&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/023
September 1991
PB92-963203
National
Priorities
List Sites:
CONNECTICUT
1991
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-708A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Connecticut
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA22161
(703) 487-4650
The National Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large (1991),
may be ordered as PB92-963253.
The complete set of the overview documents, plus the 49 state reports may be ordered
as PB92-963253.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction:
A Brief Overview 1
Super fund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the State Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the State of Connecticut 17
The NPL Report:
Progress to Date 19
The NPL Fact Sheets:
Summary of Site Activities 21
Appendix A: Glossary:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets 53
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 69
-------
INTRODUCTION
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a close, a series of
headline 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. Hazardous
waste buried there over a 25-year period
contaminated streams and soil, and endangered
the health of nearby residents. The result:
evacuation 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 envi-
ronment were threatened, lives were disrupted,
and property values were reduced. It became
increasingly clear that there were large num-
bers of serious hazardous waste problems that
were falling through the cracks of existing
environmental laws. The magnitude of these
emerging problems moved Congress to enact
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly known as Superfund
was the first Federal law established to deal
with the dangers posed by the Nation's hazard-
ous waste sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the problem until the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began the process of site discovery and site
evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste sites existed, and
they presented the Nation with some of the
most complex pollution problems it had ever
faced.
Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
A
Brief
Overview
ous waste has surfaced as a major environ-
mental concern in every part of the United
States. It wasn't just the land that was con-
taminated by past disposal practices. Chemi-
cals in the soil were spreading into the ground-
water (a source of drinking water for many)
and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
sites, while improperly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
community and the environment at others.
The EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites
The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
sites as the most serious in the Nation. These
sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
mates that, while some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list, commonly called
the NPL, will continue to grow by approxi-
mately 50 to 100 sites per year, potentially
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
recognized that the Federal government could
-------
INTRODUCTION
not and should not address all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target.
Sites on the NPL (1,245) thus are a relatively
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and compelling cases. The
EPA has logged more than 35,000 sites on its
national inventory of potentially hazardous
waste sites and assesses each site within one
year of being logged.
THE EPA IS MAKING PROGRESS
ON SITE CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund program is to tackle
immediate dangers first and then move through
the progressive steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public health and the
environment.
Superfund responds immediately to sites
posing imminent threats to human health and
the environment at both NPL sites and sites not
on the NPL. The purpose is to stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a release of
hazardous substances, or the threat of one, into
the environment. 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 imminent threats is one
of Superfund's most noted achievements.
Where imminent threats to the public or
environment were evident, the EPA has initi-
ated or completed emergency actions that
attacked the most serious threats of toxic
exposure in more than 2,700 cases.
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent solution to an environ-
mental problem that presents a serious threat
to the public or the environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. The 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. By 1991, construction had
started at more than four times as many sites as
in 1986! Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half have had
construction cleanup activity. In addition,
more than 400 more sites presently are in the
investigation stage to determine the extent of
site contamination and to identify appropriate
cleanup remedies. Many other sites with
cleanup remedies selected are poised for the
start of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through the
cleanup pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining
momentum.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup construction to understand that envi-
ronmental protection does not end when the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies like those designed to clean up ground-
water must operate for many years in order
to accomplish their objectives.
The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed. 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, the 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
-------
INTRODUCTION
health are being safeguarded. The EPA will
correct any deficiencies discovered and will
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. The EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and to deploy the experts,
but the Agency needs citizen input as it makes
choices for affected communities.
Because the people in a community where a
Superfund site is located will be those most
directly affected by hazardous waste problems
and cleanup processes, the EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in cleanup decisions.
Public involvement and comment does influ-
ence EPA cleanup plans by providing valuable
information about site conditions, community
concerns, and preferences.
The State and U.S. Territories volumes and the
companion National overview volume provide
general Superfund background information
and descriptions of activities at each NPL site.
These volumes clearly describe what the
problems are, what the EPA and others partici-
pating 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 TOGETHER
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.
Citizens also should understand the challenges
involved in hazardous waste cleanup and the
decisions we must make, as a Nation, in
finding the best solutions.
The National overview, Superfund: Focusing
on the Nation at Large (1991), contains impor-
tant information to help you understand the
magnitude and challenges facing the
Superfund program, 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, vital roles
of the various participants in the cleanup
process, the Superfund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's serious hazardous
waste sites, and the current status of the NPL.
If you did not receive this overview volume,
ordering information is provided in the front of
this book.
This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
up under the Superfund program. These sites
represent the most serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation and require the most
complicated and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each book gives a "snapshot" of
the conditions and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site. Information
presented for each site is current as of April
1991. Conditions change as our cleanup
efforts continue, so these site summaries will
be updated annually to include information on
new progress being made.
To help you understand the cleanup accom-
plishments made at these sites, this volume
includes a description of the process for site
discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
cleanup of Superfund sites. This description,
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up
Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
which to review the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.
-------
SUPERFUND
The diverse problems posed by hazard-
ous waste sites have provided the EPA
with the challenge to establish a consis-
tent approach for evaluating and cleaning up
the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, the
EPA has had to step beyond its traditional role
as a regulatory agency to develop processes
and guidelines for each step in these techni-
cally complex site cleanups. The EPA has
established procedures to coordinate the
efforts of its Washington, D.C. Headquarters
program offices and its front-line staff in ten
Regional Offices, with the State and local
governments, contractors, and private parties
who are participating in site cleanup. An
important part of the process is that any time
How Does the
Program Work
to Clean Up
Sites?
THREE-STEP SUPERFUND PROCESS
STEP1
Discover site and
determine whether
an emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
' Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process.
during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible
for site contamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
flow diagram above provides a summary of the
three-step process.
Although this book provides a current "snap-
shot" of site progress made only by emergency
actions and long-term cleanup actions at
Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads
to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
-------
SUPERFUND.
waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this
summary description of Superfund involve-
ment at hazardous waste sites.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND
EMERGENCY EVALUATION
How does the EPA learn about
potential hazardous waste sites?
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. There may
be an explosion or fire, which alerts the State
or local authorities to a problem. Routine
investigations by State and local governments
and required reporting and inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about 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.
What happens if there is an imminent
danger?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
reported, the EPA determines whether there is
an emergency requiring an immediate 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 con-
taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
rarily relocating residents until the danger is
addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
dents 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
If there Isn't an Imminent danger, how
does the EPA determine what, if any,
cleanup actions should be taken?
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 contami-
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up. The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so 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 whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-
mation 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 assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the
questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
SUPERFUND
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or
natural resource area such as a wetland
or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land,
water, air, people, plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that
they do not threaten public health or the envi-
ronment. 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 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.
If the preliminary assessment
shows a serious threat may exist,
what's the next step?
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 pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access to
the site.
How does the EPA use the results of
the site inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
The HRS is the scoring system the 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 that 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 poten-
tially affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and envi-
ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on the
NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can
have a long-term cleanup paid for from
Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
fund. Superfund can, and does, pay for emer-
gency actions performed at any site, whether
or not it's on the NPL.
Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL 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 proposed 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. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list.
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 capabilities, and available tech-
-------
SUPERFUND
nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.
A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.
How do people find out whether the
EPA considers a site a national
priority for cleanup under the
Superfund Program?
All NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
After a site is added to the NPL, what
are the steps to cleanup?
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent, long-term cleanup.
Since every site presents a unique set of chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:
1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
detail the extent of the site contamination
2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
possible cleanup remedies
3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
which remedy to use
4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy
5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy
This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity 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 the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private
parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, 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 of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
SUPERFUND
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 prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called & feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered 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,
depending on the size and complexity of the
problem.
Does the public have a say in the
final cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made.
The results of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, which also point out the
recommended cleanup choice, are published in
a report for public review and comment. The
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 commu-
nity know where they can get copies of the
study and other reference documents concern-
ing the site. Local information repositories,
such as libraries or other public buildings, are
established in cities and towns near each NPL
site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
to review all relevant information and the
proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
tion repositories for each NPL site described in
this volume are given in Appendix B.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
is published. These comments can be written
or given verbally at public meetings that the
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
ing written answers to specific community
comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
summary" is part of the 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
-------
SUPERFUND.
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 technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.
If every cleanup action needs to be
tailored to a site, does the design
ofthe remedy need to be tailored,
too?
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 rem-
edy 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 six months to two 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 site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
how long does it take to actually
clean up the site, and how much
does it cost?
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 to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup 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 de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site .
Once the cleanup action is
completed, is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected
10
-------
SUPERFUND
remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
until public comments are taken into consid-
eration that a site actually can be deleted from
the NPL. All sites deleted from the NPL and
sites with completed construction are included
in the progress report found later in this book.
Can a site be taken off the NPL if
no cleanup has taken place?
Yes. But only if further site investigation
reveals that there are no threats present at the
site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
sary. In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
action" remedy and may move to delete the
site when monitoring confirms that the site
does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
the NPL if new information concerning site
cleanup or threats show that the site does not
warrant Superfund activities.
A site may be removed if a revised HRS
scoring, based on updated information, results
in a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
A site also may be removed from the NPL by
transferring it to other appropriate Federal
cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
cleanup actions.
Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
serves Superfund monies for the Nation's most
pressing hazardous waste problems where no
other cleanup authority is applicable.
Can the EPA make parties
responsible for the contamination
pay?
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 con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
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 the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for actions
financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the 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 (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.
11
-------
THE VOLUME
The site fact sheets presented in this
book are comprehensive summaries
that cover a broad range of information.
