&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/036
September 1991
PB92-963206
National
Priorities
List Sites:
MASSACH USETTS
1 9!T T
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-722A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Massachusetts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (P! ' ' -
77 West Jacksor, LJ .
Chicago, IL 6060,: ;
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
Superfund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the State Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 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 83
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 99
-------
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 NAME
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOO
k-Stte>Descrlption
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Name*:
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially respon-
sible parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
Site Responsibility:
NPL Listing History
Proposed: XMQHX
Flmb vxaanx
hreats 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 Ground-water 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
he Commonwealth
Massachusetts
The New England state of Massachusetts is located on the Atlantic seaboard within EPA
Region 1, which includes the six states in the northeastern corner of the United States. The state
covers 58,527 square miles consisting of jagged indented coastline from Rhode Island around
Cape Cod, flatlands yielding to stoney upland pastures near the central region, and gentle hilly
country in the west. According to the 1990 Census, Massachusetts experienced a 5% increase in
population between 1980 and 1990 and currently has approximately 6,016,000 residents, ranking
13th in U.S. populations. Principal state industries include services, trade, and manufacturing.
Massachusetts manufacturers produce electric and electronic equipment, machinery, printing and
publishing, instruments, and fabricated metal products.
How Many NPL Sites Are in
Massachusetts?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
25
_Q
25
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional Districts 1, 2,4,11 1 site
Congressional Districts 3,9 2 sites
Congressional Districts 6, 7 3 sites
Congressional Districts 5 5 sites
Congressional Districts 10 6 sites
What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
in Massachusetts?
# of sites
4
3
3
3
2
2
8
type of sites
Chemical & Allied Products
Electronics & Electrical Equipment
Municipal & Industrial Landfills
Federal Facilities
Storage Facilities
Metals & Allied Products
Others (Lumber & Wood, recyclers, disposal
facility, petroleum refining and related industry,
manufacturers)
17
April! 991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
25 T
20--
M
£
10--
5 --
GW Soil SW Sad Air Solid &
Liquid
Wastes
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
Soil, Solid, and Liquid Wastes:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
creosote (organic s).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
creosote (organics).
Air: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and gases.
* Appear at 20% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?*
6
Sites
with I
Studies
Underway
2
Sites
with
Remedy
Selected
6
Sites
with
Remedy
Design
8
Sites
with
Cleanup
Ongoing
Sites
with
Construction
Complete
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 21 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
(O) 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
ApriM991
-------
Q)
3
O
(0
as
.2
Q
§.
c«
c o
ou
u
$?
c '5
5 a
^ c
OO
a
ft
ftftft
ft
ft ft ft
ft ftftftftftft ft ftft
ft
ft
re
0)
C
O
E
E
o
o
0}
0)
GO
_J
a.
Z
+^
CO
a
3
C
(Q
O
O
T3
(5
I
V
I.
O)
o
g
I «
li ftftft ft ftftftftftft ft ftft
8
C/)
*>
m C
2 §.
C (A
~ «
ec
ftftft
llftftftft ft ftftftftftftft ft ftftftftftftftftft
ftftft ft ftft ftftftftftft ft ftftftft ftftftft
§ ^ § §
(Q C^ ^p ^p ^p
Q
NORFOLK
NORWOOD PCBS
CO
V*
TE DUMP MIDDLESEX
oo
NYANZA CHEMICAL WA
n
n
3
1
iO
<
OQ
S
-
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Mas
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 1
21
April 1991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Massachusetts, providing
specific information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and
environmental 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
EPA Region 1 Superfund Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center
Massachusetts Superfund Office
(617) 565-3425
(617) 577-9645
(800) 424-9346
(202) 260-2080
(617)292-5851
April 1991
22
-------
ATLAS TAG
MASSACHUSE
EPAID#MAD001026319
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Bristol County
Fairhaven
Site Description
The Atlas Tack Corporation formerly manufactured cut and wire tacks, steel nails, and similar items
on a 12-acre site in Fairhaven. From the 1940s until the late 1970s, wastes containing cyanide and
heavy metals, including high levels of arsenic, were discharged into an unlined acid neutralizing
lagoon approximately 200 feet east of the manufacturing building and adjacent to a saltwater tidal
marsh in Buzzards Bay Estuary. The area is residential and commercial. Approximately 7,200
people live within 1 mile, and 15,150 live within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater has been shown to be contaminated with cyanide and toluene that
leached from the site lagoons. The on-site soil is contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), including toluene and ethyl benzene, as well as heavy metals,
including beryllium, mercury, and nickel. Nearby residents risk potential exposure
through direct contact with the soil or by drinking water from contaminated wells. The
marsh south of the lagoon and estuarine areas in Buzzards Bay are contaminated.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
23
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA currently is conducting an investigation into the nature and extent
of the contamination at the site. The EPA site investigation will define the contaminants of
concern, and alternatives for the final cleanup will be presented when the investigation is
completed, scheduled in 1992.
Environmental Progress
The EPA has determined that the public and the environment are not at immediate risk while studies
at the Atlas Tack Corp. site are being conducted and the final cleanup alternatives are being
determined.
April! 991
24
ATLAS TACK CORP.
-------
BAIRD & MC
MASSACHUSE
EPAID#MAD001041987
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Norfolk County
South Street in northwest Holbrook
Site Description
The Baird & McGuire facility is situated on a 20-acre site in Holbrook and operated as a chemical
mixing and batching company from 1912 to 1983. Later activities included mixing, packaging,
storing, and distributing various products, including pesticides, disinfectants, soaps, floor waxes, and
solvents. Some of the raw materials used at the site were stored in a tank farm and piped to the
laboratory or mixing buildings. Other raw materials were stored in drums on site. Waste disposal
methods at the site included direct discharge into the soil, a nearby brook, wetlands, and a former
gravel pit. Hazardous wastes historically were disposed of in an on-site lagoon and cesspool. Also
included on site were two lagoons open to rain and large areas of buried wastes such as cans, debris,
and lab bottles and hundreds of bottles of chemicals. The lagoon area has been capped with clay.
The on-site buildings were in various states of disrepair and unsecured; the EPA has since
demolished all but one of the buildings and the tank farms. The tank farm area has been temporarily
capped. The site is completely fenced and has an operating groundwater recirculation system to
contain the groundwater plume. The site is 500 feet west of the Cochato River, which was diverted
into the Richardi Reservoir, a water system serving nearly 90,000 people in the towns of Holbrook,
Randolph, and Braintree. Currently, the Cochato River is not being used as a supply source for the
Richardi Reservoir. The South Street well field, part of the municipal water supply for Holbrook, is
within 1,500 feet of the site and was shut down in 1982.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with pesticides and organic and inorganic chemicals.
Studies found significant levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), other organic
compounds, arsenic, and pesticides including DDT and chlordane in the Cochato River
sediments. The contamination is highest on site or within approximately 500 feet
downgradient of the current site fence. Site soils were found to be contaminated with
VOCs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), other organic compounds, pesticides,
dioxin, and heavy metals such as lead and arsenic. Dioxin also has been detected in area
wetland soils. The last operating well in the South Street well field was shut down in
1982 because of unacceptably high levels of organic contamination. The area of the site
is fenced; however, high levels of pesticides in site soils and sporadic dioxin
25
April 1991
-------
contamination pose an imminent threat to human health through accidental ingestion of or direct
contact with the contaminated soils or groundwater. The groundwater plume continues to
contaminate the Cochato River sediments; however, no significant health risk was found, based on
human contact with contaminated sediments. Contaminated sediments were found to be acutely
toxic to aquatic life.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in five stages: immediate actions and four long-term remedial phases
addressing the cleanup of the groundwater, soil, and sediments and the provision of an alternate
water supply.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA completed a hydrological study in connection with this
site. The initial response action taken included the removal of 1,020 cubic yards of
hazardous waste, 1 ton of waste creosote, 25 gallons of waste coal tar, 155 pounds of solid
hazardous waste, 47 drums of flammable liquids and solids, and 2 drums of corrosives. Additional
activity included construction of a clay cap, installation of a groundwater interception/recirculation
system, installation of 5,700 feet of fencing, and extensive soil, groundwater, surface water, and air
sampling. The site was graded, capped, and seeded. The site is secured by a fence to limit contact
with contaminants.
Groundwater: This remedy involves pumping groundwater and treating it at an on-site
treatment plant. Treated groundwater will be discharged to the aquifer located on site.
On- and off-site groundwater monitoring will be implemented. A groundwater
interception/recirculation system currently operating at the site has significantly reduced the
migration of site contaminants.
Soil: This remedy involves the excavation and removal of approximately 130,000 cubic
yards of contaminated soils and destruction of contaminants in the soil by incineration.
Wetlands will be restored where contaminated soils are excavated. The unnamed brook
will be relocated. Air quality will be monitored during construction and implementation of the
incineration system. Design of the incineration system is continuing, and a series of tests to
determine the operating procedures that will most effectively destroy soil contaminants was
completed in 1989 at the EPA's research facility in Arkansas. Cleanup of the site started in 1990
and is scheduled to be completed in 1997.
