EPA/540/4-90/045
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Vermont
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, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume .xvii
NFL'Sires:
A State Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets I
" ' , •- %, ^ --, , - '< ' - "-, "> ^-- <"5
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
II
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
A °s the 1970s came to a
/\ close, a series of head-
JL JL: line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA — commonly
known as the Superfund —
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
groundwater (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
111
-------
lively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
notontheNPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of .NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 — nearly half
iv
— have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many 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
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe
what the problems are, what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear about
both environmental progress
across the country and the
cleanup accomplishments
closer to home. The public
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make •—as a
Nation — in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume — Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large —
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
— How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites? —
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as -
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
VI
-------
^ J
T:,,,,,,.^:,,,,,,.:, ke Diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
1 waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
; establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
STEP 3
Perfonp 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.
vn
-------
"How does EjPA learn;
mi v *"• > x - s VS*
bout potential
Thazardous waste
sites?
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens — people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
i What happens If
^there is an
danger?
I
I
If there Isn't an
imminent danger
iow doe$ EPA ,
determine what, i
*L»ny, cleanup
I should be taken?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them — for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now it's time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
Vlll
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
• Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
• How are they contained?
• How might contaminants spread?
• How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
• What may be harmed — 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
,<-5;< ,, ^v^ f 5" ,(,', , ^«5--\x ^
'»"• V ^ •• v i %?•.-. •...
<-\ v "—" 4, -, , / -v ^^ XN-X,
^ ' ', V,X ,->>-' ^-' " ^ - <
v "J^ ™ •• X ^^ ^ •.^^v.', •.'<,
^ % *> ^ \ ^ -y*-, <• ^ -••• %^ ^ ^ ^-.^ ^ ^
-' K^Vei ^<^;^ri
v--^ s,^-^^ ^ -,^x^
••',*,; .
\v. ,v
•".^ '*'''^S-S ff '• ^ ^% ,- % X^ —-->cvlA-,r.%%
v.v.v&^ % v%%, ^ ,. f '•'•'• ^.. ^^
"^^ % •S-'V ^-^^-^ C" -. %x^-^ VV,^ % "" ^^ ^^%
"/" \r^/ ~v' ;> ^v™^-^
-. -.'.%-. V % s •. f \ v ^.\ •. ^ J^'\. •> ••"•
. "- ' «^ <• " -. -, v *-••• _ % ••
>. % %% -^ ^ •• ^ %%-, \ f % "• -, %%%%%-.-fs.-.X;.^ \ ', ^'
-. •. -. "" ^ •. •. v .•'•vX <% •.
- % s ± % ^
vA" '"- vvr^v ^>"T%rw™
\ *• ",*• ' S %* \ % X
\ T- - ^ ^-v^t , - -V^"'s s ,
s y j*« % % A'- " > ' ^ <.%"
s "• " •• •,' , ' ' ^ ••
Vf" x - -V ^ ;v,; ~V-% %
, ^ ^ ^™ * ^ «,
'v- v< >?' v"- ^-; . v^ *
" assessment ^
that afsmatfe? threat:, ,J ^
-------
fc
r
c
3^
iL
E How do people find
I out whether EPA
* considers a site a 1
jtaaiioxtal priority for ?||
f?deanup using
; Superfund money?
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). Thaf 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.
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
siteis added.
V'
,.,*, .""J
~~~«S
'• -'- ,'
f « '
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a _ _^ „ ,„ „ T, „„„ „„„
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu- Ktbfi Steps ih cleaimp?
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to " / '••, , -; , / , **-.
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The .first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
>v
"'..
'<•';!
<.
XI
-------
SUPERFUND
, v
are cleanup
^alternatives
pdentified and
i evaluated?
I
I
i"
i t (
.; n^A*
fe.
the public haw
a Say In the final
Cleanup decision?
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the 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 arid 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. »
. %v.vJy,
V.V.!