The fact sheets describe hazardous
waste sites on the NPL and their locations, as
well as the conditions leading to their listing
("Site Description"). The summaries list the
types of contaminants that have been discov-
ered and related threats to public and ecologi-
cal health ("Threats and Contaminants").
"Cleanup Approach" presents an overview of
the cleanup activities completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets conclude with a brief
synopsis of how much progress has been made
in protecting public health and the environ-
ment. The summaries also pinpoint other
actions, such as legal efforts to involve pollut-
ers responsible for site contamination and
community concerns.
The fact sheets are arranged in alphabetical
order by site name. Because site cleanup is a
dynamic and gradual process, all site informa-
tion is accurate as of the date shown on the
bottom of each page. Progress always is being
made at NPL sites, and the EPA periodically
will update the site fact sheets to reflect recent
actions and will publish updated State vol-
umes. The following two pages show a ge-
neric fact sheet and briefly describe the infor-
mation under each section.
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. The EPA is committed to
involving the public in the decision making
process associated with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Agency solicits input from area
residents in communities 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 clean-
How to Use
the State
Book
ups take many forms and can affect communi-
ties in different ways. Local traffic may be
rerouted, residents may be relocated, tempo-
rary 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 the EPA
intends to clean up the site. You must under-
stand the cleanup alternatives being proposed
for site cleanup and how residents may be
affected by each one. You also need to have
some idea of how your community intends to
use the site in the future, and you need to
know what the community can realistically
expect once the cleanup is complete.
The EPA wants to develop cleanup methods
that meet community needs, but the Agency
only can 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 involved,
and assure that hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your community's
concerns.
13
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Dates when the site was
Proposed, made Final, and
Deleted from the NPL.
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially respon-
sible parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOO
^SUeJDescrlption
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Name*:
ฎ
Site Responsibility:
NPL Listing History
Proposed:
Final:
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts:,
Environmental Progress
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.
14
-------
THE VOLUME
SITE DESCRIPTION
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes descrip-
tions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have con-
tributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
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 environ-
ments arising from the site contamination also are described.
CLEANUP APPROACH
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
RESPONSE ACTION STATUS
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean
up the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided
into separate phases, depending on the complexity and required actions at the
site. Two major types of cleanup activities often are 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 descrip-
tion.
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 the EPA to
achieve site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with
the site cleanup process are reported here.
15
-------
THE VOLUME
The "icons," or symbols, accompanying the text allow the reader to see at a glance which envi-
ronmental resources are affected and the status of cleanup activities at the site.
Icons in the Threats and
Contaminants Section
Contaminated Groundwater resources
in the Contaminated Groundwater in
the vicinity or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used as a
drinking water source.)
Contaminated Surface Water and
Sediments on or near the site. (These
include lakes, ponds, streams, and
rivers.)
Contaminated Air in the vicinity of
the site. (Air pollution usually is
periodic and involves contaminated
dust particles or hazardous gas emis-
sions.)
Contaminated Soil and Sludges on or
near the site. (This contamination
category may include bulk or other
surface hazardous wastes found on the
site.)
Threatened or contaminated Environ-
mentally Sensitive Areas in the vicin-
ity of the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas or critical
habitats.)
Icons in the Response Action
Status Section
Initial Actions have been taken or are
underway to eliminate immediate
threats at the site.
Site Studies at the site to determine the
nature and extent of contamination are
planned or underway.
Remedy Selected indicates that site
investigations have been concluded,
and the EPA has selected a final
cleanup remedy for the site or part of
the site.
Remedy Design means that engineers
are preparing 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,
currently are underway.
Cleanup Complete shows that all
cleanup goals have been achieved for
the contaminated site or part of the
site.
Environmental Progress summa-
rizes the activities taken to date to
protect human health and to clean
up site contamination.
16
-------
NPL SITES
The State of
Connecticut
Located in EPA Region 1, which includes the six northeastern states, Connecticut is the third
smallest state in the nation, covering 5,018 square miles. The state's topography consists of
western uplands in the northwestern part of the state, narrow central lowlands in the north and
south, and hilly eastern uplands drained by rivers. Ranked 27th in the U.S. populations, Con-
necticut experienced a 6% increase in population between 1980 and 1990 and currently has
approximately 3,287,000 residents, according to the 1990 Census. Principal state industries
include manufacturing, retail, government, and services. Livestock, aircraft engines and parts,
submarines, copper, helicopters, and electrical equipment are some of the products of Connecti-
cut.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Connecticut?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
14
-Q
14
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional District 1,4 1 site
Congressional District 2 6 sites
Congressional District 5,6 3 sites
What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
in the State of Connecticut?
# of sites
5
2
1
1
1
4
type of sites
Municipal & Industrial Landfills
Metals & Allied Products
Electronics & Electrical Equipment
Electroplating
Textil Mill Products
Other (Quarry, manufactures, treatment and
storage facility).
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
15--
12--
3 -
i
GW Soil SW Sod
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals
(inorganics).
Soil: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), heavy metals (inorganics),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
creosote (organics).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
heavy metals, and pesticides.
* Appear at 20% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?*
4
Sites
with I
Studies
Underway
Sites
with
Remedy
Selected
Sites
with
Remedy
Design
5
Sites
with
Cleanup
Ongoing
Sites
with
Construction
Complete
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 8 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April 1991
18
-------
THE NPL REPORT
The following Progress Report lists all
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 Super-
fund cleanup process are arrayed across the
top of the chart, and each site's progress
through these steps is represented by an arrow
(cป indicating the current stage of cleanup.
Large and complex sites often are 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 differ-
ent 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" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or currently
is underway. Emergency or initial actions are
taken as an interim measure to provide im-
mediate relief from exposure to hazardous site
conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent
further contamination.
A final arrow in the "Site Studies"
category indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is ongoing.
A final 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
Progress
To Date
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the
arrows are discontinued at the "Remedy
Selection" step and resume in the
"Construction Complete" category.
A final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently are
designing the technical specifications for the
selected cleanup remedies and technologies.
A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions have
been started at the site and currently are
underway.
A final 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 currently
may be undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the
cleanup actions continue to protect human
health and the environment.
A check in the "Deleted" category indicates
that the site cleanup has met all human health
and environmental goals and that the EPA has
deleted the site from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in this volume.
19
April 1991
-------
3
0
0)
c
o
O
ft
ft
Hi)
(0
ftftft
0)
+
ฃ
0>
c/5
a.
Z
a
c
(0
O
o
(5
i
o>
o
ftftft ftft ft ftft
ง! 1
z ฃ
1111111
So So
II
s
i
3
April 1991
20
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 1
21
ApriM991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Connecticut, providing spe-
cific information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environ-
mental progress. Should you have questions, please call the EPA's Region 1
Office in Boston, Massachusetts or one of the other offices listed below:
EPA Region 1 Superfund Community Relations Office (617) 565-3425
EPA Region 1 Superfund Office (617) 573-9645
EPA Superfund Hotline (800) 424-9346
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center (202) 260-2080
Connecticut Superfund Office (203) 566-5486
April 1991 22
-------
BARKHAMSTE
NEW HARTFOR
LANDFILL
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD980732333
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Litchfield County
Barkhamsted
The Barkhamsted-New Hartford Landfill encompasses 98 acres near the Barkhamsted and New
Hartford town line. Since 1974, it has been owned and operated by the Regional Refuse
Disposal District One. The landfill is unlined and accepts municipal and industrial wastes,
including oily metal grindings and sludge containing heavy metals. A barrel-crushing operation
to reclaim metals also is on site. In 1983, leaking drums containing hazardous solvents were
observed on site during a State inspection. Tests indicated volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
were present in shallow and deep wells on site. An unnamed brook borders the site to the
southwest and the north and flows through a wetland to the Farmington River. The surrounding
area is rural and residential. Many private wells and a municipal supply well serving an
estimated 4,800 people are within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater underlying the site is contaminated with VOCs including xylene,
toluene, and vinyl chloride, all of which are present in shallow and deep wells on site.
The site is not completely fenced, making it possible for people and animals to come into
contact with hazardous substances. Potential human health threats include accidentally
ingesting or coming in direct contact with the groundwater or surface wastes.
23
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase aimed at cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The Farmington Valley Health District shut down the on-site well serving
the landfill office due to VOC contamination. An investigation into the nature and extent
of site contamination is planned to begin in late 1991.
Environmental Progress
The EPA has studied the conditions at the Barkhamsted-New Hartford Landfill site and has
determined that since the contaminated water source has been removed from service, no other
immediate actions are required while waiting for cleanup actions to begin.
April 1991
24
BARKHAMSTED-NEW HARTFORD LANDFILL
-------
BEACON
HEIGHTS
LANDFILL
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID#CTD072122062
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
New Haven County
Southeast of the intersection of
Blackberry Hill Road and Skokorat Road
Other Names:
Betkoski's Dump
Site Description
The Beacon Heights Landfill site covers 30 acres on an 83-acre property. Between 1920 and 1979,
the landfill was used for the disposal of industrial and municipal waste, including oils, chemical
liquids, sludges, solvents, rubber, and plastics. Landfill operations included open burning, along
with burial of non-combustibles. During an investigation conducted by the EPA in 1984, benzene
and several other solvents were detected in two private wells on Skokorat Road at levels that
exceeded drinking water standards set by the State of Connecticut. Hockanum Brook, located 1/2
mile northwest of the landfill, flows into the Naugatuck River 2 miles northwest of the site.
Approximately 44 homes are within 1/2 mile of the site along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Road.
