United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5502G)
EPA 520-F-94-011
Summer 1994
vvEPA Super-fund At Work
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Efforts Nationwide
Tinkham Garage Site,
Londonderry, NH
Success in Brief
Superfund Tackles Operation That
Spawned Four Waste Sites
Before passage of the Superfund law, companies like Cannon
Engineering Corporation (CEC) operated with virtual impunity.
Hazardous waste slated for treatment was stockpiled, held in leaking
storage facilities, and dumped at four sites in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire, causing extensive environmental contamination.
Innovative use of legal authority by the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) resulted in firm but fair settlements that netted
more than $50 million in work and cash payments. EPA effectively
negotiated with literally hundreds of minor waste contributors to pay
settlement amounts based on volumetric share and to exit the process
without litigation. EPA also successfully reached a major $33 million
settlement with 47 parties to perform cleanup work and reimburse a
portion of EPA costs.
The following cases show how cooperative efforts by the states,
private companies, and concerned citizens helped EPA make simulta-
neous progress at four very different locations. The Bridgewater and
Plymouth Harbor sites are ready for industrial or commercial re-
development. Long-term remedial work is under way at the two
New Hampshire sites.
Plymouth Harbor Site,
Plymouth, MA
Regional Administrator Julie Belaga removed the final hazard warning sign
from the Bridgewater, MA site to mark the first completion of a Superfund site
cleanup in New England, October 22,1991.
-------
Superfund At Work • CEC Site, Bridgewater, MA
Summer 1994
Hazardous Waste Inundates Bridgewater
In 1974, CEC began accepting
industrial waste for storage and
incineration at a six-acre site in
Bridgewater, Massachusetts. The
facility was distinguished by a
row of hulking storage tanks
flanking a taller incinerator stack.
Ironically, the storage tanks were
empty, but 21 other tanks around
the site reached capacity with
chemicals, paints, and oily waste.
The facility operated within a
small industrial park bordered by
a residential neighborhood,
woods, and wetlands. The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
licensed CEC to store and dispose
of wastes such as motor oils,
solvents, and pesticides. The
operators, however, accepted
industrial emulsions, lacquers,
cyanide-laden electroplating
waste, and other manufacturing
residues. Storage practices were
careless: incoming wastes were
mixed together in holding tanks,
wastes were stockpiled, and
samples for testing were
crammed onto overcrowded
shelves. The incinerator soon was
overburdened as the facility
became inundated with waste
shipments from hundreds of
generators all over New England.
To handle the overflow, the
owners leased additional storage
space in above-ground tanks in
Plymouth, Massachusetts. At the
same time, truckers hauled and
illegally dumped more chemical
wastes at two sites in New
Hampshire.
Following inspections of the
Bridgewater facility prompted by
citizen concern, state officials
revoked CEC's license in 1980 for
waste handling and reporting
violations. Legal action taken
against the owners included a
$50,000 fine for discharging
pollutants into the environment.
The facility went into receivership
soon after.
Operator Walks Away
The defunct operation left
behind more than 700 drums and
155,000 gallons of liquid waste
and sludge in bulk storage. The
five storage tanks and incinerator
tower made an ugly, rusting
profile on the area skyline. Waste
trailers were abandoned with
doors standing ajar and swinging
in the wind. Closed storage
buildings concealed stacks of
leaking drums with trails of
brown chemicals running to floor
drains.
Subsequent investigations
revealed that soil, buildings,
ground water, and the adjacent
wetlands were contaminated with
volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), polychlorinated biphe-
nyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides,
and metals. These contaminants
can cause serious health effects.
State Reduces Immediate Risks
In 1982, state officials removed
the drums and liquid wastes from
CEC's base of operations in
Bridgewater. Investigations
revealed that more than 1 million
gallons of hazardous liquids from
the Bridgewater site had been
disposed illegally at three other
sites in Plymouth, Massachusetts
and in Nashua and Londonderry,
New Hampshire. In 1982, EPA
proposed all four sites to the
National Priorities List of aban-
doned or uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites. In 1983, the sites were
among the first officially listed as
eligible for federal cleanup.