Sediments: The groundwater discharge is believed to be partially responsible for
contamination of Cochato River sediments and adjoining wetlands. Field investigations in
1987 and 1988 determined that contaminated groundwater and surface runoff from the site
continue to be the principal sources of contamination of the wetlands adjacent to the site. The EPA
conducted an investigation into the nature and extent of the surface water and sediment
April 1991 26 BAIRD & MCGUIRE
-------
contamination at the site. The investigation defined the contaminants of concern and recommended
alternatives for final surface water and sediment cleanup. The investigation also determined that
site contaminants were being effectively trapped in river sediments and were not migrating down-
river. The investigation was completed in late 1989. Approximately 1,500 cubic yards of sediments
will be excavated and incinerated on site. Design of cleanup actions is scheduled to be completed in
1991, with work scheduled to begin in 1994.
Water Supply: In 1990, the EPA selected a remedy that will reactivate the Donna Road
Aquifer, thereby replacing the lost demand caused by contamination. The design of this
remedy is scheduled to start on 1991.
Site Facts: Between 1954 and 1977, the company was fined at least 35 times by various State and
Federal agencies for numerous violations. A citizen complaint of an oily substance on the Cochato
River initiated a site inspection, which reported surface water, groundwater, and wetlands
contamination. In 1983, the City of Holbrook revoked Baird & McGuire's permit to store
chemicals and ordered it to dismantle the existing storage facilities. The EPA issued Notice Letters
to parties potentially responsible for the site contamination. A cost recovery case against the four
potentially responsible parties was filed in 1983. The case was settled on an ability-to-pay basis in
1987. A final Consent Decree was issued by the EPA and was signed by the potentially responsible
parties.
Environmental Progress
The initial cleanup, including the construction of a fence, and continuing actions described above
have greatly reduced the potential of exposure to contamination and continue to reduce
contamination levels at the Baird & McGuire site, making the area safer while it awaits final cleanup
activities.
BAIRD & MCGUIRE 27 April 1991
-------
CANNON EN
CORPORATI
(CEC)
MASSACHUSETT
EPA ID# MAD079510780
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Plymouth County
Bridgewater
Other Names:
Cannons Bridgewater
Superfund Site
The Cannon Engineering Corporation (CEC) site is situated on 6 acres between Route 24 and First
Street in Bridgewater. In 1974, Cannon developed the site to transport, store, and incinerate
hazardous wastes, but the facility currently is inactive. On-site structures included 21 storage tanks,
3 buildings, an office/warehouse, and an incinerator. The operation was licensed in 1979 to store
motor oils, oils and emulsions, solvents, lacquers, organic and inorganic chemicals, plating waste,
clay and filter media containing chemicals, plating sludge solids, and pesticides. The facility had a
license to operate from 1974 until 1980, when alleged waste handling and reporting violations
prompted the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) to revoke it. The
facility was placed in receivership when its owners were found guilty of illegal storage and disposal.
Operations ceased in 1980, leaving behind about 700 drums and 155,000 gallons of liquid waste and
sludge in bulk storage. The on-site soils, sediments, buildings, groundwater, and surface waters are
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, and metals to varying degrees. The Cannon
site is associated with three other NPL sites: Tinkham Garage, Sylvester, and Plymouth Harbor.
The Tinkham Garage and Sylvester sites are located in New Hampshire. Approximately 1,000
people live within 1 mile in this residential and light industrial area. The nearest residence is 1/8
mile from the site. There are 13 homes within a 1-mile radius that depend on well water. The
closest municipal well is in Raynham, 1 mile from the site. Bridgewater's municipal wells are 3
miles to the east of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
29
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site air contains trace amounts of VOCs including benzene and methylene
chloride. Groundwater also has been found to contain VOCs including toluene, as well
as heavy metals. Soil and sediments contain PAHs, PCBs, dioxin, and pesticides in
addition to VOCs and heavy metals. The surface water is polluted with heavy metals
including high levels of iron, selenium, lead, manganese, and silver. Direct contact with
and accidental ingestion of contaminated material posed a potential human threat.
Inhaling VOCs and contaminated fugitive dust are potential health threats. The site is
fully fenced to reduce the potential for contact with contaminants. Sensitive areas that
could be subject to contamination associated with the site include wetland areas to the
south and Lake Nippenicket to the west of the site.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
concentrating on source control and migration of contaminants at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1982, the State removed 155,000 gallons of sludge and liquid wastes
and approximately 700 drums and incinerated the materials off site. In 1988, the EPA and
the panics potentially responsible for the site contamination provided for the removal and
disposal of numerous hazardous materials abandoned at the site. A fence surrounding the site was
erected in 1989.
Entire Site: The remedy for the site was selected in 1988 and entails two cleanup
phases, source control and restricting the migration of contaminants. Source control
elements include: (1) fencing the area to restrict access to soils; (2) treating certain
contaminated soil on site by heating it to remove contaminants and burning PCB-contaminated soils
off site; (3) installing a groundwater monitoring system; (4) decontaminating and removing
buildings and associated structures; (5) sampling and treating other soils as necessary; and (6)
restorating wetlands disturbed during site cleanup. Key features of the migration control remedy
include restricting use of groundwater at the site and installing additional groundwater monitoring
wells to keep apprised of the appearance or movement of contaminants. Once contaminated soils
are removed, aggravating conditions will abate and groundwater will clear naturally over time. In
1990, cleanup activities were undertaken by the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination, with oversight from the EPA and the State. Four hundred tons of PCB-contaminated
soil were incinerated off site, 11,330 tons of soils containing VOCs were treated on site, 1,200 tons
of steel and 1,300 tons of concrete were shipped for recycling, 360 cubic yards of hazardous debris
April 1991 30 CANNON ENGINEERING CORPORATION
-------
were sent to an approved disposal facility, and 480 cubic yards of non-hazardous debris were
shipped to a demolition materials landfill. Long-term groundwater monitoring is scheduled to begin
in 1991. The testing for dioxin of debris from the demolished incinerator and subsequent removal
also are scheduled for 1991.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was entered by the U.S. District Court in Boston in 1989 for the
potentially responsible parties to conduct engineering designs and cleanup actions at the site.
Environmental Progress
The initial cleanup actions described above have removed contaminated materials from the site and
have restricted site access, reducing the risk of exposure to hazardous substances at the Cannon
Engineering Corp. site, thereby making it safer while further cleanup activities are undertaken. All
direct contact threats from contaminated soil have been eliminated. The planned cleanup activities
will reduce movement of contaminants off site as well as remove materials that are causing
pollution.
CANNON ENGINEERING CORPORATION
31
April 1991
-------
CHARLES-qE
RECLAMATI
TRUST LAN
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD003809266
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Middlesex County
miles northwest of Boston
Other Names:
eorge C Landfill
From the late 1950s until 1967, the Charles-George Reclamation Trust Landfill, located 1 mile
southwest of Tyngsborough and 4 miles south of Nashua, NH, was a small municipal dump. A new
owner expanded it to its present size of approximately 55 acres and accepted both household and
industrial wastes from 1967 to 1976. The facility had a license to accept hazardous waste from 1973
to 1976 and primarily accepted drummed and bulk chemicals containing volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and toxic metal sludges. Records show that over 1,000 pounds of mercury were disposed of
and approximately 2,500 cubic yards of chemical wastes were landfilled. The State ordered closure
of the site in 1983. That same year, the EPA listed the site on the NPL and the owner filed for
bankruptcy. Samples from wells serving nearby Cannongate Condominiums and some nearby
private homes revealed VOCs and heavy metals in the groundwater. Approximately 500 people live
within a mile of the site in this residential/rural area; 2,100 live within 3 miles. The nearest residents
are 100 yards away. The site is bordered by Flint Pond Marsh and Flint Pond to the east, Dunstable
Brook to the west, and the condo complex to the southeast. Seasonal livestock grazing occurs in the
area.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The air on the site is contaminated with VOCs including benzene and vinyl chloride.
Benzene, tetrahydrofuran, arsenic, and 2-butanone have been detected in the
groundwater. Domestic wells contained benzene. Sediments have been shown to contain
low levels of benzo(a)pyrene. People face a potential health threat by drinking
contaminated groundwater or inhaling landfill gas on the site. Flint Pond Marsh, Flint
Pond, and Dunstable Brook are nearby wetlands threatened by contamination migrating
from the site.
33
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in five stages: initial actions and four long-term remedial phases
focusing on providing an alternate water supply, capping the site, controlling the migration of
contaminants, and treating leachate in the groundwater.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In response to the discovery of contaminated well water in the adjacent
condominium complex in 1983, the EPA installed an insulated aboveground pipeline to
supply residents with an alternate water supply. In 1983 and 1984, the EPA installed a
security fence and 12 gas vents, and the site was regraded to cover exposed refuse.
Water Supply: At the end of 1983, the EPA approved a remedy that would provide a
permanent water supply to the affected residents. With EPA funds, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers installed 4 miles of ductile iron water pipe, constructed a pump station and
water storage tank, and arranged for chlorination services. This project was completed in 1988.