The nearest residences are approximately 1,000 feet to the north and west of the site. Eight hundred
people live within a mile of the site. Local residences used groundwater as the drinking water
supply source. The local surface water is used for recreational purposes. An apple orchard is
located approximately 600 feet northwest of the landfill.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
II
The groundwater underlying the site was found to be contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including methylene chloride. The on-site leachate and soils are
contaminated with VOCs, as well as lead. The on-site surface water has been shown to
be contaminated with VOCs. People are at risk by coming into direct contact with or
drinking contaminated surface water or groundwater, breathing potentially contaminated
air, or by accidentally ingesting soil on the site.
25
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on control of contamination
sources and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Source Control: In 1985, the EPA chose the following remedies, which the potentially
responsible parties agreed to carry out: (1) excavating Betkoski's Dump and other
contaminated soils for consolidation with the main landfill prior to closing it down; (2)
covering the consolidated wastes to prevent contaminant migration; (3) providing gas venting and
stormwater management controls; and (4) installing a system to collect leachate along the perimeter
of the site. The potentially responsible parties also fenced the site and State and local control of use
of groundwater in the area is being enforced. Connection to the municipal water line was made
available, and 49 residences elected to connect to it. Three pumping stations and a reservoir have
been built to accommodate the additional water service.
Entire Site: Under the EPA's guidance, a study for leachate disposal has been completed
by the potentially responsible parties. The EPA decided that the area should be capped;
after the design is finalized, which is scheduled for completion in the fall of 1991, the
potentially responsible parties will construct the cap and collect leachate for off-site disposal or on-
site treatment, followed by discharge to surface water. A more extensive groundwater monitoring
system also is planned.
Site Facts: In 1987, 32 of the more than 70 companies identified by the EPA as potentially
responsible parties agreed to pay for a substantial portion of the site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
Excavating contaminated soil, covering wastes, installing gas venting and leachate collection
systems, and connecting residences to the municipal water line have provided a safe drinking water
supply and reduced the potential for exposure to contamination, making the Beacon Heights Landfill
site safer while it awaits completion of the cap design and the start of final cleanup activities.
April 1991 26 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL
-------
CHESHIRE r
GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATIO
CONNECTICUT
EPAID#CTD981067317
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
New Haven County
Cheshire
Other Names:
Cheshire Associates Property
The 15-acre Cheshire Ground Water Contamination site in Cheshire has been leased by a variety of
tenants that have conducted various manufacturing processes. A major portion of the site has been
owned by Cheshire Associates, a New York-based partnership, since 1966. The company leased the
property to Valley National Corporation from 1966 to 1979 and to Cheshire Molding Co. from 1979
to 1980. Both companies manufactured plastic molding at the site; neither kept records of disposal
practices or waste quantities. Airpax Corporation Plant 2, the current lessee, manufactured
electrochemical and electronic devices, beginning in 1983, and disposed of its wastes in accordance
with the existing State regulations. The wastes of principal concern at the site include organic
chemicals and solvents. Both soil and groundwater on the site are contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), as are residential wells both on and off site, on-site shallow wells, and
an off-site bedrock well. The area is residential and industrial. About 330 people living within a
mile of the site use private wells for drinking water. Cheshire municipal wells, serving 22,900
people, lie 2 miles southeast of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with VOCs from the organic chemicals and solvents
formerly used at the site. Wells are polluted with VOCs, including high levels of
trichloroethane, dichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and xylenes. VOCs contaminating
the soil also include trichloroethane, dichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene. People
drinking contaminated groundwater are at risk from exposure to contaminants. The site
is in a low-lying freshwater wetland bordered by two ponds.
27
ApriM991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase aimed at
cleanup the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In October 1983, in compliance with a State Consent Agreement,
Cheshire Associates removed 20 cubic yards of contaminated soil to an EPA-regulated
landfill. Municipal water has been provided to the residences that had contaminated
wells.
Entire Site: A thorough investigation of the site to assess the type and extent of
contamination and to identify cleanup strategies is scheduled to begin in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1983, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection signed a Consent
Agreement with Cheshire Associates, requiring the company to remove contaminated on-site soil
and to monitor VOCs in the two private wells for five years.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated soil and the provision of a safe drinking water supply have reduced
the potential for exposure to contaminated drinking water at the Cheshire Ground Water
Contamination site, making it safer while it awaits further cleanup activity.
April 1991 28 CHESHIRE GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION
-------
DURHAM MEADO
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD001452093
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Middlesex County
Main Street in Durham
Other Names:
Merriam Mfg.
Site Description
Investigations at the Durham Meadows site center around the Merriam Manufacturing Company,
which occupies 5 acres on Main Street. Established in 1851, the company makes metal products,
primarily boxes for files, security, tools, and fishing supplies. Merriam disposed of contaminated
wastewater and sludges on its property in two unlined and undiked lagoons built in 1973. Before
that, waste apparently was put into the facility's septic system. The owner ceased dumping in the
lagoons in 1982. In another area, paint wastes and degreasing solvents were stored on the ground in
drums. Some were in poor condition or were leaking during a State inspection in 1981. In early
1983, after an EPA/State inspection, the EPA ordered the owner to correct several violations of State
hazardous waste management regulations. In response, Merriam removed drums and supplied
bottled water to affected residents. Durham has a population of approximately 5,600 residents, all
using private wells. The nearest resident lives only 10 feet away from the site border. The site is
less than 1/2 mile from the Coginchaug River, which eventually drains into the Connecticut River.
A freshwater wetland is within 1,500 feet of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Wastewater and sludges from manufacturing processes at the site contained paint waste
and organic solvents. In 1982, the State Department of Environmental Protection
detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including methylene chloride, in private
wells in the Durham area. Drinking contaminated groundwater could threaten the health
of nearby residents. The site currently lacks any security or physical barrier to prevent
direct contact with contaminated wastes. The nearby freshwater wetlands potentially
could become polluted from the contaminants migrating from the site.
29
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two-stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
developing cleanup alternatives for contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Under State order, Merriam removed drums containing hazardous
wastes to an EPA-approved facility and supplied bottled water to residents in the vicinity
of the site after the private wells were found to be contaminated. Carbon filters since
have been installed in affected homes.
Entire Site: The EPA will perform a detailed site investigation to determine the extent
and nature of groundwater contamination and to recommend strategies for cleanup. The
study is scheduled to begin in 1992. Once the investigation is completed, scheduled for
1993, the EPA will evaluate the study findings and will select the final cleanup remedies for site
contamination.
Site Facts: The State ordered Merriam Manufacturing to supply bottled water to residents in the
vicinity of the site. The EPA issued an Administrative Order, requiring Merriam to correct several
violations of State hazardous waste management regulations.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate drinking water source and the removal of some hazardous materials
have reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated drinking water and soil from the Durham
Meadows site, making it safer while awaiting completion of site studies and selection of remedies.
April 1991 30 DURHAM MEADOWS
-------
GALLUP'S QU
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD108960972
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Windham County
Plainfield
Site Description
Gallup's Quarry is a 22-acre abandoned gravel pit located in a rural area on Tarbox Road, 1 mile
south of Plainfield's business district. In the 1970s, the owner accepted chemical wastes without a
permit. Drums and free liquids were dumped at the site, including wastes containing volatile organic,
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals. Several of these contaminants have been detected in on-site
monitoring wells operated by the State from 1980 to 1981 and by the EPA in 1986. In 1989, the
EPA sampled private drinking water wells and found no contamination. The area is rural and
residential. Approximately 6,500 people rely on wells within 3 miles of the site as their sole source
of drinking water. A community well is 4,000 feet away, and a private well is 1,160 feet from the
site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
combined State and Federal actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals, including
copper, nickel, and chromium. Ketone and hydrocarbons have been found in the soil.
The site currently is unrestricted. Direct contact with hazardous substances on site may
pose a health threat. Mill Brook and associated wetlands, located 500 feet downgradient
of the site, are threatened by site contamination. Local residents use these resources for
swimming and recreational purposes.
31
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase aimed at
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1978, the site was evaluated by the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection. The State environmental staff and the State Police supervised
removal of waste drums and contaminated soil. The owner agreed to reimburse the State
for the removal activities at Gallup's Quarry and at another property he owned. However, limited
soil analyses conducted by the State in 1981 indicated that soil contaminated with ketone and
hydrocarbons still remained on the site.
Entire Site: The EPA has scheduled an in-depth investigation at Gallup's Quarry for
1992. The study will explore the extent and nature of soil and groundwater contamination
and will recommend cleanup strategies for the site. Completion of the study and final
selection of a cleanup method is planned for 1994.
Environmental Progress
The EPA assessed conditions at Gallup's Quarry and determined that the site does not pose an
immediate threat to public health or the surrounding environment. The initial actions described
above have reduced the risk of accidental exposure to contamination and have made the site safer
while it awaits further cleanup activities.
April 1991 32 GALLUP'S QUARRY
-------
KELLOGG-DEERING
WELL FIELD
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD980670814
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Fairfield County
Western bank of the Norwalk River
Other Names:
Smith Well Field
The Kellogg-Deering Well Field site consists of an approximately 10-acre municipal well field
and adjacent areas that contribute to the well field contamination. Groundwater sampling data
indicated that a significant source area of contamination exists below the Elinco/Pitney Bowes/
Matheis Court Complex located at the eastern edge of the site. The well field supplies
approximately 25% of the drinking water for 45,000 residents in the city of Norwalk. The
primary source of public water supply to the Norwalk First Taxing District (NFTD) Water
Department is surface water from four reservoirs. Reservoir water is blended with well field
water at varying ratios, depending on reservoir storage and distribution system location. The
well field is adjacent to residential and industrial areas.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
primarily trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE). People could be
exposed to chemical contaminants by drinking contaminated water if no treatment were
provided; however, the water department is treating and blending water from the wells
and reservoir to provide safe drinking water.