S
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
-, If every cleaimp
' tailored Jo- a site,
"'8m design o£ the,
to be
V
Xlll
-------
SUPERFUND
t- < v
I T*> 7*
f Once the design is
r complete, how long
|,does it take to
L actually clean up the
!**site and how much
^ does it cost?
-I
V'
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup — called the
remedial action — are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them — an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
i Once the cleanup ,1
* action is complete, is ^
|'the site automatically
gfdeleted" £roin the I ;
-
If'
3
f I
, -~y &%
* % !
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or. opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
Ifs not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
-" Can EP& make pailfes
"!0j:tM:
f *•£*
tio&pay?
^\
:','Sf
XV
-------
TAX
-------
T- he Site Fact Sheets
presented in this book
, ; ", are comprehensive
' summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
, square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site — or part
of the site — are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvu
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
Location
Site Description •
SlteResponsibtMy: \
-Threats and Contaminants
„' vv^i/V ',•»"'
Cleanup Approach
*»%/''•' ^ ,
Rcaponae Action Status
Site Facts:
EnvironmeniafProgrizss
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 maj'pr types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
Site Facts
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaininq 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 Vermont
Vermont is located, in the New England region of the United States, bordered on the
north by Canada, and New Hampshire and New York to the east and west respectively.
The State covers 9,273 square miles, averaging only 20 to 36 miles in width and
includes the Greens Mountains that traverses north-south axis of the state. Vermont
experienced a 9.0 percent increase in population through the 1980s and currently has
approximately 557,000 residents, ranking 48th in U.S. populations. Principal State
industries include manufacturing, tourism, agriculture, trade, finance, insurance, real
estate, and government. Vermont manufacturing produces machine tools, furniture,
scales, books, computer components, and fishing rods.
How Many Vermont Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
2
6
0
8
Cong. District 01
8 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy
metals (inorganics).
10
ID
I 6+
<4-l
O 4 -L
2 --
GW Soil SW Seds
Contamination Area
Soil: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), creosotes (organics), heavy
metals (inorganics), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and creosote
(organics).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
heavy metals (inorganics),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
creosote (organics), and plastics.
* Appear at 20% or more sites
State Overview
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy
Selected
Remedy
Design
Cleanup ^^^ Construction
Ongoing ^^r complete
Initial actions have been taken at 2 sites as interim cleanup measures
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Vermont, providing specific information
on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should
you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Vermont Superf und Office
EPA Region I Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region I Superfund Public
Relations Office
(802) 244-8702
(617)573-9645
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(617)565-3417
'Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
-------
The NPL Progress Report — —
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow {<*-) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
«*- An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure.to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
*- An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
«*- An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
•*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
*- An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
•>- A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term- pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
XXlll
-------
jproj
Page
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
*ress Toward Cleanup
Site Name
BENNINGTON LANDFILL
BFI/ROCKINGHAM
BURGESS BROTHERS LANDFILL
DARLING HILL DUMP
OLD SPRINGFIELD LANDFILL
PARKER LANDFILL
PINE STREET CANAL
TANSITOR ELECTRONICS INC.
at ivjfiy oites
County
BENNINGTON
WINDHAM
BENNINGTON
CALEDONIA
WINDSOR
CALEDONIA
CHITTENDEN
BENNINGTON
in in
NPL
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
e oiate
Date
03/31/89
10/04/89
03/31/89
10/04/89
09/08/83
02/21/90
09/08/83
10/04/89
01 verrauui.