As EPA began the in-depth site
investigations necessary to deter-
mine how to address the prob-
lems at the site, the Bridgewater
site owners and a group of waste
generators and transporters
agreed to remove the bulk con-
tents of some of the waste con-
tainers on site. These removal
activities stabilized the site, but
field investigations conducted by
EPA showed that additional
efforts were needed to reduce
long-term risks and allow for
future redevelopment.
Innovative Technology for Soil
In 1988, EPA completed site
investigations and presented a
comprehensive cleanup plan for
community review. EPA and the
state finalized the plan later that
year. By the end of 1988, Poten-
tially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
fenced the site and during the
summer of 1990, decontaminated
and removed on-site buildings
and began treating contaminated
soil.
An innovative process called
Low Temperature Thermal
Desorption was used to treat soil.
Rather than burning the hazard-
ous material, the process roasted
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
17 West Jackson Boulevard. 12th Floor
Chicago, IL c'^oa-nOOO
-------
Superfund At Work • CEC Site, Bridgewater, MA • Summer 1994
The Bridgewater, MA facility was distinguished by a row of hulking storage tanks flanking a taller incinerator stack.
the soil in a closed unit at tem-
peratures between 300 and 500
degrees, driving off water and
VOCs. These compounds, which
are commonly used industrial
solvents and degreasers, readily
release into the air from soil or
water. The treatment process
removed 1,242 pounds of VOCs
from 11,330 tons of contaminated
soil. The associated gas released
from the process was captured in
filters called carbon adsorption
beds and shipped to facilities for
disposal and regeneration of the
filter units.
This on-site treatment de-
stroyed pollutants and reduced
the risk of exposure that would
have arisen from moving the soil
off site for treatment or merely
containing contaminants on site.
Because of the success achieved at
the Bridgewater site, this treat-
ment technique has been ap-
proved for other Superfund sites
in New England and other states.
In addition, 400 tons of PCB-
contaminated soil that were not
amenable to the thermal desorp-
tion treatment were excavated and
incinerated off site. Workers then
installed nine monitoring wells to
detect any pollutants that could
still be entering the ground water.
The site was backfilled with clean
soil and seeded for grass. The
PRPs also reconstructed a wetland
on the site. This effort was com-
pleted in September 1991, ap-
proximately a year from the time
soil treatment began.
Bridgewater Cleanup Complete
In 1991, EPA returned the site
to Bridgewater officials for com-
mercial or industrial use, with the
caveat that redevelopment could
not involve digging below
ground water level. Residual
contamination of ground water
beneath the site is expected to
naturally dissipate since the
source of contamination has been
removed. Monitoring of ground
water contamination will con-
tinue for 20 years or more.
-------
• Superfund At Work • Plymouth Harbor Site, Plymouth, MA
Summer 1994
Plymouth Harbor Site -
An Explosion Waiting to Happen
In 1976, with the Bridgewater
facility filled to capacity, CEC
began sending hazardous waste
shipments to Cordage Industrial
Park near Massachusetts' Ply-
mouth Harbor under an oral
agreement between the owners.
The Plymouth storage facility
consisted of three above-ground
storage tanks on 2.5 acres. Each
tank was surrounded by a 6-foot
earthen dike. Originally built in
the 1920s to store fuel and oil
unloaded from barges, the tanks
stood 50 to 180 feet from the
harbor. In 1979, Massachusetts
authorities issued a license for
CEC to use the tanks for liquid
hazardous waste storage.
Hazardous Liquids
Threaten Harbor
Beginning in 1980, adjacent
property owners complained of
foul odors coming from the tanks.
The local fire marshall noted fire
and explosion hazards, and
inspections by EPA and the
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineer-
ing (DEQE) revealed leaks in the
two tanks containing hazardous
substances. In June 1980, DEQE
officials ordered CEC to cease
operations at Plymouth, alleging
falsification of required reporting
documents. Operators aban-
doned the site, threatening the
harbor with 500,000 gallons of
hazardous liquids in two leaking
tanks.