33
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on wellhead treatment,
source control, and downgradient aquifer managment.
Response Action Status
Wellhead Treatment: The water department installed an aerator in 1981 at one of the
wells. The aerator consistently removes 65% of the volatile organics in the groundwater.
In 1984, the utility installed an air stripper on another well, bringing the removal of
VOCs to 99%. The air filtering actions were completed in 1988. The air stripper is part of the water
treatment plant and will remain in operation. Contaminants are removed from the water by air
filtering the volatile contaminants to a gas. The treated water is discharged into the existing
conventional water treatment plant and distribution system.
Source Control: The remedy selected by the EPA for controlling the source of
contamination involves removing contaminants from the soil with vacuum extraction;
treatment and discharge of contaminated groundwater; and institutional controls to
prevent exposure during the time that the remedy is being conducted. Air and groundwater
monitoring also will be provided. Planning activities for the remedy began in 1991.
Downgradient Area: In 1990, the EPA began an investigation into the nature and
extent of contamination of areas downgradient from the source and above the well field.
The study will examine the possible effects of discharge to the Norwalk River and
Deering Pond.
Site Facts: An EPA Administrative Order was signed with the parties potentially responsible for
the site contamination in 1989 concerning the wellhead treatment. A Consent Decree from the EPA
covering design and implementation of cleanup activities was issued in 1991 to the potentially
responsible parties. The EPA recognizes that some groundwater cleanup efforts are being
undertaken by the owners, under an order by the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection, and will evaluate these efforts during the technical design phase to determine whether
these actions are consistent with the overall cleanup of the aquifer.
Environmental Progress
The wellhead treatment actions described above have eliminated the potential of exposure to
hazardous substances in the drinking water and will continue to protect the households until planned
cleanup activities at the Kellogg-Deering site are completed.
ApriM991 34 KELLOGG-DEERING WELL FIELD
-------
LAUREL PARK,
CONNECTICUT
EPAID#CTD980521165
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
New Haven County
Naugatuck
Other Names:
as Hunter Mountain Landfill
Laurel Park Landfill
Site Description
The Laurel Park, Inc. site is a landfill that occupies approximately 20 acres of a 35-acre parcel of
land. The landfill has been in existence since the late 1940s, and several industries disposed of
solvents, oils, hydrocarbons, chemical and liquid sludge, chemical solids, tires, and rubber products
there. The facility continued to operate as a municipal landfill until 1987. The central developed
portion of the town of Naugatuck, which has an estimated population of 26,500 people, is located
approximately 1 mile northeast of the site. Homes are located around three sides of the landfill.
Approximately 50 homes are located within a 1/4-mile radius of the site, with the closest residents
being about 1,000 feet from the site. The nearest homes used groundwater from individual wells as
a drinking water supply source, but have been connected to the public water supply. The homes at
the bottom of Huntington Hill, downslope of the landfill, are on a public water supply line. Most of
the area immediately bordering the site is forested.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site soil and leachate are contaminated with inorganic and organic chemicals
including dichloroethane and benzene. Groundwater and surface water are contaminated
with heavy metals, including calcium and magnesium, and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) such as toluene and acetone. The health threats include direct contact with,
drinking, or accidental ingestion of contaminated groundwater, surface water, soils, and
leachate. Forested areas surrounding the site may be threatened by runoff of site
contamination.
35
April1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
concentrating on fencing, water line installation, and sewer treatment and source control and
groundwater treatment.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: A leachate collection system was constructed in 1984, under a court
order, to capture contaminants leaching from the landfill area into the groundwater and
other site areas. Additionally, the potentially responsible parties provided bottled water to
area residents affected by a contaminated drinking water supply.
Fencing, Water Line, and Sewer Treatment: The potentially responsible parties
fenced a leachate seep in 1986 and installed a water supply line in 1989. The water line is
completed, except for surface landscaping. All of the homes are hooked up, with the
exception of three residences whose owners refused hookup to the system. There is no hook-up fee,
but the homeowners have to pay for municipal water use. The potentially responsible parties
constructed a sewer line in 1990 to carry leachate from the site to the Naugatuck Water Pollution
Control facility for treatment.
Source Control and Groundwater Treatment: The remedy selected by the EPA
to control the source of contamination and to treat groundwater includes: (1) installation
of a cover over all waste disposal areas to prevent contact with surface water and
groundwater; (2) rehabilitation of the existing leachate collection system, including the addition of a
system consisting of french drains and groundwater extraction wells, followed by off-site treatment
and discharge at the Naugatuck Water Pollution Control Facility; and (3) monitoring of the air,
water, soils, and groundwater at the site. Preparation of the technical specifications and design for
the selected remedy is underway and is expected to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: In the early 1960s, citizens began to complain about odors, fires, spills, and runoff
from the site. In 1985, Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., a potentially responsible party, entered
into an Administrative Consent Order with the EPA to conduct an investigation into the type and
extent of contamination at the site. In 1989, the State and Uniroyal agreed to equally fund the
installation of a sewer line to convey leachate from the landfill. In 1991,19 potentially responsible
parties signed a Consent Decree and the accompanying Administrative Order to conduct the
technical design of the remedy.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions to provide safe drinking water and to control leachate from the landfill have reduced
the immediate threats at the Laurel Park, Inc. site. Additional cleanup actions and the planned
groundwater treatment will continue to reduce contamination levels at the site, making it safe to the
nearby residents and the environment.
April 1991 36 LAUREL PARK, INC.
-------
LINEMASTER SWITCH
CORPORATION
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID#CTD001153923
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Windham County
Plaine Hill Road in Woodstock
Site Description
The 45-acre Linemaster Switch Corporation site has been used for the manufacturing of
electrical and pneumatic foot switches and wiring harnesses since 1952. Facility operations
involve the use of trichloroethylene (TCE), paint, and thinners. Wastes are stored in barrels in
sheds near the factory building. The site boundary has been expanded to 92 acres, due to the
spread of contamination, extending to Route 171 to the south, Plaine Hill Road to the west, and
Route 169 to the north and east. Approximately 2,100 people live, and obtain drinking water
from wells drawing on the contaminated groundwater, within 3 miles of the site. An on-site well
supplies drinking water to the factory and its offices. The site is surrounded by the Town of
Woodstock, a rural community of approximately 5,300 people. Artificial ponds located on the
site are used for boating.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, sediments, surface water, and soils are contaminated with TCE.
TCE also was detected in Linemaster's main pump house well, which supplies
drinking water to the factory and its offices. Solvents were detected in the
artificial ponds. The site is unfenced, making it possible for people and animals
to come into direct contact with hazardous substances. Other human health
threats include drinking contaminated groundwater or coming into direct contact
with the soil, surface water, or sediments.
37
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: Linemaster began providing bottled water to its employees in 1986.
Also in 1986, the EPA began to provide bottled water to off-site residents whose wells
are contaminated. Presently, all bottled water is provided by Linemaster.
Entire Site: Linemaster's main production well has been equipped with an air stripper
to remove contaminants, and the well now supplies potable water to the factory and one
on-site residence. Several other contaminated wells, both on and off site, have been
equipped with carbon treatment systems to remove contaminants. A water supply monitoring
program has been established for on- and off-site wells. Monitoring wells have been drilled to
determine the extent of site contamination and to aid in developing a remedy. A small pilot study of
vapor extraction as a means to clean up contaminants proved ineffectual due to the high water table.
Other alternatives currently are being developed. The parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination currently are conducting a hydrogeological investigation to determine appropriate
actions to eliminate the contamination threat. A decision is expected in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1986, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection issued an
Abatement Order, requiring Linemaster to develop a plan for a hydrological study to determine the
extent and degree of contamination on the site. In 1987, Linemaster and the EPA entered into a
Consent Order to provide bottled water off site, monitor residential wells, and conduct a
hydrogeologic study.
Environmental Progress
Supplying bottled water to affected residents has reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
substances in the drinking water and will continue to protect surrounding households and
Linemaster Switch Corporation employees until planned cleanup activities are completed.
April 1991 38 LINEMASTER SWITCH CORPORATION
-------
NEW LONDON
SUBMARINE
BASE
CONNECTICUT
EPAID#CTD980906515
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
New London County
Groton
Other Names:
DOD/USN SB/Overbank Disp Area NW 3,
DOD/USN SB/DPDO Area Site #6,
DOD/USN SB/Area A Landfill #2
The New London Submarine Base site covers 547 acres of the 1,412 acre base on the eastern bank
of the Thames River in Groton. The base was established in 1916 as an operation and support base
for submarine activities in the Atlantic Ocean. Areas of concern include the Area A Landfill, the
Over Bank Disposal Area, the Defense Property Disposal Operations Areas, the Lower Submarine
Base, and the Gosscove Landfill. From 1957 to 1973, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), spent battery acids, and other wastes were buried
below the water table in the 24-acre Area A Landfill, which is situated on wetlands. The Over
Bank Disposal Area operated from 1957 to the 1970s. The Defense Property Disposal Operations
Area was used as a burning ground and landfill from 1950 to 1969. Inspection reports from 1982
recorded leaking containers and evidence of spills associated with containers stored directly on the
ground. In 1983, approximately 40 gallons of PCB-contaminated oil was reported as having been
spilled onto the ground. In 1988, Navy sampling revealed lead, cadmium, and various pesticides
in sediments and surface water. The area around the base is mixed industrial, commercial, and
residential property. Groundwater in some areas of the base is as shallow as 10 feet below the
surface, with permeable soils. These conditions potentially threaten the area groundwater, which
provides drinking water to 3,500 to 5,000 people living within 3 miles of the base. The population
within 1 mile of the base is 4,000.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
II
The soil, sediments, and surface water are contaminated with pesticides and heavy metals
including cadmium and lead. The soil also contains VOCs, PCBs and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The site is an active, restricted-access Naval base, so the
chance of direct contact with on-site sediments, soil, or surface water is minimal.