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
+
*
*
*
+ + + + '
+
+ *
+
XXIV
-------
-------
-------
BENNINGTON
LANDFILL
VERMONT
EPA ID# VTD981064223
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Benningtpn County
Off Houghton Lane
The Benningtoh Landfill, located off Houghton Lane in Bennington, is a municipal
sanitary landfill on 28 acres, 10 of which are still in active use. The area was a sand and
gravel pit until it was licensed in 1983 as a landfill. The town of Bennington purchased
the site in 1985. Several Bennington industries dumped liquid wastes into an unlined
lagoon on the site from 1969 to 1975. Town records indicate that polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), organic solvents, and lead were disposed of at the site. The lagoon
was closed in 1975; workers landfilled it after attempts to dry it up failed. An
underground drain system built in 1976 is designed to lower the groundwater level. The
system discharges through a culvert into an unlined, ponded area. Approximately 2,200
residents within 3 miles of the site use private wells. The area surrounding the site is
mainly industrial. Morgan Spring, a bedrock water source 3 miles south of the landfill,
is used regularly to supplement the Bennington water system.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
A culvert discharging groundwater from beneath the site contains PCBs,
heavy metals including lead and arsenic, and volatile organic CQmpounds
(VOCs) including benzene and xylene. In 1986, the Vermont Department
of Environmental Conservation detected contaminants in the groundwater
discharging from the culvert, which had caught fire. The State found
several flammable materials in it. The site is incompletely fenced, making
the potential for direct contact with contaminants a possibility.
Contaminants have been found'in the sediments in Hewitt Brook, within 3
miles downstream of the site, which is used for fishing. A freshwater
wetland is 500 feet east of the culvert and may be subject to
contamination from the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
BENNINGTON 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: A study is being planned for 1991 to investigate the extent of
the contamination over the entire site area. Recommendations for cleanup
alternatives will be given at that time. The study will determine the most
expedient and effective approaches for cleanup.
\EnviroTunentol Progress
Presently, the EPA is assessing the Bennington Landfill site to determine whether any
intermediate actions are necessary to make it safer while waiting for site studies and
cleanup actions to begin.
A
-------
BFI/ROCKING
VERMONT
EPA ID# VTD980520092
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Windham County
Rockirigham
Alias:
Rockingham Landfill
Twenty-five acres, of the BFl/Rockingham site, consisting of 103 acres in Rockingham,
are now in use as a sanitary landfill. In the early 1960s, the site served as a borrow
area for construction of 1-91. In 1977, Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. (BFI) bought the
landfill from an individual who had started operations in 1968. State files indicate that
industrial wastes, including heavy metals, bases,, pesticides, and volatile organic
compounds {VOCs) were deposited in the unlined disposal area from 1968 to 1979 by
the previous owner and Browning-Ferris. In 1983, Vermont licensed the site as a
municipal landfill certified to accept hazardous waste from small generators. The
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) reports that nearby
residential and monitoring wells downgradientof the.site have been contaminated
since 1979. There are two leachate collection ponds on site. A tar cap covers a portion
of the landfill to prevent the infiltration of rainwater. However, cracks in the cap have
been observed, and it is covered with new refuse. Approximately 2,700 people live
within 1 mile of the site, and 6,400 residents live within 3 miles. Several homes with
contaminated wells near the site now receive water from a new well provided by BFI.
More than 4,500 people in Vermont and New Hampshire obtain drinking water from
public and private wells within 3 miles of the landfill. The Connecticut River is 560 feet
to the east, along the drainage route of surface water leaving the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater contains contamination from heavy metals including
chromium, copper, lead, and VOCs. Drinking water from contaminated
wells in the area poses a threat to health. The Connecticut River may also
receive contaminants via groundwater discharge, posing a threat to its
quality and marine life.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
BFI/ROCKINGHAM
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: As an initial action, BFI provided an alternate drinking water
supply to residences with contaminated wells. BFI has been conducting
( ^ groundwater monitoring since 1979. The EPA will conduct an investigation
into the nature and extent of contamination at the site that is expected to begin in early
1991, with completion tentatively scheduled for 1992. The investigation will define the
contaminants of concern and will recommend cleanup strategies.
Site Facts: The State issued three orders to the owner between 1980 and 1983
requiring BFI to determine the hydrogeology of the landfill, monitor on-site
groundwater, and provide drinking water to affected residents nearby. BFI has approval
to operate the site as a solid waste landfill until July 1, 1990; however, to continue
operating, the company must obtain a permit under Vermont Act 250.