Capping: In 1985, the EPA completed a study on capping the landfill and selected the
following remedy: (1) installation of a full synthetic membrane cover and a surface water
diversion and collection system, which will'keep rainwater from spreading contamination;
(2) construction of a gas collection system venting to the atmosphere; and (3) creation of a leachate
collection system around the entire site. Periodic mowing, landscaping, and inspection/maintenance
services also will be provided. The Corps of Engineers completed construction of the full synthetic
landfill cap in 1990.
Migration of Contaminants: In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy to restrict the
movement of contaminants off site. Features include: (1) pumping contaminated shallow
groundwater and treating it biologically, along with the leachate collected from the landfill
cap system; (2) collecting and incinerating gas vented from the landfill; (3) excavating and
solidifying 500 cubic yards of contaminated sediments from Dunstable Brook and placing them
under the landfill cap; and (4) groundwater monitoring. The Corps of Engineers completed the
remedy design in 1990. Construction of the gas treatment system and one of two groundwater
extraction remedies is scheduled to begin in 1991.
Leachate: This remedy involves extraction of a contaminated groundwater plume in the
eastern portion of the site and combining it with leachate collected from the landfill cap
system for treatment. A biologically based cleanup technology will be used. The parties
potentially responsible for contamination of the site are performing groundwater and leachate
monitoring as part of their cleanup agreement with the EPA. The parties also are performing
groundwater treatability studies to be incorporated in the Corps' design documents. Cleanup actions
are scheduled to begin in 1993.
Site Facts: In May 1983, the EPA issued a Notice Letter to the Charles-George Reclamation Trust,
requesting its cooperation in the cleanup. An Administrative Order was signed with the potentially
responsible parties to perform treatability studies and groundwater/leachate monitoring with
assistance from the EPA.
April 1991 34 CHARLES-GEORGE
RECLAMATION TRUST LANDFILL
-------
Environmental Progress
Providing a water supply system, installing a fence, capping the landfill area, and controlling the
spread of leachate have provided a safe drinking water source and reduced the potential for exposure
to hazardous materials at the Charles-George Reclamation Trust Landfill site, making the site safer
while it awaits further cleanup activities.
CHARLES-GEORGE
RECLAMATION TRUST LANDFILL
35
April 1991
-------
cnDT ncwcivrcr s^ML* :> EPA REGION 1
run I UCVCT|Ot U ^Wtf CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Ql IHRI IRV V^Tt* ~;^ ^~~^^>&x Middlesex County
Ov^LxDvlrlT / [ " "-,\ " fr /^\ 4 square miles in Middlesex Co.
( -LnTini-^V *]L-^\ c incliS^s portions of the towns of Sudbury,
TRAINING AhmHE)^\ * *"
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in five stages: initial actions and four long-term remedial phases
addressing cleanup of the groundwater (Waste Areas A7 and A9), the PCB spill area, and additional
contamination areas.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The Army responded to the 1985 PCB spill by removing 300 gallons of
Aroclor and approximately 86 tons of PCB-contaminated soil to an EPA-approved facility.
Workers similarly removed the four additional transformers discovered, along with some
contaminated soil around them.
Groundwater (Waste Area A7): The Army is scheduled to begin an in-depth study of
groundwater contamination in Waste Area A7 in 1991. Recommended remedies for
cleanup are expected to be available by 1993.
Groundwater (Waste Area A9): The Army is scheduled to begin an in-depth study of
groundwater contamination in Waste Area A9 in 1991. Recommended remedies for
cleanup are expected to be available by 1993.
PCB Spill Area: The Army is scheduled to conduct a detailed study of groundwater and
soil contamination in the PCB spill area in late 1991. Findings and recommended cleanup
remedies are expected to be ready in 1993.
Additional Contamination Areas: The Army is scheduled to study the nature and
extent of contamination and will develop proposed cleanup alternatives at numerous
additional areas of the site, beginning in 1991. A detailed investigation will be performed
at several areas of the site to determine if a more thorough evaluation of remedies is necessary.
Site Facts: An Interagency Agreement between the EPA and the Army will be signed soon,
outlining the legal framework for the site cleanup. The Sudbury Training Annex 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.
Environmental Progress
Initial activities have removed sources of contamination, reducing the potential for exposure to
hazardous materials at the Fort Devens-Sudbury Training Annex site. The EPA has addressed the
actions taken by the Army and has determined that there are no immediate threats to public health
and the environment. Some immediate actions may be deemed necessary, based on the site
investigation, while the site awaits further cleanup activities.
April 1991 38 FORT DEVENS-SUDBURY TRAINING ANNEX
-------
FORT DEVE
MASSACHUSE
EPAID#MA7210025154f
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Worcester County
35 miles west of Boston
Other Names:
South Post
Central Post
North Post
Site Description
Fort Devens is 35 miles west of Boston. It covers 9,416 acres at the intersection of four towns:
Ayer and Shirley in Middlesex County and Lancaster and Harvard in Worcester County. Founded in
1917, the Fort trains active duty personnel to support various Army units. It also has custody of Fort
Devens-Sudbury Training Annex, 12 miles to the southwest, which was listed on the NPL in 1990.
Fort Devens can be divided into three areas: the 2,300-acre Central Post, which is flanked by the
1,500-acre North Post and the 5,616-acre South Post. Studies have revealed 54 potential hazardous
waste sites on Fort land. Among them are the 15-acre explosive ordnance disposal range (South
Post), where explosives and unusable munitions have been detonated or burned in open unlined pits
since 1979 and where soil sampling has led to the discovery of heavy metals, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and explosives residues; the 50-acre sanitary landfill (Central Post), where
household wastes, military refuse, asbestos, construction debris, waste oil, and incinerator ash have
been dumped since the 1930s; and a firefighting training area (North Post), where the possibility for
petroleum, oil, and lubricant contamination exists, as evidenced by stained asphalt, concrete, and
soil. The area is largely rural/residential. Approximately 21,700 Fort employees and Ayer residents
obtain drinking water from wells within 3 miles of the landfill; a Fort Devens well is 1,670 feet from
the landfill. An 8-mile section of the Nashua River lies within the Fort's boundaries. The 630-acre
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge is in the east-central portion of Fort Devens on land the Army
deeded to the Department of the Interior in 1973. An 83-acre wetland is in the refuge northeast of
the ordnance range.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/15/89
Threats and Contaminants
Monitoring wells near the landfill indicate groundwater contamination from heavy metals
including cadmium, lead, mercury, iron, and arsenic. The soil near the explosive
ordnance disposal range is contaminated with heavy metals as well as VOCs and
explosive residues. Heavy metal contaminants, including arsenic, chromium, nickel, and
lead also are found in the surface water near the landfill. Potential threats exist for the
630-acre wildlife refuge containing an 83-acre wetland, which is in the center of Fort
lands; the base drinking water wells; the Plow Shop pond located in Ayer; and the
Nashua River, along with its surrounding habitat.
39
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four long-term remedial phases focusing cleanup of the contaminated
groundwater, soils, and sediments at the Shepley's Hill Landfill, Cold Spring Brook Landfill, South
Post, and additional contaminated areas.
Response Action Status
Shepley's Hill Landfill: An investigation by the Army is scheduled to start in 1991 to
consider the extent and nature of contamination; recommendations for cleanup strategies
are scheduled to be made in 1993. Two additional potential sites are included in this area.
Cold Spring Brook Landfill: The Army is slated to begin an investigation in 1991 to
determine the nature and extent of contamination. Cleanup alternatives for the site are
scheduled to be completed in 1993. An additional four potential sites in this area will be
reviewed to determine whether in-depth studies are needed.
South Post: A detailed site investigation by the Army is scheduled to start in 1991 at
several sites located on the 5,616-acre South Post to determine whether additional studies
are needed. If they are, recommended cleanup strategies will be developed in 1993. One
other potential site in this area will be reviewed for further action.
Additional Contaminated Areas: The EPA is preparing an investigation for several
areas located on the Central Post. The investigation will determine whether possible
contamination warrants a detailed study of the site. The investigation is scheduled to start
in 1991 and will result in recommended strategies for cleanup in 1994. There are 54 potential areas
of contamination located at the Central Post.
Site Facts: Fort Devens 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. An
Interagency Agreement between the Army and the EPA is expected to be signed in June 1991
outlining the legal framework for the cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Fort Devens site to the NPL, the EPA assessed the actions being taken by the Army
and has determined that there are currently no immediate threats to public health or the environment.
Some intermediate actions may be deemed necessary based on the investigations while the site
awaits further cleanup activities.
April 1991 40 FORT DEVENS
-------
GROVELAND
WELLS
MASSACHUSE
EPA ID# MAD980732317
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Essex County
Groveland
Site Description
The Groveland Wells site includes the watershed and aquifer supplying two contaminated municipal
water wells, as well as three properties known to be polluting groundwater and soil in the area. The
entire site area covers 850 acres. Groveland's production wells #1 and #2 were the sole source of
drinking water for the town. Both were shut down in 1979, when the State detected
trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination. The Town instituted emergency conservation measures and
temporarily obtained water hookups from neighboring communities. Groveland developed well #3
along the Merrimack River in the early 1980s, but the water supply still falls short of the town's
needs and growth trends. The EPA currently is trying to restrict hazardous waste materials from the
highly contaminated Valley Manufacturing Co. site, where metals and plastic parts have been made
since 1963. Operators used subsurface disposal systems and underground tanks that dispersed
liquids into buried leachfields. They also routinely dumped hazardous materials on the ground.