39
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in five long-term remedial phases directed at cleanup of the Area A
Landfill, the Over Bank Disposal Area, the DPDO Area, the Lower Sub Base, and other
contaminated areas of the base.
Response Action Status
Area A Landfill: In 1990, the Navy began a study into the nature and extent of VOC,
pesticide, battery acid, and other waste contaminations at the Area A Landfill. When
the study is completed, cleanup alternatives will be identified and a cleanup approach
will be chosen.
Over Bank Disposal Area: In 1990, the Navy began a study into the nature and
extent of contamination at the Over Bank Disposal Area. Once the study is completed,
alternatives will be identified and recommended for cleanup.
DPDO Area: In 1990, the Navy began a study into the nature and extent of
contamination at the DPDO Area. Cleanup alternatives will be identified and a cleanup
approach will be chosen, once the study has been completed.
Lower Sub Base: In 1990, the Navy began a study into the nature and extent of
contamination at the Lower Sub Base. The EPA will choose the cleanup approach
when the study is completed and the cleanup alternatives are identified.
Other Areas: In 1992, the Navy is expected to begin a study into the nature and
extent of contamination in other site areas.
Site Facts: The base is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a specially funded
program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978 to identify, investigate and
control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD facilities. Under the
program, the Navy has identified 16 potential hazardous waste disposal areas and has extensively
studied three of them.
Environmental Progress
The Navy is in the process of conducting numerous investigations at all th^ discovered contaminated
areas of the New London Submarine Base site. These investigations will lead to the identification
and selection of the best cleanup alternatives for the base.
Apri| T 991 40 NEW LONDON SUBMARINE BASE
-------
NUTMEG
VALLEY
ROAD
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD980669261
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
New Haven County
Wolcott
Other Names:
Nutmeg Screw Machine
Products, Inc.
The investigation of the Nutmeg Valley Road site centers around Nutmeg Screw Machine Products
Company (NSMP), which covers 3 1/2 acres on Nutmeg Valley Road. The area around the site is
both rural residential and light industrial, with several other metal-working and metal-finishing
shops in the immediate vicinity, including Waterbury Heat Treating Corporation (WHTC) and
Alpine Electronic Components, Inc. (AEC). WHTC is 300 feet to the northwest of NSMP and
performs various heat-treating operations (annealing and hardening) on metal parts and degreasing,
polishing, acid dipping, and assembly functions; AEC leases part of the NSMP building. The NSMP
is a small metal-working and machine shop that has been in business since 1951. Substances used in
the machining processes include a kerosene-like cutting oil, machine lubrication oils, and agents
used for cleaning and degreasing (carbon tetrachloride). Carbon tetrachloride, cyanide wastes, and
cutting oils were dumped onto the ground at an estimated rate of up to 15 gallons per day, according
to the State. This practice was followed for approximately 14 to 20 years, ceasing by 1980.
Approximately 10,500 people draw drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the site.
There are 43 industries and 25 residences using groundwater as a water source at this site. Within a
3-mile radius of the site lie the towns of Waterbury, with a population of approximately 103,800,
and Wolcott, with a population of approximately 13,200.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/23/87
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
IV
Contamination has been documented in 25 industrial wells. The groundwater is
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavy metals, and high levels of
cyanide. The soil also is contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals including lead and
copper. Contamination has been documented in the groundwater beneath the site. The
primary health threats to area residents are from ingesting or direct contact with
contaminated water or soil.
41
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The State has been supplying bottled drinking water to affected
residents since 1987. Also, carbon filters have been installed on the industrial wells to
reduce contamination levels. Interim measures have included the extension of public
water supplies to the area.
Entire Site: The EPA plans to conduct an investigation into the soil and groundwater
contamination at the site and develop strategies for final cleanup. The study is expected to
start in 1992 and is scheduled for completion in 1994. Once completed, the EPA will
evaluate the study findings and select the final cleanup remedies for the contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions described above have provided safe drinking water to affected residents and
reduced contamination levels in the industrial water supply, limiting the threat of exposure while the
investigation leading to final cleanup continues at the Nutmeg Valley Road site.
April 1991
42
NUTMEG VALLEY ROAD
-------
OLD SOUTHINGTO
LANDFILL
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD980670806
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Hartford County
Old Turnpike Road in Southington
Site Description
The Old Southington Landfill is a 10-acre site that may have been used as early as the 1920s
until 1967 as a municipal disposal area. During this time, the landfill was open to residents and
businesses of the town. In 1967, the Town of Southington closed the landfill. Closure
procedures included compacting loose refuse, covering the landfill with at least 2 feet of clean
fill material, and reseeding the grasses. Between 1973 and 1980, parts of the landfill were
subdivided and sold for commercial development. Several residential and commercial
structures now occupy the closed landfill and adjacent areas. The former landfill is located
approximately 700 feet southeast of the former municipal Well No. 5, which was installed in
1971 by the Town of Southington Water Department as a public water supply. In 1979, the
municipal well was closed because groundwater analyses indicated the presence of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) at levels that exceeded State standards. The well has not been
reopened. The site is located about 3,500 feet to the east of the Quinnipiac River.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with VOCs including
trichloroethane. On-site workers and trespassers could be threatened by coming
in direct contact with or accidentally ingesting contaminants in the groundwater,
surface water, or soil. Black Pond, used for recreation, hunting, and fishing, is
threatened by site contaminants; ingestion of contaminated fish, waterfowl, and
plants may pose a health threat.
43
April! 991
-------
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 potentially responsible parties currently are conducting an
investigation into the contamination at the site. The investigation will define the
contaminants and will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation
is planned to be completed in 1993.
Site Facts: In 1987, the EPA issued an Administrative Consent Order to three parties
potentially responsible for the contamination of the site to perform a study to determine the
nature and extent of contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA assessed conditions at the site and determined that
contamination from the Old Southington Landfill site currently does not pose an immediate
threat to area residents and surrounding environments, and no emergency actions were required
to make it safe while waiting for cleanup actions to begin.
April! 991
44 OLD SOUTHINGTON LANDFILL
-------
PRECISION
PLATING CORP.
CONNECTICUT
EPAID#CTD051316313
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Tolland County
Vernon
Precision Plating Corporation has been chrome plating various metal parts and fixtures on this 3-acre
site since 1970. The chrome plating process includes alkaline cleaning, chemical etching, rinsing,
buffing, and polishing. Wastes generated during this process include rinse waters containing heavy
metals, batch wastes of alkaline cleaner, and spent plating and etching acids. Before 1983, rinse
waters were discharged to a storm drain outside the building. Process plating acids and chrome
plating wastes were stored on the ground in drums and in a 500-gallon tank. In 1979, Vernon's
Health Department found the well serving Hillside Industrial Park to be contaminated with
hexavalent and trivalent chromium. The rupturing of drums and the tank by a snow plow was
determined to be the cause of the contamination. The company, and later the EPA, confirmed that
the groundwater underlying the site had become contaminated. An estimated 10,800 people obtain
drinking water from public and private wells within 3 miles of the site. Surface waters in the area
are used for recreational fishing. The site is within 1 mile of a freshwater wetland.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater underlying the Precision Plating site is contaminated with hexavalent
and trivalent chromium as a result of the spillage of contaminants at the site. The site is
unfenced, making it possible for people and animals to come into direct contact with
hazardous substances. The health of people who use contaminated groundwater as a
water supply may be threatened.
45
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The State issued orders to the owners of Hillside Industrial Park and
Precision Plating to study and clean up the site. Precision Plating complied with the
orders by installing five shallow monitoring wells on site, sampling surface water, and
removing 20 cubic yards of contaminated soil. In addition, Precision Plating and Hillside Industrial
Park are providing alternate drinking water supplies to the High Manor Mobile Home Park.
Entire Site: In 1992, the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination are
expected to begin a study of sources and the extent of contamination at the site. Once the
investigation has been completed and reviewed by the EPA, a final cleanup remedy for the
site will be selected.
Site Facts: In 1986, the State issued orders requiring Precision Plating and Hillside Industrial Park
to provide drinking water to affected residents.
Environmental Progress
By providing drinking water to nearby residents, the potential of exposure to hazardous substances
has been reduced, and these households will continue to be protected until cleanup activities are
completed at the Precision Plating Corp. site.
April 1991 46 PRECISION PLATING CORP.
-------
REVERE TEXTILE PRINTS
CORPORATION
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD004532610
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Windham County
Sterling
The Revere Textile Prints Corporation site covers 2 acres in Sterling. The textile processing
facility first operated over 50 years ago as the U.S. Finishing Company. In 1978, a town
employee allegedly observed Revere Textile employees dumping barrels of wastes into the
Moosup River. The facility was destroyed by fire in 1980. Following the fire, a number of
drums were evident in the ruins of two buildings on site. The property was sold in 1980. On site
at the time were over 1,500 drums leaking dyes, paints, solvents, and heavy metals onto the
ground. The State detected over 30 compounds in the drums and soil on site and issued an order
against the new owner to clean up the site. In 1982, ownership of the site was transferred to
Sterling Industrial Park Corporation. After several State inspections and rounds of sampling, the
drums were removed in 1983 by the new owner. An unknown quantity of contaminated soil also
was removed. On-site monitoring wells were sampled in 1984 and found to be contaminated.