Environmental Progress
The initial cleanup actions described above and the installation of an alternate water
source have reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated groundwater, making
the site safer while it awaits further studies and cleanup actions.
-------
BURGESS BR
LANDFILL
VERMONT
EPA ID# VTD003965415
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Bermington County
Woodford
i H 9eSf-,,Br°?erS Landfl" IS a 60'acre site located in Woodford. A large part of this
closed landfill, still owned by the Burgess family, lies within the Green Mountain
National Forest. Burgess Brothers Construction Company, of nearby Bennington
operated the facility as a sand pit, salvage yard, and dump from the 1940s until the mid-
1970s. For 20 years, Union Carbide Corp.'s Bennington Plant disposed of wastes from
battery manufacture at the site; an unknown quantity of \eadsludge between 1956 and
1971; and the equivalent of 47,780 drums of hazardous wastes from 1971 to 1976
The wastes were dumped into unlined settling lagoons next to the sand pit bank
Studies conducted by both the State and Union Carbide have determined that soils
groundwater, and surface water on, and downgradientof, the site are contaminated
with heavy metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The site area is largely rural
and is sparsely populated, but 13,900 people live within 3 miles of the site. Residents
draw drinking water from private and public wells; the nearest well is 1/2 mile from the
lagoons. A spring used to supply drinking water to Bennington is 1 1/2 miles west of
the site. Barney Brook and the Waloomsic River are within 3 miles downstream of the
site; both are used for recreation. A freshwater wetland is located approximatelv
1/4 mile from the site. y
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, surface water, and soils are contaminated with heavy
metals including mercury and lead and VOCs including vinyl chloride and
trichloroethylene (TCE). The site is unrestricted; .people and animals risk
exposure by direct contact with contaminated soils or surface water
There are sensitive areas nearby, including freshwater wetlands and
National Forest land, both of which are also used for recreational purposes
and which could be polluted by site contamination
Vlarch 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Ei
continued
-------
BURGESS BROTHERS 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 will conduct an evaluation of the most viable cleanup
alternatives for the entire site area. Recommendations for the selected
cleanup methods for soil, surface water, and groundwater will be offered at
of this study, scheduled for 1990. Once the study has been completed
and the S havel^^SThe EPA will se,ect final cleanup methods.
Environmental Progress
The EPA will conduct an evaluation to determine if immediate actions are necessary to
ensure that the public and environment are not at risk while studies at the Burgess
Brothers Landfill are being conducted and the final cleanup alternatives are being
evaluated.
-------
DARLING HIL
DUMP
VERMONT
EPA ID# VTD980052118
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Caledonia County ,
^ortheast portion of Lyndon (Lyndonville)
Alias:
Lyndonville Town Dump
ThaDarling Hill site is an inactive dump that occupies approximately 3 1/2 acres at the
IfLnl n?,66^111 a°n,9 Dari'ng Hi" Road in rural LVndon- From 1952 to 1972 the
rtiSL? *Tn h?nV,f lea?ed and °Perated the dump. The dump was used for the
disposal of light industrial and municipal wastes. Ray O. Parker and Son Inc"of
e' -^e dump was used main|yfor the disposal of scrap wood
n m^oSls' and industrial wastes- The site continued operate until
the 1980s, but as of 1989, it was closed. An estimated 92,000 gallons of liquid
industrial wastes were dumped directly on the ground at the unKned site as were
5£S?r T. J'q ' sem|-^uld' and solid industrial wastes including metal plating rinse
water alkali degreasers, and organic solvents. The depth to groundwater be ow the
dump ,s more than 100 feet. The village well field serving 3,200 peopSIs 1/2 mile
?h°e sitT Ahnn^n'n?1'; An addit'onal 46° People use private wells within 5 mfc£of
the site. About 300 feet west of the site and down a steep hill is the West Branch of
the Passumpsic River, which meets the East Branch about 1/2 mile farther south The
river is used for recreational fishing and boating ®
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The Village water supply contains low levels of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including trichlonoethylenetfCE) and toluene
Although soil contamination has not been verified, metal plating rinse
waters, alkali degreasers, and organic solvents were dumped on the
ground Individuals could be exposed to contaminants by direct contact
with soils or by drinking contaminated groundwater
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
DARLING HILL DUMP
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 is currently investigating the site to determine the
extent and nature of the contamination and to choose cleanup alternatives.