From 1964 to 1972, as much as 20 gallons per month of these materials were released. Chemicals
released in these ways included cutting oils, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and acid bath
wastes. An estimated 5,000 people live within 3 miles of the site in this residential area. The EPA
has built a groundwater cleaning plant at well #1. As of early 1989, the plant has continuously
provided a treated public water supply to the town.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals including lead and
arsenic. Surface water and sediment contain low levels of contaminants to which people
could be exposed while swimming. The greatest threat is posed by drinking water from
contaminated wells, a danger that has been minimized by the provision of an alternate
water supply. Highly contaminated soil found on the Valley property could pose a risk to
the workers involved in site cleanup activities.
41
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions supply and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on groundwater migration and source control.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA installed a groundwater treatment facility for
Groveland's municipal well station #1. Valley Manufacturing Co., under a State order,
installed a groundwater treatment system just north of the Old Mill Pond. The treatment
system intercepts and treats a defined area of groundwater contamination. The EPA has been
treating water from municipal supply well #1 with carbon adsorption to remove VOCs since 1989.
The treatment plant operated as a public water supply from August through November 1987 and
again from the spring through fall of 1988. It went on line again in early 1989 and is expected to
operate on a continuous basis for the life of the facility.
Groundwater Migration: The EPA began its initial study of site contamination and
cleanup options in 1983. The initial study was completed in 1985. In 1990, the EPA
began conducting a separate study referred to as a "management of migration" study to
evaluate movement of groundwater contaminants and what further cleanup activities are needed.
This will be used to develop a permanent remedy to address contamination throughout the Johnson
Creek aquifer. The first stage of this investigation was completed in 1991.
Source Control: A supplemental study based on the initial studies rederred to above
narrowed the focus of contamination to one location, and the following remedy for the
Valley area was selected: (1) in-place vacuum extraction of VOCs from 20,000 cubic
yards of site soils and capture of those contaminants by activated carbon treatment (a proven,
innovative technology); (2) pumping groundwater on the site and treating it by air stripping,
followed by passing through a carbon-containing filter to recapture the contaminants; (3) reinjecting
some of the cleaned water into the ground "above" the site to speed saturated soil cleanup; (4)
discharging the rest of the cleaned groundwater to the aquifer "below" the site; (5) treatment of air
emissions from the cleanup process; (6) groundwater monitoring; and (7) sealing or disconnecting
all lines to the acid bath finishing process disposal system. Incidental treatment of inorganic
compounds and other contaminants will be provided as necessary in order to operate the VOC
contaminant treatment system efficiently and meet discharge permit limits. The EPA will use the
results of the vacuum extraction pilot study to complete the supplemental evaluation of alternatives.
Engineering design of the remedy began in early 1991, and cleanup activities are scheduled to start
in 1992.
Site Facts: The Town of Groveland sued the potentially responsible parties and settled with one of
them to undertake a study of the nature and extent of contamination. The nearby Haverhill site has
been determined to be contributing to the groundwater contamination and has been separately added
to the NPL.
Environmental Progress
Initial construction of water treatment facilities has provided a safe drinking water source, and the
various cleanup actions taking place at the Groveland Wells site have reduced the possibility of
exposure to hazardous materials and continue to reduce contamination in groundwater. The EPA's
investigation into supplemental treatment alternatives will identify the final cleanup remedies to
make the site safer until a final cleanup method is implemented.
April 1991 42 GROVELAND WELLS
-------
HAVERHIL
LANDFILL
MASSACHU
EPA ID# MAD980523336
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Essex County
2 miles southeast of downtown Haverhill
Haverhill Municipal Landfill is a 71-acre industrial and municipal facility, which lies adjacent to the
Merrimack River. Trimount Bituminous Products operated the site as an industrial landfill
beginning in the late 1930s and started to accept municipal wastes in the 1960s. Two of the
landfill's three tracts were used for disposal of municipal and commercial refuse, while the third
received liquid wastes and sludges. Wastes included steel drums, tires, and flammables, including
lacquers, paints, oils, and glues. These materials either were dumped on the surface of the site or
were deposited into shallow pits. Sludges and liquids were dumped near the river, which borders the
site on the north. Resulting land erosion carried liquid wastes into the river. Monitoring wells a
short distance upgradient from the river showed contamination. Until 1975, the landfill was
operated in an unsanitary manner with little compaction of refuse. The facility closed in 1981.
Since 1981, the landfill has accepted sludges generated by the Haverhill Wastewater Treatment
Plant. The sludge is mixed with sand and/or loam and then spread over the surface of the landfill.
Numerous reports have cited lax security on the property; dirt bikers have been observed riding on
the site. The area is residential; the two nearby towns, Haverhill and Groveland, have a combined
population of approximately 51,400.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Chromium and arsenic have been found in liquids on site. The soil is contaminated with
benzoanthracene, dibenzofuran, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A nearby
creek is contaminated with VOCs and manganese. Drums found on the site contained
material contaminated with VOCs including toluene and xylene. The groundwater is
contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals including arsenic, lead, mercury, manganese,
and chromium. Potential threats include drinking contaminated groundwater or exposure
to surface waters in a nearby creek. Two public water supply wells in Groveland were
closed in 1979 due to possible contamination.
43
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup alternatives for the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1990, the EPA discovered two drums of unknown material on the
site. Tests revealed the contents of the drums to be contaminated with VOCs. The
contaminated drums were stabilized and were removed from the site by the site owner.
Entire Site: An in-depth study of the nature and extent of the contamination at the site is
scheduled to start in 1991. The results of the study, scheduled for completion in 1993, will
identify recommended cleanup strategies.
Environmental Progress
As a result of the closing of the two contaminated public water supply wells and the removal of
contaminated drums, the EPA determined that the public is not at risk while the Haverhill site awaits
further cleanup activities.
April 1991
44
HAVERHILL MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
-------
HOCOMONC
POND
MASSACHUSETT
EPA ID# MAD980732341
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Worcester County
Westborough
The Hocomonco Pond site, consisting of approximately 23 acres, included a recreational pond that
was closed by the State in 1980. From 1928 to 1946, the site was used as a wood-treating operation.
The business consisted of saturating wood products with creosote for preservation. During the
operations, wastewater was discharged into a pit lagoon. The lagoon was excavated on the property
to store spillage and waste from the wood-treating operation. As this lagoon became filled with
waste creosotes, sludges, and water, its contents were pumped into a low depression, also known as
Kettle Pond. The wood-treatment facility operated until the mid-1940s, when it was converted into
an asphalt mining plant. Discarded aggregate and asphalt are common throughout the site. The last
use of the site was as a cement plant where dry cement was distributed in bulk. The surface water
and groundwater have shown creosote contamination. Approximately 2,500 people, who depend on
groundwater as a drinking water supply, and 14,000 people, who use the surface water for other
purposes, live within 3 miles of the site. The nearest residences are 2,000 feet from the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and sediments from the pond and its shore are contaminated with
heavy metals including arsenic and chromium, creosotes, and carcinogenic compounds.
Public risks include the possibility of direct contact with or accidental ingestion of the
contaminated soil and groundwater.
45
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on interim source control and
groundwater treatment.
Response Action Status
Interim Source Control: The cleanup alternatives that the EPA has selected include
site grading, capping, and relocation of the storm drain pipe currently located next to the
east side of the former lagoon. For the Kettle Pond area, cleanup included dewatering the
pond and lowering the groundwater level in the immediate area. Soil and waste excavation were
based primarily on visible contamination criteria. Additional removal of contaminants took place
based on the sampling and analysis of soil conducted during excavation. Hocomonco Pond and a
discharge stream were dredged and contaminated sediments disposed of on site. Removal and on-
site disposal of contaminated materials at three isolated areas of contamination, air and water quality
monitoring, and post-closure activities are consistent with Federal regulations. The parties
potentially responsible for site contamination commenced construction of the cleanup remedy in
1989. Relocation of the storm drain pipe was completed in 1990.
Groundwater Treatment: The panics potentially responsible for the site
contamination are conducting a further investigation into the groundwater contamination,
after which the EPA will determine an appropriate remedy for treating the contaminated
groundwater. The investigation is scheduled to be completed in 1993.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was filed in the U.S. District Court in 1987, allowing the potentially
responsible parties to conduct preliminary investigations into site contamination.
Environmental Progress
Following the listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA completed a site assessment and determined
that the site presently poses no immediate threat to public health or the environment. Current efforts
to control movement of contaminants and to remove contamination sources will further reduce
potential threats. Hocomonco Pond is safe while it awaits future groundwater cleanup actions.