Approximately 350 people live within 1 mile of the site, while 4,500 people live within a 3-mile
radius. The Moosup River is downgradient of the site and also is contaminated. This river is
used for recreational purposes.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/01/86
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with antimony, methanol, and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including toluene and trichloroethylene (TCE). The soil is
contaminated with barium and VOCs including ethyl benzene and xylene.
Surface water is contaminated with TCE and magnesium. People who
accidentally come in direct contact with, or ingest contaminated groundwater,
surface water, or soil may be at risk. Residents in the area depend on the
groundwater as their sole source of drinking water.
47
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1990, the town of Sterling removed six drums and paint
cans from the site. This was a small removal involving solvents, oils, naphthalene, and
VOCs.
Entire Site: The EPA is currently studying the contamination at the site. The
investigation will define the contaminants and will recommend alternatives for the
final cleanup remedy. Once the investigation is completed, expected in 1991, the EPA
will review the study findings and select the final cleanup strategies for site contamination.
Site Facts: In 1980, the State issued an order against the owner to clean up the site. A new
owner, Sterling Industrial Park Corporation, complied with the order in 1983.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions to remove drums and contaminated soils from the site have reduced the
potential for accidental exposure to hazardous wastes, while studies are ongoing to identify final
cleanup remedies for the Revere Textile site.
April 1991 48 REVERE TEXTILE PRINTS CORPORATION
-------
SOLVENTS RECOV
SERVICE OF
NEW ENGLAND
CONNECTICUT
EPAID#CTD009717604
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Hartford County
Southington
Other Names:
Solvents Recovery, Inc.
Site Description
Solvents Recovery Services of New England is a fenced 2 1/2-acre facility in the town of
Southington. The facility operated as an EPA-approved hazardous waste treatment and storage
facility. The facility received various waste industrial solvents that are blended for use as a fuel
product. From 1957 to 1967, stillbottom sludges were disposed of in two unlined lagoons. In
1967, sludge disposal was discontinued, and the lagoons were drained and covered with fill.
After the lagoons were closed, wastes were burned in an open pit on site or disposed of off site.
In the 1970s, the State ordered that the incineration practice be discontinued. Other past and
present operating practices on site, such as accidental spills or poor housekeeping, may have
constituted additional sources of contamination. No hazardous waste disposal currently takes
place at the site. In 1991, all activities at the site ceased in preparation for closure under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Town of Southington Well #4 is
approximately 2,000 feet south of the site, and Well #6 is located 1,300 feet to the south of the
site. Both of these wells were closed in 1979 because of contamination. The population of
Southington is 38,000. The area near the site is a mixture of commercial, light industrial,
residential, and some agricultural uses. The facility is located approximately 500 feet to the west
of the Quinnipiac River.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with isopropyl alcohol, acetone, toluene, and
other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The soil is contaminated with lead,
cadmium, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and VOCs. People who
accidentally drink contaminated groundwater would be at risk. However, since
the two municipal wells have been taken out of service, this health threat is
reduced. In addition, direct contact with or accidental ingestion of contaminated
soil may pose a health risk.
49
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases directed at cleanup of on-site and
off-site groundwater and source control.
Response Action Status
On-site Groundwater: Under a 1983 Consent Decree, the parties potentially
responsible for the site contamination agreed to pump and treat groundwater by air
stripping the contaminants in the facility's cooling water tower. The treated water
subsequently is discharged through a drainage ditch to the Quinnipiac River. Solvents Recovery
Services has installed the on-site groundwater pumping system, which currently is operational.
Off-site Groundwater: Under a 1983 Consent Decree, the potentially responsible
parties are conducting cleanup of off-site groundwater. The off-site system is similar to
that constructed for on-site groundwater.
Source Control: The EPA is conducting an investigation into the sources and the
nature and extent of site contamination to identify alternatives for cleanup. The study is
expected to be completed in 1993.
Site Facts: In 1983, Solvents Recovery Service signed a Consent Decree with the EPA, requiring
the installation of a system to recover groundwater on and off site and a plan for on-site storage and
management of hazardous wastes. The EPA has sued the potentially responsible parties to enforce
the Consent Decree and for violations of RCRA.
Environmental Progress
The closure of the contaminated drinking well has eliminated the threat of exposure to affected
residences while pump and treat operations continue to reduce groundwater contamination to
safe levels at the Solvents Recovery Service of New England site.
April 1991
50
SOLVENTS RECOVERY SERVICE
OF NEW ENGLAND
-------
YAWORSKI WASTE
LAGOON
CONNECTICUT
EPA ID# CTD009774969
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Windham County
Canterbury Township
The Yaworski Waste Lagoon is a dewatered and backfilled lagoon, approximately 800 feet by
300 feet and 12 feet deep. From about 1948 to 1973, drummed material and bulk wastes
including textile dyes, solvents, resins, acids, caustics, stillbottom sludges, and solvent-soaked
rags were disposed of in the lagoon. Periodically, flammable liquid waste was burned in several
pits in the lagoon area until 1965, when the Connecticut Department of Health ordered a halt to
on-site burning of waste. The combined efforts of local residents and State and local officials
concerned about adverse human health and environmental effects from disposal operations at the
site led to the end of all dumping at the site in 1973. In 1976, the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CTDEP) directed James Yaworski, the site owner, to assess the
environmental hazard posed by the site. Mr. Yaworski was required to install monitoring wells
adjacent to the lagoon. Sampling of these wells detected contaminated groundwater. In 1980,
the CTDEP ordered Mr. Yaworski to employ a professional engineering firm to conduct an
environmental study of the property. The firm recommended closing the lagoon by covering the
waste and, in 1982, the CTDEP ordered Mr. Yaworski to close the lagoon in accordance with the
engineering firm's report. After a fire in 1982, the EPA decided that additional information was
needed about the site to better assess the potential threat to human health and the environment.
The population of Canterbury is approximately 1,600. The nearest residence that uses
groundwater is 1,600 feet upgradient from the site and across the Quinebaug River. The site is
surrounded by agricultural land and is bordered by the Quinebaug River. It lies within the
100-year flood plain.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
E
Groundwater samples taken from areas immediately adjacent to the lagoon
revealed the presence of low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
heavy metals. Inorganic contaminants were found in the sediments in the
wetlands area just south of the lagoon. The soil is contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
and soil samples taken from areas immediately adjacent to the lagoon revealed the
presence of low levels of VOCs. The contaminants seeping through the dike into
the wetlands pose a risk to people who come in direct contact with it. In addition,
accidental ingestion of contaminated groundwater may pose a health risk.
51
ApriM991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed through 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 are
responsible for containing the waste in the lagoon by constructing an impermeable
cover that complies with all environmental laws, improving the dike around the lagoon
to ensure that it can withstand floods, establishing a groundwater protection standard known as
an Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL), and monitoring the groundwater for 30 years to
confirm that the ACL standard is met. Design of the technologies to be used in the remedy
described above was completed in 1990. In 1991, the groundwater treatment installation began
for groundwater that is contaminated above the established ACLs. In 1991, the lagoon cap was
installed with the exception of the vegetative cover. The cover is expected to be completed later
in 1991.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA assessed site conditions and determined that the site
contamination currently does not pose an immediate threat to area residents and the surrounding
environment while waiting for cleanup actions to be completed at the Yaworski Waste site. The
cap has eliminated all threats of residents coming into contact with contaminants from the
lagoon.
April 1991 52 YAWARSKI WASTE LAGOON
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
53
-------
GLOSSARY
This glossary defines terms used
throughout the NPL Volumes. The
terms and abbreviations contained in
this glossary apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfund program in
the context of hazardous waste management.
These terms may have other meanings when
used in a different context.
Terms Used
in the NPL
Book
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH
(less than 7.0), that are used in chemical
manufacturing. Acids in high concentration
can be very corrosive and react with many
inorganic and organic substances. These
reactions possibly may create toxic com-
pounds or release heavy metal contaminants
that remain in the environment long after the
acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal
and enforceable agreement between the EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination. Under the terms of the Order,
the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules,
responsibilities, and enforcement options that
the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a
judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A
legally binding document issued by the EPA,
directing the parties potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
the EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for
site studies).
Aeration: A process that promotes break-
down of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR): The Federal agency
within the U.S. Public Health Service charged
with carrying out the health-related responsi-
bilities of CERCLA.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of
air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air
stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Ambient Air: Any unconfined part of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity
of contaminated air sources.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock,
sand, or gravel capable of storing water
within cracks and pore spaces, or between
grains. When water contained within an
aquifer is of sufficient quantity and quality, it
can be tapped and used for drinking or other
purposes. The water contained in the aquifer
is called groundwater. A sole source aquifer
supplies 50% or more of the drinking water of
an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling
into the earth until water is reached, which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a foun-
tain.
55
-------
GLOSSARY.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring pro-
cess by which a compound is reduced in
concentration over time through adsorption,
degradation, dilution, and/or transformation.
Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.
Baghouse Dust: Dust accumulated in remov-
ing particulates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive
in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed
with acids, they neutralize each other, form-
ing salts.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth
used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some
contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living
tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people, as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contami-
nated water, or eat contaminated food.
Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria or
other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
and water.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-
nents.
Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on moisture from the air for their water
source, are usually acidic, and are rich in plant
residue [see Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.
Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-
water.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
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 generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing
water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that
attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Carbon Disulfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and or-
ganic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also
cause chemical reactions that increase the
hazard to human health and the environment
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-
tion].
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series
of holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.
CERCLA: [see Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act].
Characterization: The sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis of a site to determine the
56
-------
GLOSSARY
extent and nature of toxic releases. Character-
ization provides the basis for acquiring the
necessary technical information to develop,
screen, analyze, and select appropriate
cleanup techniques.
Chemical Fixation: The use of chemicals to
bind contaminants, thereby reducing the
potential for leaching or other movement.
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecti-
cide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This
salt is used extensively as a wood preservative
in pressure-treating operations. It is highly
toxic and water-soluble, making it a relatively
mobile contaminant in the environment.
Cleanup: Actions taken to eliminate a
release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance. The term "cleanup" sometimes is
used interchangeably with the terms remedial
action, removal action, response action, or
corrective action.
Closure: The process by which a landfill
stops accepting wastes and is shut down,
under Federal guidelines that ensure the
protection of the public and the environment.
Comment Period: A specific interval during
which the public can review and comment on
various documents and EPA actions related to
site cleanup. For example, a comment period
is provided when the EPA proposes to add
sites to the NPL. There is minimum 3-week
comment period for community members to
review and comment on the remedy proposed
to clean up a site.
Community Relations: The EPA effort to
establish and maintain two-way communica-
tion with the public. Goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related ac-
tions, assuring public input into decision-
making processes related to affected commu-
nities, and making certain that the Agency is
aware of, and responsive to, public concerns.
Specific community relations activities are
required in relation to Superfund cleanup
actions [see Comment Period].
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA): Congress enacted the
CERCLA, known as Superfund, in 1980 to
respond directly to hazardous waste problems
that may pose a threat to the public health and
the environment. The EPA administers the
Superfund program.
Confluence: The place where two bodies of
water, such as streams or rivers, come to-
gether.
Consent Decree: A legal document, ap-
proved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between the EPA and the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the
potentially responsible parties are required to
perform and/or the costs incurred by the
government that the parties will reimburse, as
well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforce-
ment options that the government may exer-
cise in the event of non-compliance by poten-
tially responsible parties. If a settlement
between the EPA and a potentially respon-
sible party includes cleanup actions, it must
be in the form of a Consent Decree. A Con-
sent Decree is subject to a public comment
period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order
on Consent].
Containment: The process of enclosing or
containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in a pond or a lagoon, to pre-
vent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
57
-------
GLOSSARY.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental
effects.
Contingency Plan: A document setting out
an organized, planned, and coordinated course
of action to be followed in case of a fire,
explosion, or other accident that releases toxic
chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioactive
materials into the environment
Cooperative Agreement: A contract be-
tween the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site
cleanup responsibilities and other activities on
a cost-sharing basis.
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].
Cover: Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserv-
ing operations and produced by distillation of
tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
[see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating
sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes
may cause skin ulcerations and cancer
through prolonged exposure.
Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an
embankment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a
chemical is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to settle with
small, or de minimis contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort.
Dewater: To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land farming, deep well
injection, or incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgra-
dient of a contaminated groundwater source
are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas of commercial or industrial
facilities.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
58
-------
GLOSSARY
Endangerment Assessment: A study con-
ducted to determine the risks posed to public
health or the environment by contamination at
NPL sites. The EPA or the State conducts the
study when a legal action is to be taken to
direct the potentially responsible parties to
clean up a site or pay for the cleanup. An
endangerment assessment supplements an
investigation of the site hazards.
Enforcement: EPA, State, or local legal
actions taken against parties to facilitate
settlements; to compel compliance with laws,
rules, regulations, or agreements; and/or to
obtain penalties or criminal sanctions for
violations. Enforcement procedures may
vary, depending on the specific requirements
of different environmental laws and related
regulatory requirements. Under CERCLA,
for example, the EPA will seek to require
potentially responsible parties to clean up a
Superfund site or pay for the cleanup [see
Cost Recovery].
Erosion: The wearing away of land surface
by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally
from weather or surface runoff, but can be
intensified by such land-related practices as
farming, residential or industrial develop-
ment, road building, or timber-cutting. Ero-
sion may spread surface contamination to off-
site locations.
Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh
water from rivers and salt water from
nearshore ocean waters are mixed. These
areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt
marshes, and lagoons. These water ecosys-
tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and
wildlife.
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out.
Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway; together,
they are commonly referred to as the RI/FS
[see Remedial Investigation].
Filtration: A treatment process for removing
solid (paniculate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove particles that contain
contaminants.
Flood Plain: An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods. Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that
results from the combustion of flue gases. It
can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides,
water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which
is used to drain and disperse wastewater.
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.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party,
consisting of a written proposal demonstrating
a potentially responsible party's qualifications
59
-------
GLOSSARY.
and willingness to perform a site study or
cleanup.
Groundwater: Underground water that fills
pores in soils or openings in rocks to the point
of saturation. In aquifers, groundwater occurs
in sufficient quantities for use as drinking and
irrigation water and other purposes.
Groundwater Quality Assessment: The
process of analyzing the chemical characteris-
tics of groundwater to determine whether any
hazardous materials exist.
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as
chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very
good oxidizing agents and, therefore, have
many industrial uses. They are rarely found
by themselves; however, many chemicals
such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
some volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and dioxin are reactive because of the pres-
ence of halogens.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): The
principal screening tool used by the EPA to
evaluate relative risks to public health and the
environment associated with abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS
calculates a score based on the potential of
hazardous substances spreading from the site
through the air, surface water, or groundwater
and on other factors such as nearby popula-
tion. The HRS score is the primary factor in
deciding if the site should be on the NPL.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society
that can pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health and the environment
when improperly managed. It possesses at
least one of four characteristics (ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), or appears
on special EPA lists.
Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site con-
taining exceptionally high levels of contami-
nation.
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater,
with particular emphasis on the chemistry and
movement of water.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge
confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Incineration: A group of treatment technolo-
gies involving destruction of waste by con-
trolled burning at high temperatures, e.g.,
burning sludge to reduce the remaining
residues to a non-burnable ash that can be
disposed of safely on land, in some waters, or
in underground locations.
Infiltration: The movement of water or other
liquid down through soil from precipitation
(rain or snow) or from application of waste-
water to the land surface.
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid
flowing into a reservoir, basin, or treatment
plant.
Injection Well: A well into which waste
fluids are placed, under pressure, for purposes
of disposal.
Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical substances
of mineral origin, not of basic carbon struc-
ture.
Installation Restoration Program: The
specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has
been identifying and evaluating its hazardous
waste sites and controlling the migration of
hazardous contaminants from those sites.
Intake: The source from where a water
supply is drawn, such as from a river or water
body.
Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment between the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,
60
-------
GLOSSARY
setting forth the roles and responsibilities of
the agencies for performing and overseeing
the activities. States often are parties to
interagency agreements.
Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a permanent permit. The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.
Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure. Lagoons typically are
used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges,
liquid wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or
incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in layers, compacted to
the smallest practical volume, and covered
with soil at the end of each operating day.
Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for
hazardous waste. They are designed to
minimize the chance of release of hazardous
substances into the environment [see Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act].
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles
through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leach-
ing [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and
carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Leachate Collection System: A system that
gathers liquid that has leaked into a landfill or
other waste disposal area and pumps it to the
surface for treatment.
Liner: A relatively impermeable barrier
designed to prevent leachate (waste residue)
from leaking from a landfill. Liner materials
include plastic and dense clay.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often
incremental, steps that are taken to solve site
pollution problems. Depending on the com-
plexity, site cleanup activities can be sepa-
rated into several of these phases.
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
contain peat moss deposits and is dominated
by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetland].
Migration: The movement of oil, gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable soils or rock.
Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].
Mine Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left
from mining operations. Tailings often
contain high concentrations of lead, uranium,
and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Mitigation: Actions taken to improve site
conditions by limiting, reducing, or control-
ling toxicity and contamination sources.
Modeling: A technique using a mathematical
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
system components have on the overall
performance of the system.
Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at
specific locations within, or surrounding, a
hazardous waste site where groundwater can
be sampled at selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in
61
-------
GLOSSARY.
which groundwater flows and the types and
amounts of contaminants present.
National Priorities List (NPL): The EPA's
list of the most serious uncontrolled or aban-
doned hazardous waste sites identified for
possible long-term cleanup under Superfund.
The EPA is required to update the NPL at
least once a year.
Neutrals: Organic compounds that have a
relatively neutral pH, complex structure and,
due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed
into the environment. Naphthalene, pyrene,
and trichlorobenzene are examples of
neutrals.
Nitroaromatics: Common components of
explosive materials, which will explode if
activated by very high temperatures or pres-
sures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a
nitroaromatic.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter
notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability.
A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which the
EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against poten-
tially responsible parties, although the EPA
may undertake certain investigatory and
planning activities. The 60-day period may
be extended if the EPA receives a good faith
offer within that period.
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC): The
predesignated EPA, Coast Guard, or Depart-
ment of Defense official who coordinates and
directs Superfund removal actions or Clean
Water Act oil- or hazardous-spill corrective
actions.
Operation and Maintenance: Activities
conducted at a site after a cleanup action is
completed to ensure that the cleanup or
containment system is functioning properly.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds: Chemical
substances containing mainly carbon, hydro-
gen, and oxygen.