The surrounding area encom-
passes a retail complex, several
light industries, a sensitive marine
environment, beaches, summer
cottages, public recreation, and
tourist areas. Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides,
and lead were found in surface
soil on site, with highest levels in
the earthen dikes surrounding
each of the tanks. Low levels
of lead and heavy metals
polluted surface water in a
nearby tidal stream.
Property Owners Cooperate
to Reduce Threat
Salt Water Trust, the owners of
Cordage Industrial Park and the
Plymouth site property, per-
formed initial cleanup activities.
In 1983, Salt Water Trust cleaned
and decontaminated the first tank
and EPA emptied the second.
More than 240,000 gallons of
hazardous liquids and sludges
were sent to an approved facility
for disposal. In early 1984, EPA
began an extensive field investiga-
tion and by September 1985 chose
a final remedy for the site. Public
meetings were held with Ply-
mouth residents and comments
invited. In conjunction with
citizen requests, an analysis was
done in 1986 confirming that the
site was within the 100-year
floodplain. This analysis sup-
ported the need to remove con-
tamination that could be spread
through natural processes as well
as human intervention.
In 1987, EPA workers fenced
the site to restrict access and
dismantled and disposed of the
storage tanks and their associated
piping. In 1988, under EPA
supervision, the PRPs removed
250 tons of contaminated soil
from the tank areas for shipment
to a hazardous waste disposal
facility in Indiana. The area was
then filled with clean soil. EPA
conducted a risk assessment
following removal of the contami-
nated soil. This review indicated
that residual on-site contamina-
tion was within safe levels and
that the property could be rede-
veloped for industrial use. A
second review conducted in 1992
confirmed these results.
More than 500,000 gallons of hazardous liquids in leaking storage tanks
threatened Plymouth Harbor, MA.
-------
Superfund At Work • Sylvester Site, Nashua, NH • Summer 1994
First Site Removed from New
England Superfund List
In September 1993, the Ply-
mouth site was the first in New
England to be deleted from the
National Priorities List. Announc-
ing the site's deletion, then acting
Regional Administrator Paul
Keough remarked that, 'The
deletion of the Plymouth Harbor
site is part of a larger success
story. Thorough investigations of
contamination, and of who is
liable for contamination, ensure
that we have the knowledge of
the problem and the money to do
the right thing by the community.
We can't afford the human
and financial toll of doing
anything less."
The Sylvester Site ~
An Illegal Operation Goes Undeiground
Before CEC illegally brought
in hazardous wastes from
Bridgewater, the Sylvester prop-
erty in Nashua, New Hampshire
was a sand and gravel pit. During
the late 1960s, William Sylvester
began an unlicensed waste dis-
posal business, burying house-
hold refuse and demolition mate-
rials in the excavated pit. Chemi-
cal sludges and hazardous liquids
were allowed to percolate into the
ground or were stored in steel
drums next to a 100-foot garage
on the property. When the un-
lawful disposal was discovered in
late 1970, several state court
actions followed.
In 1976, Sylvester failed to
comply with a court order to
remove all waste from the site.
Then in November 1978, the state
cited Sylvester for storing hazard-
ous waste drums behind the
garage. None of these official
actions, however, stopped
Sylvester from degrading 20
acres of ground water.
Chemicals Injected
Underground
From June 1978 through Octo-
ber 1979, a waste hauler named
John Tinkham and others had
been dumping liquid hazardous
wastes from CEC's Bridgewater
facility into the former sand and
gravel pit. It was reported that,
starting in 1979, Tinkham's driv-
ers also would back their tanker
trucks into the garage and pour
bulk hazardous chemicals into a
drain pipe that flowed under a
field behind the garage. Accord-
ing to available records, more
than 800,000 gallons of hazardous
waste were disposed over a 10-
month period. A1979 court
injunction finally prohibited all
further disposal of hazardous
wastes at the site.
The Sylvester property is on
Gilson Road in Nashua, a residen-
tial area where approximately
1,000 people live in two trailer
parks. Five private wells have
been drilled within a quarter mile.
A brook is about 700 feet away,
flowing through one of the trailer
parks and entering the Nashua
River. Eleven miles downstream,
the Nashua joins the Merrimack
River, a source of drinking water
for the city of Lowell, Massachu-
setts.