April 1991 46 HOCOMONCO POND
-------
INDUSTRI-P
MASSACHUSE
EPA ID# MAD076580950
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Middlesex County
North Woburn
Other Names:
Mark Phillip Trust
Woburn Site
Industri-Plex 128 Site
Site Description
The Industri-Plex site is a 250-acre industrial park. From 1853 to 1931, the site was used for
manufacturing chemicals such as arsenic insecticides, acetic acid, and sulfuric acid for local textile,
leather, and paper manufacturing industries. Chemicals manufactured by other industries at the site
include phenol, benzene, and toluene. From 1934 to 1969, the site was used to manufacture glue
from raw animal hides and chrome-tanned hides. From 1969 to the present, the site has been
developed for industrial use. Excavation in the 1970s uncovered and mixed 130 years of
accumulation of industrial by-products and wastes. Residues from animal hides used in the
manufacture of glue were buried in pits on the site property. Process wastewater was settled on site
and was discharged to the municipal sewer. Many of the pits, piles, and lagoons are continuously
leaching toxic metals into the environment. Many of the wastes in the soil were relocated and mixed
into piles near swampy areas on the property. The site currently consists of streams and ponds,
active and abandoned manufacturing facilities, and waste deposits buried on the site. Animal hide
residues are found on approximately 20 acres of the site in four different piles. Portions of
stockpiled wastes sloughed off, releasing hydrogen sulfide gases to the atmosphere and toxic metals
and soils to the pond and wetlands. Residences are located within 1,000 feet of the site, and more
than 34,000 people live within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
benzene and toluene, and with arsenic. The soil is contaminated with heavy metals
including arsenic, copper, chromium, and lead. Also, a pervasive "rotten egg" odor has
been caused by hydrogen sulfide gas generated by the decay of the buried animal glue
manufacturing wastes. Exposure can occur through direct contact with contaminated
soil; however, since the site is mostly vacant now, with plans for industrial and
commercial use, the potential exposure most likely is limited to workers on the site
during future construction. The contaminated groundwater has the potential to migrate to
two Wobum municipal drinking wells, which are currently closed.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on site stabilization and cleanup of groundwater contamination.
47
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The EPA installed a 10,000-foot fence to restrict site access in 1986.
Extensive damage to the main areas of the fence occurred, and drums were dumped
illegally on the site. Areas of the fence requiring repairs were identified by the EPA, and
work to re-secure the site was completed in 1988. Warning signs were posted.
Site Stabilization: In 1986, the EPA selected the cleanup activities that will be
conducted by the parties potentially responsible for site contamination. To address the
problem of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils and sludges at the site,
the site will be graded, a permeable soil cover cap will be installed over certain areas, institutional
controls will be implemented, water quality will be monitored, and post-closure activities will be
maintained, consistent with hazardous waste regulations. To address groundwater contamination at
the site, an interim remedy of pumping and treating hot spot areas of contaminated groundwater will
be implemented. Plans also include the development of a comprehensive groundwater response plan
for the aquifer, including groundwater treatment to remove VOCs and metals and discharge of
treated water to the upgradient portion of the aquifer. This will help disperse remaining
contaminants. Treatment will be followed by groundwater monitoring. Remedies selected in
connection with odors and air contamination include stabilization of the side slopes of the various
piles, installation of a gas collection layer, installation of a synthetic and impermeable membrane cap
to prevent rainwater from entering the piles and gases-from escaping without treatment, treatment of
gases with either activated carbon or thermal oxidation (the final treatment selection will be decided
after the impermeable cover has been installed), implementation of an air quality monitoring
program, and routine maintenance. The potentially responsible parties began designing the cleanup
remedies in 1988. Once the design phase is completed, expected in 1992, cleanup activities will
begin. Design for the site cap and localized groundwater pump and treatment for VOCs and arsenic
is expected to be finalized in 1992. Construction of these remedies is anticipated later in 1992.
Groundwater Contamination: An investigation into the extent and nature of
groundwater contamination is underway and is expected to be completed in 1991. The
study will determine the level of metals and organics in the contamination plume and will
recommend technologies for completing the final cleanup.
Site Facts: In 1979, in response to illegal filling of wetlands, the EPA obtained a court order to
stop further development activities. The EPA and the State entered into a Consent Order with
Stauffer Chemical in 1982, whereby Stauffer was to conduct an investigation and recommend
cleanup action. In 1988, the EPA and the potentially responsible parties signed a Consent Decree to
implement the remedy for stabilizing the site and to reimburse the EPA for past costs and future
oversight costs.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions of fencing and posting warning signs around the site have restricted access to the
Industri-Plex site and made it safer until the final cleanup begins. Upon completion of the final
cleanup remedies, the soil and groundwater contamination levels at the Industri-Plex site will be
reduced to meet established health and ecological standards for the site.
April 1991 48 . INDUSTRI-PLEX
-------
IRON
HORSE
PARK
MASSACHUSE
EPA ID#MAD051787323
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Middlesex County
North Billerica
Other Names:
Boston and Maine RR
Iron Horse Park/RSI, Inc. Dump
Iron Horse Park/John Manville Dump
Shaffer Landfill
Billerica Landfill
Pond St. Landfill
The Iron Horse Park site, a 533-acre industrial complex, includes manufacturing and railyard
maintenance facilities, open storage areas, landfills, and wastewater lagoons. A long history of
activities at the site, beginning in 1913, has resulted in contamination of soil, groundwater, and
surface water. An asbestos landfill is located to the northwest and adjacent to the lagoons area.
Middlesex Canal runs along the length of the northern boundary. It is drained by Content Brook,
which runs through residential areas into the Shawseen River east of the site. Richardson Pond lies
north of the site and is also drained by the Content Brook. An unnamed brook, which runs northerly
through the site near wastewater lagoons, drains into a marshland near the asbestos landfill.
Approximately 61,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site. There are four day care centers
or nursery schools, two housing units for the elderly, and a walk-in clinic in the area. A trailer park
and condominium complex are located within a mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
"-X-NO
On-site groundwater and surface water sporadically are contaminated with organic and
inorganic chemicals, asbestos, and heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium, lead, and
selenium. The soil at the site is contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
petrochemicals, and the same heavy metals as those found in the groundwater. The
majority of surface water contamination is located in the vicinity of Shaffer Landfill.
People are at risk by coming in direct contact with or accidentally ingesting contaminated
water, soil, or sediments. Environmentally sensitive marshland and wetlands are located
near the site and could be subject to contamination.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: initial actions and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the lagoon areas, Shaffer Landfill, and groundwater and surface water.
49
April!991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1984, the EPA removed asbestos deposits from various areas on the
site and covered an asbestos landfill with gravel, stone, and topsoil. The EPA then seeded
and fenced the area. By covering the asbestos landfill, the EPA eliminated the potential
for inhalation of fugitive asbestos dust particles.
Lagoon Areas: The remedy selected by the EPA to be performed by the owners to clean
up the lagoons involves excavation and on-site treatment of contaminated soil and sludge
by bioremediation, with the residue disposed of in the lagoon area. This action will be
followed by covering the area with clean soil and establishment of a vegetative cover. The owner
then will decontaminate the lagoon system piping and pumps. Development of the design and
specifications for these remedies currently is underway, and site cleanup activities are expected to
begin in 1991.
Shaffer Landfill: In accordance with a State Consent Agreement, the Shaffer Landfill
area has been closed. The owners have installed a two-layer cover over the landfill, the
bottom layer consisting of low-permeability clay material and a top layer of soil capable of
supporting vegetation. In addition, a gas collection and a gas vent/flare system have been installed
to reduce odors from the landfill. The EPA is completing an investigation of the Shaffer Landfill
area that evaluates the current cover and considers other capping options. In addition, the EPA will
consider leachate collection and controls to protect groundwater, wetlands, and surface water that
surround the landfill. The study was completed in early 1991, and cleanup methods are expected to
be identified shortly.
Groundwater and Surface Water: An EPA investigation currently is underway to
evaluate the levels and the extent of groundwater and surface water contamination,
potential sources, and the possible means of migration. A work plan for a supplemental
investigation is being developed. The study and selection of final cleanup technologies are expected
to be completed in 1993.
Site Facts: A Consent Agreement was reached in 1984 between the State and the owners for
closure of the Shaffer Landfill area. The agreement established a series of cleanup activities and a
schedule for their implementation at the landfill. In 1990, the potentially responsible parties
assumed responsibility for designing the cleanup approach for the lagoon areas, under a Consent
Decree with the State.
Environmental Progress
The removal of asbestos materials and the construction of a fence surrounding the landfill have
reduced the exposure potential at the Iron Horse Park site while it awaits further cleanup activities.
The installation of a cap also will control odors and eliminate the migration of contaminants into the
surface water and groundwater on and off site. Further planned activities will reduce contamination
levels at the site, making it safe to area residents and the environment.