Outfall: The place where wastewater is
discharged into receiving waters.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating
large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or
leakage of contaminating materials. Leaking
drums may be contained within oversized
barrels as an interim measure prior to removal
and final disposal.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic,
modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites
and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.
Perched (groundwater): Groundwater
separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often clay
or rock.
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering
of water or other liquids through subsurface
rock or soil layers, usually continuing down-
ward to groundwater.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery opera-
tions and as fuel oil residues. These include
fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are die bases
from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are
made. These chemical substances often are
toxic to humans and the environment.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used
in plastics manufacturing and are by-products
of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye,
and resin manufacturing. Phenols are highly
poisonous.
62
-------
GLOSSARY
Physical Chemical Separation: The treat-
ment process of adding a chemical to a sub-
stance to separate the compounds for further
treatment or disposal.
Pilot Testing: A small-scale test of a pro-
posed treatment system in the field to deter-
mine its ability to clean up specific contami-
nants.
Plugging: The process of stopping the flow
of water, oil, or gas into or out of the ground
through a borehole or well penetrating the
ground.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater
flowing from a specific source. The move-
ment of the groundwater is influenced by such
factors as local groundwater flow patterns, the
character of the aquifer in which groundwater
is contained, and the density of contaminants
[see Migration].
Pollution: Generally, the presence of matter
or energy whose nature, location, or quantity
produces undesired health or environmental
effects.
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 creo-
sotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A
group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications,
carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope immersion oils, and caulk-
ing compounds. PCBs also are produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment
because they are very stable, non-reactive,
and highly heat resistant Chronic exposure
to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
also is known to bioaccumulate in fatty
tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and
biphenyls, are a group of highly reactive
organic compounds that are a common com-
ponent of creosotes, which can be carcino-
genic.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats,
and floor tiles. Health risks from high con-
centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
the lymphatic and nervous systems.
Potable Water: Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Su-
perfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs
until they admit liability or a court makes a
determination of liability. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in site cleanup activity
without admitting liability.
Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid
portions can be disposed of safely; the re-
moval of particles from airborne emissions.
Electrochemical precipitation is the use of an
anode or cathode to remove the hazardous
chemicals. Chemical precipitation involves
the addition of some substance to cause the
solid portion to separate.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of
collecting and reviewing available informa-
tion about a known or suspected waste site or
release to determine if a threat or potential
threat exists.
63
-------
GLOSSARY.
Pump and Treat: A groundwater cleanup
technique involving the extracting of contami-
nated groundwater from the subsurface and
the removal of contaminants, using one of
several treatment technologies.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium
and uranium-235 and -238, which break down
and produce radioactive substances due to
their unstable atomic structure. Some are
man-made, and others are naturally occurring
in the environment. Radon, the gaseous form
of radium, decays to form alpha particle
radiation, which cannot be absorbed through
skin. However, it can be inhaled, which
allows alpha particles to affect unprotected
tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Radia-
tion also occurs naturally through the break-
down of granite stones.
RCRA: [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].
Recharge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the
earth to reach an aquifer.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public docu-
ment that explains which cleanup
altemative(s) will be used to clean up sites
listed on the NPL. It is based on information
generated during the remedial investigation
and feasibility study and consideration of
public comments and community concerns.
Recovery Wells: Wells used to withdraw
contaminants or contaminated groundwater.
Recycle: The process of minimizing waste
generation by recovering usable products that
might otherwise become waste.
Remedial Action (RA): The actual construc-
tion or implementation phase of a Superfund
site cleanup following the remedial design
[see Cleanup].
Remedial Design: A phase of site cleanup,
where engineers design the technical specifi-
cations for cleanup remedies and technolo-
gies.
Remedial Investigation: An in-depth study
designed to gather the data necessary to
determine the nature and extent of contami-
nation at a Superfund site, establish the
criteria for cleaning up the site, identify the
preliminary alternatives for cleanup actions,
and support the technical and cost analyses of
the alternatives. The remedial investigation
is usually done with the feasibility study.
Together they are customarily referred to as
the RI/FS [see Feasibility Study].
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
ing cleanup actions at a site.
Remedy Selection: The selection of 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 con-
tamination will be naturally dispersed with-
out further cleanup activities, a "No Action"
remedy is selected [see Record of Decision].
Removal Action: Short-term immediate
actions taken to address releases of hazardous
substances [see Cleanup].
Residual: The amount of a pollutant remain-
ing in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place, e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wastewater
treatment, or particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubbing, or
other, process.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA): A Federal law that established a
regulatory system to track hazardous sub-
stances from the time of generation to dis-
posal. The law requires safe and secure
64
-------
GLOSSARY
procedures to be used in treating, transport-
ing, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Retention Pond: A small body of liquid
used for disposing of wastes and containing
overflow from production facilities. Some-
times retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons to store
waste.
Riparian Habitat: Areas adjacent to rivers
and streams that have a high density, diver-
sity, and productivity of plant and animal
species relative to nearby uplands.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land
into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contamina-
tion from its source.
Scrubber: An air pollution device that uses a
spray of water or reactant or a dry process to
trap pollutants in emissions.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand, and
minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such
as streams, lakes, and rivers, that absorbs
contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of
liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower
edges of landfills.
Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in the
ground used for storage of liquids, usually in
the form of leachate, from waste disposal
areas. The liquid gradually leaves the pit by
moving through the surrounding soil.
Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank
after the treatment process.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land
surface in which drainage collects; associated
with underground caves and passages that
facilitate the movement of liquids.
Site Characterization: The technical pro-
cess used to evaluate the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, which is
necessary for choosing and designing cleanup
measures and monitoring their effectiveness.
Site Inspection: The collection of informa-
tion from a hazardous waste site to determine
the extent and severity of hazards posed by
the site. It follows, and is more extensive
than, a preliminary assessment. The purpose
is to gather information necessary to score the
site, using the Hazard Ranking System, and to
determine if the site presents an immediate
threat that requires a prompt removal action.
Slag: The fused refuse or dross separated
from a metal in the process of smelting.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial
or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the
flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by
digging a trench around a contaminated area
and filling the trench with an impermeable
material that prevents water from passing
through it. The groundwater or contaminated
liquids trapped within the area surrounded by
the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.
Smelter: A facility that melts or fuses ore,
often with an accompanying chemical change,
to separate the metal. Emissions from smelt-
ers are known to cause pollution.
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles of soil. Such gases can move through
65
-------
GLOSSARY.
or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction: A treatment process
that uses vacuum wells to remove hazardous
gases from soil.
Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to
remove undesirable materials. There are two
approaches: dissolving or suspending them in
the wash solution for later treatment by
conventional methods, and concentrating
them into a smaller volume of soil through
simple particle size separation techniques [see
Solvent Extraction].
Stabilization: The process of changing an
active substance into inert, harmless material,
or physical activities at a site that act to limit
the further spread of contamination without
actual reduction of toxicity.
Solidification/Stabilization: A chemical or
physical reduction of the mobility of hazard-
ous constituents. Mobility is reduced through
the binding of hazardous constituents into a
solid mass with low permeability and resis-
tance to leaching.
Solvent: A substance capable of dissolving
another substance to form a solution. The
primary uses of industrial solvents are as
cleaners for degreasing, in paints, and in
Pharmaceuticals. Many solvents are flam-
mable and toxic to varying degrees.
Solvent Extraction: A means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges,
and sediment, thereby reducing the volume of
the hazardous waste that must be treated. It
generally is used as one in a series of unit
operations. An organic chemical is used to
dissolve contaminants as opposed to water-
based compounds, which usually are used in
soil washing.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or at-
tracting substances. It is used in many pollu-
tion control systems.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air
Stripping].
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.
Superfund: The program operated under the
legislative authority of the CERCLA and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) to update and improve environ-
mental laws. The program has the authority
to respond directly to releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare, or the envi-
ronment. The "Superfund" is a trust fund that
finances cleanup actions at hazardous waste
sites.
Surge Tanks: A holding structure used to
absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, includ-
ing liquid waste materials.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated
by woody vegetation and does not accumulate
peat moss deposits. Swamps may be fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wet-
lands].
Thermal Treatment: The use of heat to
remove or destroy contaminants from soil.
Treatability Studies: Testing a treatment
method on contaminated groundwater, soil,
etc., to determine whether and how well the
method will work.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, color-
less liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as
66
-------
GLOSSARY
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
Volatile Organic Compounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].
Upgradient: An upward hydrologic slope;
demarks areas that are higher than contami-
nated areas and, therefore, are not prone to
contamination by the movement of polluted
groundwater.
Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils. Vacuum pumps are connected to a
series of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tightly at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the
soil draws VOC-contaminated air from the
soil pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn
down from the surface of the soil.
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with
graded soils and seed for vegetative growth,
to prevent erosion [see Cap].
Vitrification: The process of electrically
melting wastes and soils or sludges to bind
the waste in a glassy, solid material more
durable than granite or marble and resistant to
leaching.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as secondary petro-
chemicals. They include light alcohols,
acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
toluene, and methylene chloride. These
potentially toxic chemicals are used as sol-
vents, 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.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that uses
a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from
water.
Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.
Water Table: The upper surface of the
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other
liquids.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to
sustaining many species of fish and wildlife.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
and bogs. Wetlands may be either coastal or
inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish
(a mixture of salt and fresh) water, and most
have tides, while inland wetlands are non-
tidal and freshwater. Coastal wetlands are an
integral component of estuaries.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
67
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in Connecticut
69
-------
a
o I
*U.S. G.P.O. 1992-311-893:60628
71
------- |