, ^ The study is planned for completion in 1991. At the conclusion of these
studies, the EPA will select the most efficient method for the site cleanup, which will
commence shortly thereafter.
Site Facts: Two Consent Orders were signed in 1989. Under the terms-of these
agreements, the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination wiH perform
an investigation and install a carbon filtration system on the munic.pal well field.
Environmental Progress
The EPA assessed the conditions at the Darling Hill Dump and determined that the site
currently poses no immediate threat to the public or the environment while it is
awaiting the results of the investigation and selection of cleanup remedies.
-------
OLD
LANDFILL
VERMONT
EPA ID# VTD000860239
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Windsor County
Springfield
Site Description
The Springfield Landfill site covers 27 acres of an 80-acre parcel of land The landfill
was operated by the Town of Springfield between 1947 and 1968 for the disposal of
municipal solid waste and hazardous industrial liquid and semi-liquid waste The site is
currently-owned by Springfield Mobile Estates, which operates a trailer park that once
consisted of 38 mobile homes. Approximately 60 people resided in the trailer park
which was built on top of the landfill; many have since moved after having sold these
trailers to the potentially responsible parties for the site contamination. Investigation of
the site found volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination in a spring and in a
residential well near the mobile home park. The EPA began investigations at the site in
1976, following a resident's complaint of foul-smelling water. Four areas of
contamination have been identified at the site'where industrial waste was either
disposed of separately in trenches or mixed with municipal waste. Approximately 500
people live within a 1-mile radius of the site. Many area residents are hooked up to the
public drinking water system. Residents upstream of the site rely upon private wells
for drinking water. The land use within a 1-mile radius is primarily low-density
residential housing, light agricultural, undeveloped forest land/and commercial
development. The site is on a terrace above, and 1/4 mile west of, the Black River
Leachate from the site flows out the side of the steep slopes next to the landfill and
eventually reaches the Black River and Seaver Brook; however, neither is used as a
drinking water source.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPl LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water and sediments are contaminated with
VOCs including benzene and vinyl chloride. The on-site soil is
contaminated with VOCs, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). On-site workers and residents are at risk
by touching or accidentally eating or drinking contaminated groundwater
surface water, soils, or sediments. '
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
s
continued
-------
OLD SPRINGFIELD LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions to-provide a safe water
supply and two long-term remedial phases concentrating on leachate and groundwater
contamination and further investigation into groundwater cleanup and source control.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1984, the potentially responsible parties
connected area residents to the public water supply. The EPA temporarily
relocated 42 families while testing was conducted on the site. The families
returned to their homes in 1987.
Leachate and Groundwater: The remedy selected by the EPA includes:
(1) construction of an underground system to collect leachate passing
through the site; (2) installation of wells to extract contaminated
groundwater; (3) on-site treatment of the collected leachate and
groundwater or possibly removing the leachate and groundwater to a
publicly owned treatment works; (4) monitoring the site; and (5) conducting additional
studies to determine how to isolate the landfill waste materials from the groundwater.
The EPA also plans to place restrictions on the future use of groundwater underlying
the contaminated area. The potentially responsible parties are preparing the technical
specifications and design for the selected cleanup plan. Cleanup activities are
scheduled to begin once the design phase is completed in 1991.
Source Control: Additional studies are under way to determine the
possibility of preventing waste materials from entering the groundwater.
, «, The investigation is planned to be completed in 1990., Two potentially
responsible parties are developing a more focused investigation to evaluate source
control alternatives for the site.
Site Facts: An Administrative Order was issued in 1984 requiring the potentially
responsible parties to supply an alternate water source. A second Administrative Order
was issued in 1989 requiring a study for a second long-term remedial phase.