April 1991 50 IRON HORSE PARK
-------
NEW BEDFO
MASSACHUSETT
EPAID#MAD980731335
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Bristol County
55 miles south of Boston
The 18,000-acre New Bedford Site is an urban tidal estuary consisting of a harbor and bay that are
highly contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals. Manufacturers in the
area used PCBs while producing electric capacitors from 1940 to 1978. Until the late 1970s, when
the use of PCBs was banned by the EPA, factories discharged industrial process wastes containing
PCBs into the harbor. PCB contamination in the New Bedford Harbor area is widespread as a result
of poor disposal practices. The harbor is contaminated for at least 6 miles, from the upper Acushnet
River to Buzzards Bay. Approximately 98,500 people are living within 3 miles of the site. A 5-acre
northern portion of the Acushnet River Estuary is contaminated with high levels of PCBs and has
been identified as the hot spot area of the site. The contamination of the harbor and bay sediments
by high concentrations of PCBs and heavy metals has resulted in closing the area to lobstering and
fishing and has limited recreational activities and harbor development.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
PCBs and heavy metals, notably cadmium, lead, copper, and chromium, were identified
in sediments, soil, and marine life. Levels of PCBs in some marine life exceed the
regulatory limit for PCBs. The major potential public health risks in the hot spot area
involve direct contact with contaminated sediments and eating contaminated fish and
shellfish from the area. There is an increased carcinogenic risk for people who eat PCB-
contaminated fish from the harbor and estuary on a daily or weekly basis. Currently,
fishing is restricted in these areas to minimize the potential risk. There also is an
increased risk to public health from eating lead-contaminated plant or animal life. The
risk to plant or animal life is greatest for bottom-dwelling organisms that have direct
contact with contaminated sediments.
51
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: an initial action and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on the hot spot area and the remaining contaminated areas.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1982, the Coast Guard erected signs warning the public of the presence
of PCBs in the harbor and industrial areas. The State intensified efforts to restrict access
to the harbor. Bilingual warning signs in English and Portuguese were posted along the
New Bedford and Fairhaven shoreline. When the signs were destroyed by winter weather, the EPA
replaced them. In 1985, 2,000 feet of chain-link fence at two recreational facilities were erected to
keep people out of the contaminated areas.
Hot Spot Area: In 1985, the Army Corps of Engineers began to evaluate alternatives for
addressing harbor contamination. In 1988, the investigation was expanded, allowing the
Corps to conduct demonstrations of dredging equipment and construction and testing of
disposal facilities in the estuary, while continuing to carry out site sampling, analysis, and research.
Hydraulic dredges were tested, sediment disposal facilities were constructed, and extensive
environmental monitoring was conducted to determine whether removal and construction activities
could occur without spreading contaminants. The engineering study conducted by the Corps will be
used by the EPA to formulate the cleanup approach for the site. The EPA's selected remedy for the
hot spot area includes removal and incineration of contaminated sediments to permanently reduce
the migration of contaminants throughout the harbor area. Specifically, this alternative calls for the
removal of 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the hot spot area at depths up to 4
feet, and then dewatering the sediments. Wastewater produced during dewatering will be treated
prior to discharge into the harbor. Contaminated sediments will be treated at a transportable
incinerator. The cleanup of the hot spot areas has been broken into two phases. Design of the
remedy for the first phase began in 1990 and is scheduled to be completed in 1991. The design of
the second phase is expected to be completed 1992.
Remainder of the Site: The EPA currently is evaluating different alternatives for
cleaning up the remainder of the site. The results of this study were released in 1990. The
EPA is expected to issue a cleanup plan in 1991, after which final cleanup activities can
begin.
Site Facts: In 1982, the EPA entered into Consent Agreements with two companies to address the
PCB problem on their properties.
Environmental Progress
Although much work has yet to be done due to the enormity of this project, progress has been
made toward final cleanup of the harbor and surrounding areas. The initial actions have
restricted exposure to contaminated seafood and have reduced the potential of exposure to
hazardous substances at the New Bedford Site.
April 1991 52 NEW BEDFORD SITE
-------
NORWOOD P
MASSACHUSE
EPA ID# MAD980670566
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Norfolk County
Kerry Place in Norwood
Other Names:
Grant Gear, Inc.
Dean Street Site
The Norwood PCBs site is located on 26 acres of mainly commercial and industrial properties. The
site is bordered by Route 1, the Dean Street access road, Meadow Brook, Pellana Road, and Dean
Street. The site consists of several parcels of land, including the Grant Gear facility, which currently
produces gears for industry; properties in Kerry Place; an automobile dealership; and associated
parking areas and adjacent fields. In 1979, the site was subdivided. The northeastern portion of the
site, approximately 9 acres in size, was purchased by Grant Gear Realty Trust and leased to Grant
Gear Works, Inc. The southern and western portions of the site were further subdivided, a major
portion of which was named Kerry Place. Most of the lots now are occupied by commercial and
light industrial buildings. Beginning in the 1940s, previous owners or operators of the Grant Gear
building used polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the production of electrical transformers and
other electrical components. In 1983, the State detected high levels of PCBs in the soil on the site,
and the EPA conducted an emergency removal of contaminated soil. Approximately 8,000 people
live within a mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL UST1NG HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site groundwater is contaminated with PCBs and volatile organic chemicals
(VOCs) such as trichloroethylene (TCE), and vinyl chloride. On-site soil and sediments
are contaminated with PCBs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy
metals. People may face health risks by coming in direct contact with or accidentally
ingesting on-site soil and sediments. Increased risk may be posed to human health if on-
site groundwater, left untreated, were used as a drinking water source. The
concentrations of PCBs in the sediments in Meadow Brook may pose an increased risk to
aquatic organisms. Exposure to PCB-contaminated soils also may pose a threat to animal
life inhabiting the site area.
53
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1983, the EPA conducted an emergency removal of over 500 tons of
highly contaminated soil from the site and transported it to an approved disposal facility.
In 1986, the State installed a 4-foot-high wire mesh fence around a 1 1/2-acre portion of
the northwestern and southwestern corners of the Grant Gear property and covered contaminated
soils within the fenced areas. The cover consisted of a filter-fabric liner and 6 inches of crushed
stone.
Entire Site: The remedies selected by the EPA to clean up the site include excavating
soils, dredge material, and sediments and treating them by solvent extraction of PCBs, with
on-site disposal; flushing or replacing the site drainage system; cleaning equipment
surfaces; collecting groundwater and treating it by removing the contaminants using air filtering to
convert volatile chemicals to a gas (activated carbon will be used before or after the air filtration step
to remove PCBs); and restoring the wetlands after minimizing the effects on the wetlands during the
cleanup of Meadow Brook sediments. The EPA is preparing the technical specifications and design
for the cleanup. These activities will commence once the design phase is completed, expected in
1993.
Site Facts: The State originally investigated the site in response to a telephone call from an area
resident.
Environmental Progress
The initial cleanup actions described above have removed contaminated sources and restricted
access to the site, thereby reducing the potential of exposure to hazardous substances at the Norwood
PCBs site. These completed actions have made the area safer while it awaits planned cleanup
activities.
April 1991 54 NORWOOD PCBS
-------
NYANZA
WASTE D
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD990685422
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Middlesex County
Megunco Road in Ashland
Other Names:
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump
Site Description
The Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump site is a 35-acrc parcel of land adjacent to an active industrial
complex. From 1917 to 1978, the site was used to produce textile dyes, intermediates, and other
products. Nyanza, Inc. operated on this site from 1965 until 1978, when it ceased operations. Large
volumes of industrial wastewater containing high levels of acids and numerous organic and
inorganic chemicals including mercury were generated by these companies. The wastes were
partially treated and discharged into the Sudbury River through a small stream, referred to as
Chemical Brook. Over 45,000 tons of chemical sludges generated by Nyanza's wastewater
treatment processes, along with spent solvents and other chemical wastes, were buried on site. The
area that contains the largest amount of buried waste and exposed sludge is referred to as the Hill
section. The current owner leases the old plant grounds to various businesses. The estimated
population within 3 miles is 10,000 people.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, sediments, and surface water are contaminated with heavy metals
and chlorinated organics. The groundwater and soil also are contaminated with spent
solvents and chemical wastes. The potential health threats to people include direct
contact and accidental ingestion of contaminated surface water, groundwater, or soil.
Wetlands nearby are contaminated with mercury, and fish in the Sudbury River exceed
the regulatory limit for mercury. Two downstream reservoirs, used as backup water
supplies, also contain sediment with high mercury contamination levels.
55
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four stages: initial actions and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on source control and soil cleanup, cleanup of the groundwater, and cleanup of surface
water and sediments.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1987 and 1988, the EPA excavated an underground storage vault
containing 12,025 tons of material; 300 tons of contaminated soils were incinerated, and
an additional 356 tons of soils were excavated and disposed of off site.
Source Control and Soil: The remedies selected by the EPA to control the source of
the contamination and to clean up the soil include excavating all outlying sludge deposits
and contaminated soils and sediments associated with these deposits; consolidation of this
material with the Hill sludge deposits; capping of the Hill area to prevent water from entering;
construction of a groundwater and surface water diversion system on the upgradient side of the Hill;
backfilling the excavated areas to original grade and establishing a vegetative cover in the wetland
areas; and constructing a more extensive groundwater monitoring system to allow for future
evaluation of the cap. Approximately 60% of the 13-acre cap in an area of existing lagoons, sludge
pits, and buried building debris has been covered with earth from on-site excavations in clean areas.
The remaining portion of the area to be capped has been excavated to bedrock to create a cell for the
disposal of contaminated soils and solidified sludges from the on- and off-site remediation areas.
The fencing of the site is 90% completed. More than 65,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil were
excavated and placed in the cell in 1990. The site cap is expected to be completed in 1991.
Groundwater: The EPA is conducting an investigation into the off-site groundwater
contamination. The study will define the contaminants and will recommend alternatives
for the final cleanup. Remedies for cleanup are expected to be selected in the summer of
1992.