Area ground water and the
brook were polluted with VOCs
and heavy metals, including
arsenic. Air and on-site soil also
were contaminated with VOCs.
Operators at the Bridgewater
facility sometimes poured
chemicals down the drain. At the
Sylvester site, a drainage system
spread the chemicals out into the
sandy soil and fractured bedrock.
State Takes Charge in Ground
Water Cleanup
After the New Hampshire
courts shut down the dump in
1979, Sylvester and Tinkham
were arrested and convicted of
illegal discharge of wastes. The
courts fined each of them $25,000
continued on page 6
-------
1 Superfund At Work • Tinkham Garage Site, Londonderry, NH
Summer 1994
continued from page 5
but the two served six months in
jail instead. Left with a highly
contaminated site, the New
Hampshire Department of Envi-
ronmental Services (DES) re-
moved 1,000 drums of barrelled
waste. Early in 1980, Nashua city
officials fenced the site and DES
removed another 1,300 surface
drums. The state then began an
intensive study of the site.
Working with federal funds
made available through the
Superfund program, DES officials
installed a temporary ground
water recirculation system in late
1981 to prevent contaminated
ground water from reaching the
Nashua River. This system
operated effectively for about a
year, hi 1982, EPA and the state
approved a long-term cleanup
plan for the site. Under the plan,
municipal water lines were
extended in 1982 to serve affected
residents. By 1986, an imperme-
able cap covered the sand pit to
prevent rainwater from further
spreading contamination, and a
slurry wall contained a 20-acre
pool of contaminated ground
water and hazardous discharge.
Also in 1986, DES began operat-
ing the treatment system for
ground water contained by the
slurry wall.
EPA Revisits Early Decision
A review of cleanup progress
in 1989 prompted an investigation
that found a previously undetec-
ted source of toluene contamina-
tion, requiring a change to the
ground water recovery system.
Technology to treat the source of
contamination in-place has been
operating for two years.
Tinkham Garage -
End of the Road for CEC Waste
After John Tinkham's waste-
hauling operation dumped oil
and hazardous waste in Nashua
at what became the Sylvester site,
drivers reportedly often returned
to Londonderry to service the
trucks. Contaminated wash
water from the emptied tankers
was poured directly onto the
ground in a field behind
Tinkham's garage. The same
trucks were then used in
Tinkham's business of cleaning
out septic tanks in a nearby
condominium complex.
Private, single-family homes
and agricultural properties border
the garage. In 1978, residents
complained of foam and odors in
a nearby brook, prompting an
investigation. The state issued a
restraining order to Tinkham to
prohibit any further discharge of
wastes at the garage. Instead,
covert dumping reportedly
ensued. Tinkham had a contract
with the Londonderry Green
Apartments (now the Woodland
Village Condominiums) to empty
their septic tanks. Tinkham
allegedly dumped the hazardous
wastes from CEC into the septic
tanks, contaminating the ground
water.
In early 1983, the state closed
neighboring private wells and
those of the condominium com-
plex due to contamination. EPA
supplied bottled water to resi-
dents and funded an emergency
water line, working with the state
and the town to bring safe mu-
nicipal water to Tinkham's
neighbors.
Cleanup Pilots New Technology
In 1986, following a period of
public comment, EPA selected a
remedy that involved ground
water treatment and pilot testing
of a new technology, vacuum
extraction, to treat soil in place. In
1988, the cleanup plan was
amended to allow use of the pilot-
tested process, which draws air
through the soil, releasing volatile
contamination from soil particles
to the air stream, and then cap-
Covert dumping of waste oils into condo septic tanks contaminated this field.
Dead grass gives only an inkling of the extent of environmental damage.
-------
Superfund At Work • CEC Sites
Summer 1994
tures the contaminants on carbon
niters as the clean air is released
from the treatment system. Be-
cause of the success at the
Tinkham site, this process has
been commonly used at other
Superfund sites.
Cleanup Ongoing
Efforts to coordinate ground
water and soil cleanup have
delayed the start of the cleanup.