Environmental Progress
Provision of a safe drinking water supply and the other actions performed at the pd
Springfield Landfill site have reduced the risk of exposure to contaminated materials
while the site awaits construction of leachate control and treatment facilities and the
results of the investigation into final cleanup alternatives.
10
-------
PARKER LANDFILI
VERMONT
EPA ID# VTD981062441
Site Description
REGION I
ONGRESSIQNAL DIST. 01;
Caledonia County
Lyndon
I lalo San'tary Landfill is a 25-acre site that has operated as a solid waste landfill :
since 1972. Before 1983, approximately 1 million gallons of liquid wastes and 760 tons
of solid or semi-solid wastes including metal plating rinse waters waste oils
electroplating sludges, paint sludges, chlorinated solvent sludges, caustic cleaners and
metallic salts were disposed of in at least three areas of the landfill. Liquid and slu'dae
wastes were poured directly onto the ground or into unlined pits and lagoons During a
site inspection in 1984, the State detected contaminants in a stream bordering the
landfill, in groundwater at the landfill, and in four private wells 1/2 mile from the landfill
The site is located in a residential area, and an estimated 3,200 people obtain -drinking-''
water from a municipal well field approximately 2 miles from the landfill- 124 private *
welfare within 3 miles of the landfill. The stream flows into the Passumpsic River
which is used for recreational activities. '
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and stream surface waters are contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including trichloroethylene (TCE) The site is
unfenced, making it possible for people and animals to come into direct
contact with hazardous substances. Trespassers may be threatened by
accidentally touching or ingesting contaminated groundwater surface
water, or soil. Also, contaminated fish or waterfowl may pose a hazard if
eaten.
1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
PARKER LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
._.^- T—— j^ ^m ^i.
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
will study the contamination at the site. The investigation will define the
contaminants and will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. This
]%, coniammanitj emu win ic^wiinii^..« «.^—„.__._. -.- .
nvestiglrtion is scheduled to start in 1990. Once the study is completed the EPA will
iiivc&uyauwM to t:nfi;nne, 0r,H xA/iii c^iprt thfi n fianuo remedies to address the
investiaaion s su euuicu LU OLOI u MI i^^w. ^..^« .. —, •- , ^j-i,,,,,,, +kQ
evaluate the investigation findings and will select the cleanup remedies to address the
site contamination.
Environmental Progress
Following listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA has completed a site assessment and
determined that it presently poses no immediate threat to public health or the
eSmeni: while the Parker Landfill site awaits site investigations and future cleanup
actions.
x>
12
-------
PINE STREET
CANAL
VERMONT
EPA ID# VTD980523062
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. Ol
Chittenden County
Burlington
rRp Cana' sitee°vers 8° acres ^d consists of a portion of the Pine Street
Canal Barnes Basin, an adjacent filled-in wetland formerly known as Maltex PoW and
ILit solS0?^ 'and- .'M908; 3 C°al ^Ification plant began operating orrP ne
Street, southeast of the canal. The plant ceased operations in 1966 Plant
Si(iUal Oil and wood chips satura*ed with organic compounds were
' ^ d'SPOS?d °f ln the Pine Street Canal wetland' Durin9 the 1960s
ni mf S • m?S'a Wan detected seewfrom the wetland into Pine Street
Canal, Barnes Basin, and Maltex Pond. The State detected high levels of organic
n™£°U^S as+sociajed with c°al tar at several locations on the site, which is along the
proposed location of a major highway. The State is concerned that construction will
c°mP°unds l°uthe cana' a"d possibly to Lake Champlain, the source of
W^er- ThereJ3re Several sin9le and multiple-family dwellings,
of 38 70 9S' " 1 mlle °f th6 ^ Burlin9ton has an aPProximate
Sfte Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
LhAeu9?un?water is contam'nated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene
toluene and xylenes. The sediment is contaminated with polych'lorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), PAHs, and VOCs. The surface water is contaminated
with phthalates and VOCs. The soil is contaminated with PAHs VOCs
and heavy metals including lead and manganese, and the pesticide
d'eldnn There is unrestricted public access to the site, although access is
difficult because of marshy terrain. Trespassers may be threatened by
accidentally touching or ingesting contaminated surface water
groundwater, soil, or sediment, or by swimming in the canal in addition
eating contaminated fish may pose a health hazard. Breathing the air '
contaminated with VOCs may also be a hazard. Portions of the site are
seasonally flooded, permitting the'spread of contamination. The site has
been posted by the City of Burlington and the Vermont Department of
Health.