Surface Water and Sediments: The EPA also is studying the contamination of the
surface water and sediments of the Sudbury River. The study will define the contaminants
and will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. Preliminary sampling has proven
that sediment, surface water, and fish are contaminated with heavy metals. It is scheduled to be
completed in 1992.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions described above have reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous substances
by controlling the pathway of contamination migration and isolating wastes under an impermeable
cap. These completed actions have made the Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump site safer while actions
continue and the EPA investigates methods to address groundwater, surface water, and sediment
contamination.
April! 991 56 NYANZA CHEMICAL WASTE DUMP
-------
OTIS AIR NATt
GUARD BAS
EDWARDS
MASSACHUSETT
EPA ID# MA2570024487
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 12
Barnstatye County
Falmouth
Other Names:
DOD/MMR/USAF Sani Landfill
DOD/MMR/Base Landfill
<=^POD/MMR/USAF Sani Landfill
DOD/MMR/Current Fire Training Area
DOD/MMR/Former Firefighting Training Area
Site Description
The Otis Air National Guard Base (ANGB) and Camp Edwards site covers approximately 21,000
acres, today known as the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). Although the occupants
and property boundaries have changed several times since MMR was established in 1935, the
primary mission has always been to provide training and housing to Air Force or Army units. A
review of past and present operations and waste disposal practices identified potentially
contaminated areas, including eight that cover 3,900 acres on the southern portion of MMR. Six
of the eight areas are located within Otis ANGB property boundaries: Former Fire Training Area,
Current Fire Training Area, Base Landfill, Non-destructive Testing Laboratory Leach Pit, Fly Ash
Disposal Area, and a plume of contaminated groundwater from a sewage treatment plant, which
extends 2 miles south. The two remaining waste areas, the Unit Training Equipment Site and
Property Disposal Office Storage Yard, are at Camp Edwards, which currently is leased to the
Army. The materials found at the eight areas are fly ash, bottom ash, waste solvents, waste fuels,
herbicides, and transformer oil. While the Non-destructive Testing Laboratory operated (1970 to
1978), waste solvents, emulsifiers, penetrants, and photographic developers were deposited in the
sewer system. Effluent from the sewage treatment plant was discharged into sand beds, where it
seeped into groundwater. In 1984, the U.S. Geological Survey detected contaminants in the
monitoring wells downgradient of the plant. In 1983 and 1984, the Air Force detected volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in on-site monitoring wells near the Base Landfill and Current Fire
Training Area. Monitoring by the Air National Guard and the State Department of Environmental
Quality has detected VOCs in more than 200 private wells and in one town well. The EPA has
designated the Cape Cod aquifer underlying MMR as a sole source aquifer, under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The municipalities of Bourne and Sandwich and the Air Force base have an
estimated population of 36,000 people and have drinking water wells within 3 miles of hazardous
substances at the site. Irrigation wells also are within 3 miles. Ashumet Pond, less than 1 mile
from the Former Fire Training Area, is used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/15/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with VOCs, including trichloroethane,
tetrachloroethylene, and dichloroethylene. To date, the wells are not contaminated.
However, people would be at risk by accidentally drinking or coming into direct
contact with contaminated groundwater. A fresh water wetland is 3,600 feet
downstream from the site.
57
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in 11 stages: initial actions and 10 long-term remedial phases. Initial
work at the site focuses on Chemical Spill Area Ten, Chemical Spill Area Four, Fuel Spill Area
Two, Fire Training Area One, Storm Drainage Area Swale Two, Fuel Spill Area One, Base Landfill,
and the Remaining Priority One, Two, and Three Areas.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Water lines were installed in 1986 to private residences affected by
groundwater contamination. In 1990, contaminated groundwater was pumped from the
site and removed.
Chemical Spill Area Ten: The National Guard Bureau (NGB) is studying the nature
and extent of contamination at the site. The investigation will define the contaminants and
will recommend alternatives for cleanup. The study is expected to be completed in 1994.
Chemical Spill Area Four: The NGB will begin a study this area to determine the
extent and nature of contamination. The investigation is scheduled to be completed in
1992.
Fuel Spill Area Two: The NGB currently is investigating the contamination at this site
to determine the best cleanup strategy. The study is scheduled to be completed in 1992.
Fire Training Area One: The NGB is conducting a study of the area to define the
contaminants and to recommend alternatives for final cleanup. The investigation is
expected to be completed in 1993.
Storm Drainage Area Swale Two: The NGB is investigating this area to determine
the nature and extent of contamination. The study is scheduled for completion in 1993.
Fuel Spill Area One: The NGB is conducting a study of the contaminants at this area.
The study is expected to be completed in 1993.
Base Landfill: The NGB will begin a study of the contamination at the Base Landfill in
1991. The study, which will define the contaminants of concern and recommend cleanup
alternatives, is scheduled to be completed in 1994.
The Remaining Priority One Areas: The NGB is investigating the remaining priority
one areas as the nature and extent of contamination. This investigation is expected to be
completed in 1994.
The Remaining Priority Two Areas: The NGB is conducting an investigation of
these areas to determine the contaminants of concern. The study is scheduled to be
completed in 1994.
The Remaining Priority Three Areas: The NGB is investigating the nature and
extent of contamination at these areas. The study is scheduled to be completed in 1994.
April 1991 58 OTIS AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE/
CAMP EDWARDS
-------
Site Facts: The Army and Air Force, through the NGB, are 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. The Air Force has investigated Air Force property only. The NGB, which
represents both the Army and Air Force, is coordinating a second investigation that addresses the
entire facility.
Environmental Progress
Following listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA completed a site assessment, in coordination
with the Army, Air Force, and the NGB and determined that the site presently poses no
immediate threat to public health. The Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards site is safe
while it awaits further cleanup activities. In addition, installation of water supply lines to
residents affected by groundwater contamination has reduced that potential health threat.
OTIS AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE/
CAMP EDWARDS
59
April 1991
-------
PLYMOUTH H
CANNON EN
CORP.
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD980525232
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Plymouth County
1 1/2 miles northwest of Plymouth
Site Description
The Plymouth Harbor/Cannon Engineering Corp. site covers 2 1/2 acres in Cordage Industrial Park.
The site is located near the towns of Plymouth and Kingston. The facilities consist of three
aboveground storage tanks and the foundation of a razed building. Each storage tank is surrounded
by a 6- to 8-foot-high earthen berm. The northernmost tank is about 50 feet from Plymouth Harbor,
while the central and southern tanks are about 180 feet from the Harbor. The storage tanks were
originally constructed in the 1920s and used for storing fuel and oil that were unloaded from barges.
In 1975, the company obtained a license to store motor oils, industrial oils and emulsions, solvents,
lacquers, organic and inorganic chemicals, cyanide and plating wastes, plating sludge, oily solids,
pesticides, and clay and filter media with chemicals. Cannon Engineering Corp. transported and
stored hazardous wastes at the Plymouth facility and incinerated the wastes at its Bridgewater
facility until 1980, when the facilities went into receivership. Approximately 50,000 people live in
the two communities surrounding the site; 33,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site, and
about 300 people work within 1/2 mile of the site. The area has a number of beaches, summer
cottages, public recreation, and tourist areas. The historic area of Plymouth Rock is located 1 1/2
miles southeast of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' action.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site soil and off-site sediments were contaminated with low levels of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead. Pesticides also were present in the on-site soil.
The site is fenced to limit access. Long-term exposure to contaminated on-site soils no
longer poses a potential health threat to people. Plymouth Harbor is used for boating and
water sports.
61
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on source control and cleanup alternatives for the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, Salt Water Trust removed the contents and then cleaned
and decontaminated the south tank. The contents of the central tank were removed by the
EPA. A total of 44,022 gallons of oil-phase waste and 139,877 gallons of aqueous-phase
waste were transported to disposal facilities for incineration. Sludge pumping operations began at
the completion of the oil and aqueous waste removal. An estimated 52,750 gallons of sludge and
8,000 gallons of toluene were removed from the tanks and shipped for disposal at an approved
facility.
Source Control: The remedies selected by the EPA included: (1) removing the tanks
and their pipes and disposing of them at an approved facility; (2) conducting additional
sampling at the site to determine the distribution of contaminants; (3) sampling of
groundwater, surface water, and sediment near the site; and (4) assessing flood plains to determine
possible effects on cleanup actions. After evaluation, the EPA issued a document in 1985 listing the
final decision on the method of cleanup chosen, and in 1986 and 1987, the EPA cleaned the interiors
of the three empty storage tanks and dismantled them* The pipework, foundations, and 33 drums of
wastes already on the site were transported to a licensed disposal facility. Soil was excavated from
two locations on the site, placed in drums, disposed of, and replaced with clean fill. Once the tanks
and other materials were removed, the EPA sampled soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediments
for the presence and distribution of remaining contamination at the site. A Flood Plains Assessment
Report was prepared and evaluated for the site. The site was fenced at that time.
Investigation: The EPA studied the results of the sampling program to evaluate the
possible human health and environmental risks. Based on this evaluation, the EPA is
satisfied that the site poses no threat to human health and the environment. The site Close
Out Report, scheduled to be filed in 1991, will confirm the EPA's findings.
