent decree. A consent decree is subject to a public
comment period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes/soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
Downgradienfc A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move
toward lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradient of a contaminated groundwater
source are prone to receiving pollutants.
ELy ash: Non-combustible residue that results from the combustion of flue gases. It can
include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very good
oxidizing agents and, therefore, have many industrial uses. They are rarely found by
themselves; however, many chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), some
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and dioxin are reactive because of the presence of
halogens.
Installation Restoration Program: The specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has been identifying and evaluating its hazard-
ous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from those
sites.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
G-2
-------
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
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.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs,
such as pyrene, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope emersion oils, and caulking compounds. PCBs are also produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are extremely persistent in the environment be-
cause they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant. Burning them pro-
duces even more toxins. Chronic exposure to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
is also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and biphen-
yls, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds that are a common component of
creosotes, which can be carcinogenic.
Polyyinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats, and floor tiles. Health risks from high
concentrations of vinyl chloride include liver cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer
of the lymphatic and nervous systems.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
G-3
-------
GLOSSARY
' ^s\^V ^tWlSt/
.«*
*«5
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from title 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.
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.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Stabilization: The process of changing an active substance into inert, harmless mate-
rial, or physical activities at a site that act to limit the further spread of contamination
without actual reduction of toxicity.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, colorless liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as a solvent and as a metal degreasing
agent. TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled, ingested, or through skin contact and
can damage vital organs, especially the liver [see also Volatile Organic Compounds].
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.
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with graded soils and seed for vegetative
growth to prevent erosion [see Cap].
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.
G-4
-------
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface or groundwater and, under
normal circumstances, capable of supporting vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to sustaining many species of fish and
wildlife. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands may be
either coastal or inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish (a mixture of salt and
fresh) water, and most have tides, while inland wetlands are non-tidal and freshwater.
Coastal wetlands are an integral component of estuaries.
G-5
-------
------- |