Contaminated ground water will
be pumped and treated after a
sewer line is constructed between
the site and the wastewater
treatment plant in the adjacent
town of Deny. After careful
evaluation, EPA concluded that
discharge of treated ground
water onto the site would not
be feasible.
Connection to the treatment
plant and completion of the soil
vacuum extraction unit is ex-
pected in the summer of 1994.
The contaminated condominium
septic field will be excavated and
rebuilt. Excavated soil will be
added to the contaminated soil
behind the garage for treatment
by vacuum extraction. Soil treat-
ment will require nine months to
a year to complete. Ground water
treatment should be complete
within three years.
Precedent-Setting Enforcement Effort
Nets Millions for Site Cleanups
Numerous significant suc-
cesses mark the legal work
performed in connection with
the CEC site cleanups, fix 1986,
EPA and the states of Massa-
chusetts and New Hampshire
jointly notified hundreds of
parties of their potential liability
for the site remediations. Deal-
ing fairly with such a large
number of very different parties
required some ingenuity. The
CEC case was among the first
instances in which EPA used
the de minimis settlement tool to
work with parties who had
contributed relatively minor
amounts to the site.
Those who contributed less
than one percent of the volume
of waste paid a proportional
share of the cleanup costs plus a
sum to cover the potential need
to address risks unknown at the
time of settlement. In return,
parties agreeing to the settle-
ment early were given protec-
tion from future site-related
lawsuits. The protection ex-
tended not only to any future
government action but also to
suits other larger parties might
launch to recoup some of their
costs. Following negotiations,
300 parties agreed to settlement
terms and contributed a total of
$13.6 million to the cleanup effort.
The de minimis tool has since
been used at other Superfund
sites to end the involvement of
smaller parties sooner and spare
them transaction costs incurred
during negotiations with major
contributors.
Major Waste Contributors
Sign Mega-Settlement
After dealing with the small
parties, EPA reached an agree-
ment with 47 major waste con-
tributors. These large volume
contributors agreed to perform
cleanups worth almost $16 mil-
lion at the Bridgewater, Ply-
mouth, and Tinkham Garage
sites. The parties also reimbursed
EPA and the states approxi-
mately $18 million for work
performed at the Plymouth and
Sylvester sites, as well as future
oversight costs.
Uncooperative Parties
Go to Court
EPA offered another settle-
ment to smaller parties who had
rejected the first de minimis offer.
But this time, each would have
to pay 100% more tihan the share
they would have paid had they
joined the initial settlement.
Twelve more parties agreed
to "cash ouf' for a total of
$792,000.
Seven parties who had held
out for better terms balked at the
penalty EPA was imposing on
late settlors, contending they
should be afiowed to reach a
separate agreement or join the
larger one.
continued on page 8
-------
Superfund At Work • CEC Sites
Summer 1994
Millions for Site Cleanups
continued from page 7
Two Courts Hand
Holdouts Defeat
The District Court upheld
EPA's position, noting that the
law is designed to impose a
greater burden of cleanup costs
on those who delay. When six
parties appealed the District
Court ruling, a second court
opinion from the Circuit Court
more strongly endorsed EPA's
position and made clear that
CERCLA was not designed
to allow parties to stall for a
better deal.
EPA and the two states sued 25
remaining parties who had failed
to settle during the first two
rounds of negotiations. Ten
separate consent decrees worth
an additional $8.2 million were
eventually lodged to end all
CEC litigation in 1992.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
If you wish to be added to or deleted from our mailing list or to comment
on this bulletin's content, length or format, please call (703) 603-8984, or
send a letter to Superfund At Work (5502G), 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460
Success at
CEC sites
At sites like CEC, the true
cost of gross mismanagement
of hazardous waste can be
counted in time, money, and
environmental degradation.
Enforcement initiatives re-
sulted in settlements worth
more than $50 million in
cleanup work and cash
payments from waste con-
tributors.
Court rulings upholding
EPA in CEC litigation have
made it harder for anyone to
walk away from a toxic dump
and have made waste genera-
tors think twice about who
they choose to dispose of their
hazardous wastes.
xv EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
5502G
Washington, D.C. 20460
Bulk Rate
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
Permit No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
------- |