h 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
- 13
continued
-------
PINE STREET CANAL
Cleanup Approach
1&UJI.U.JJ •f*FJrf *-"-**-•••
The site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
^ Emeraencv Actions: |n 1985, the EPA conducted emergency actions by
eSIng 500 cubic yards of coal tar, solidifying it, and disposing of ,t ,n an
approved facility. The Maltex Pond area was also capPed™^',mQ
with topsoil, and seeded. A temporary fence was erected and some sampling
• . i
was conducted.
Entire Site: The EPA is currently studying the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site. The EPA plans to conduct field investigations
S wi" nclude: a soil gas survey, a geophysical survey, air sampling
studies, surface water and sediment sampling, soil sampling, installation of
DlOIOgiCai SLUUICO, oui loot, vvui.v/1 ^...~~
monitoring wells, and groundwater sampling.
Environmental Progress
d above and the construction of a fence have
j to hazardous substances, making the Pine
oreaiiY reuuueu me (JUIOMLIUI \^> ^^^^^^..^ L« 11^^." ^ ^ _
Street: Canal safer while it awaits further cleanup activities.
14
-------
TANSITOR
ELECTRONIC
INC.
VERMONT
EPA DD# VTD000509174
Site Description
REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Beimlngton County
Bennlngton
Site Responsibility: The site is bejng addressed
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The VT DEC found that the on-site surface water, groundwater sediment
and so,ls were contaminated with silver, boron, and voIaWeoaa^c
compounds (VOCs). The drums with process wastes were founS to
contain materials cons.st.ng of trichloroethane (TCA), acetone oils and
tf- ?Ue t0 the 3bSenCe °f contaminants in drWdng wa?er
, the site is not considered an imminent threat to human health-
haS °CCUrred to soils' surface water and
Cleanup Approach
g^ndwSdS
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
TANSITOR ELECTRONICS INC.
Response Action Status
Groundwater and Sediment: The EPA emergency response staff
collected water and sediment samples to determine whether immediate
action was warranted. The EPA will conduct a comprehensive investigation
to determine the extent of contamination and to evaluate alternative technologies for
cleanup. The investigation is scheduled to begin in 1990.
Environmental Progress
The EPA assessed the conditions on the site and determined that there were no
immediate actions required to make the Tansitor Electronics site safer while it awaits
further cleanup activities.
16
-------
I his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
- fact sheets for the State of Vermont. 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.
Vermont
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforce-
able agreement between EPA and the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of
the Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to
perform or pay for site studies or cleanups. It also de-
scribes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforcement options that the govern-
ment may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties.
This Order is signed by PRPs and the government; it does not require approval by a
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH (greater than 7.0), which tend to be corro-
sive in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed with acids, they neutralize each other
rorming salts. '
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil, sand, or gravel has been dug up for
elsewhere.
use
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 wateFwill drain off.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
Culvert: A pipe under a road, railroad trade, path, or through an embankment used for
drainage.
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.
G-l
-------
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft coal into gas for use as a fuel.
Generator. A facility that emits pollutants into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater, with particular emphasis on the chemis-
try and movement of water.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.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.
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.
PolychlorinatedBiphenyls(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 me passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Polynudear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and bipheri-
yls, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds that are a common component of
creosotes, which can be carcinogenic.
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-2
-------
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 the air and land into receiving waters.
Sediment The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower edges of landfills.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
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].
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-3
-------
------- |