Site Facts: In 1983, a Consent Agreement was reached with Salt Water Trust, the owners of the
site. According to the agreement, the site owners would clean the south tank, and the EPA would
clean the central tank. A history of complaints of odors and reports of leaks from the storage tanks
on the site prompted the State and the EPA to investigate the site.
Environmental Progress
The actions described above have significantly reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous
substances and removed the sources of contamination at the Plymouth Harbor/Cannon Engineering
site. All cleanup activities have been completed. The site is awaiting a five-year review in 1992,
and subsequent deletion from the NPL.
Anril1991 62 PLYMOUTH HARBOR/CANNON
ENGINEERING CORP.
-------
PSC RESOUR
MASSACHUSE
EPA ID# MAD98073U83
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Hampden County
Palmer
Site Description
The 3 1/2-acre PSC Resources site was a waste oil refinery and solvent recovery plant that operated
in the 1970s. The facility reclaimed drained oils and solvents from Massachusetts collection points,
treated them with heat, and sold them as lube oil base stock, road spray, and heavy fuel mixes.
Millions of gallons of waste were left behind in tanks and lagoons when the current owner
abandoned the plant in 1978. After a spill in 1982, the EPA discovered several leaking tanks and
containment dikes, as well as saturated soils. Surface waters, wetlands, and groundwater are directly
threatened by the waste. Approximately 4,500 people live within 3 miles of the site. The Quaboag
River is about 200 feet southwest of the site and is used for swimming and fishing. The property is
near a residential and commercial district and is adjacent to the town athletic field. The Palmer
business district is 1/4 mile from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
IA
Shallow groundwater contamination consists mostly of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including benzene and methylene chloride. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
including Aroclor-1248 and Aroclor-1260, and lead have been found in soil samples. The
surface water and oil in the dikes contain the heavy metals arsenic and lead, as well as
benzene and PCBs. Oil in a rainwater catch basin contains PCBs and tetrachloroethylene.
People may be exposed to contaminants by inhaling air, coming in direct contact with or
accidentally ingesting contaminated water or soil, or by eating contaminated fish.
Municipal well fields for the towns of Palmer and Monson are upgradient of the site, and
the threat to drinking water from groundwater contaminants has not been absolutely
defined. Contaminants have been detected in the soils and shallow groundwater in the
nearby wetlands. The site is located in a 100-year flood plain, providing conditions for
flooding to wash contaminants from the site into the Quaboag River.
63
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The tanks were emptied of over 1 million gallons of hazardous wastes
between 1979 and 1984. In 1986, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering (DEQE) cleaned and removed the tanks. The DEQE also fenced the site in
1986. Repair and reinforcement of the fence is scheduled for 1991. The repair is necessary to limit
unauthorized access and to extend the fence to include the debris pile and spill area on the western
and southern sides of the site. Warning signs also will be installed along the fence and on facility
buildings.
Entire Site: The DEQE is studying the nature and extent of the contamination at the site.
The investigation will define the contaminants and will recommend alternatives for the
final cleanup. The study is planned to be completed in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1982, acting under authority of the Clean Water Act, the EPA asked the owner to
contain the oil discharge, determine the contents of 22 tanks, and investigate the possibility of
groundwater contamination. The owner complied with all requests.
Environmental Progress
The removal of hazardous wastes and installation of a fence described above have reduced the
potential of exposure to hazardous substances, making the PSC Resources area safer while it awaits
further cleanup activities.
April 1991 64 PSC RESOURCES
-------
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
i *«^ j. % ,% * v . * _-^ i N-H^ r^^r*.
MASSACHUSETTS
EPAID#MAD980520621
Site Description
The Re-Solve, Inc. site is a former waste chemical reclamation facility situated on 6 acres of
land. Between 1956 and 1980, Re-Solve handled a variety of hazardous materials, including
solvents, waste oils, organic liquids and solids, acids, alkalines, inorganic liquids and solids, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Residues from the distillation tower, liquid sludge waste,
impure solvents, and burned tires were disposed in four on-site unlined lagoons. The lagoon
contents were burned periodically to reduce the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) content. An
oil waste that accumulated at the bottom of the degreaser distillation still was disposed of on one
portion of the site through landfarming. This oil waste also was spread throughout the site to
control dust. Cooling water from the distillation tower was discharged to a shallow on-site
lagoon. In 1974, the State issued Re-Solve a license to collect and dispose of hazardous waste.
In 1980, the State agreed to accept Re-Solve's offer to surrender its disposal license on the
condition that all hazardous waste be removed from the site. In 1981, legal action resulted in all
drums, debris, and buildings being removed, but the contents of the four lagoons remained.
Approximately 300 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site. Two residences are located
within 150 yards of Re-Solve. The Re-Solve, Inc. site is bounded by wetlands, and the land
surrounding the site is predominantly zoned for single family residential use. The bottoms of the
lagoons are situated in the water table, and some contaminants have migrated to groundwater.
All residences obtain their water from private wells located on their property.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with VOCs, PCBs, and lead. Sediments are
contaminated with PCBs and arsenic. Soil contains PCBs, arsenic, and VOCs
including trichloroethylene (TCE), vinyl chloride, methylene chloride, and toluene.
Surface water is contaminated with PCBs and VOCs. Fish from the river and ponds
contain PCBs, zinc, and mercury. Trespassers may be threatened by coming in direct
contact with or accidentally ingesting contaminated soil, sediments, groundwater, or
surface water. Also, people who eat contaminated fish would be at risk. The Copicut
River, located about 500 feet from the site, has been designated for the protection and
propagation of fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife. The site is located over an aquifer
that serves as a recharge area for part of a nearby town where a new municipal well is
planned. Contaminants are moving off site in surface runoff and groundwater.
65 April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four stages: an emergency action and three long-term remedial
phases focusing on controlling the sources of contamination and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Action: In 1985, the EPA removed sludges from the lagoons and excavated
approximately 16,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil for off-site disposal in a federally
approved landfill.
Source Control: To control the source of the contamination at the site, the EPA selected
a remedy that included removing the contents of the four unlined lagoons, excavating soil
from hot spots, and excavating soil from the former oil spreading area for disposal at an
off-site approved facility. The entire site was capped to prevent contact with surface and
groundwater. These remedies were completed in 1987. In addition, the EPA removed 148 drums of
hazardous waste. The site was fenced to limit access to the contaminated areas.
Additional Source Control Measures: The remedies selected by the EPA to prevent
the migration of contaminants include excavating 22,500 cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated soil located above the groundwater table, treating the soil on site by
removing the contaminants by dechlorination, and then placing the soil back on site with 18 inches
of gravel capping; excavating 3,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediments from wetland areas
and treatment by dechlorination; conducting studies to determine if the dechlorination process can be
used on a full-scale level; and restoring the wetlands. The technical specifications and design for the
cleanup are being prepared by the parties potentially responsible for site contamination. The cleanup
activities will commence once the design phase is completed, expected in 1992. Also, emissions
from the soil excavation and treatment will be monitored, and groundwater and surface water will be
monitored quarterly to evaluate the effectiveness of the cleanup.
Entire Site: Remedies selected along with source control measures to address
contamination at the rest of the site include pumping the groundwater to keep the
contaminant plume from moving, treating it by exposing the water to air to evaporate the
contaminants, carbon filtering to recapture the contaminants, and discharging the treated water back
into the aquifer, monitoring the groundwater, surface water, and wetlands; and controlling the future
use of groundwater. A pilot test addressing the management of contaminant migration was
completed in 1990. The design for the selected cleanup remedies, also being performed by the
potentially responsible parties, is scheduled to be completed in 1992. Fish sampling will be
performed at downgradient stations. Drinking wells also will be monitored for traces of
contamination. The cleanup of PCB sediments will require disturbing and temporarily losing the
wetlands. These effects are unavoidable; however, a wetlands restoration program will be
implemented. A plan for the wetlands restoration is currently being developed.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed in 1988 under which the parties potentially responsible
for contamination of the site agreed to conduct the cleanup activities and to reimburse the
government for past costs and future oversight costs.
April 1991 66 RE-SOLVE INC.
-------
Environmental Progress
Removal of the contamination sources such as soils and sludges from the site, along with
restricting access to the site with a security fence, have reduced the health risks and
environmental threats posed by the Re-Solve, Inc. site while design of final cleanup actions are
underway.
RE-SOLVE INC.
67
April 1991
-------
ROSE
DISPOSAL
PIT
MASSACHUSETTS
EPAID#MAD980524169
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Berkshire County
Lanesborough
The Rose Disposal Pit site is a 1 1/2-acre waste disposal area. The site occupies a section of a 14-
acre residential lot bordering Balance Rock State Park, which is forest land, and the former Balance
Rock Cafe; cropland and pastures also are nearby. Beginning in 1951 and continuing through 1959,
waste oils and solvents from the General Electric Plant in nearby Pittsfield were disposed of in an
open trench at the site. In 1980, the State Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
inspected the site and found 15,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Two plumes of contaminated groundwater were
discovered moving to the east and south away from the disposal area. Approximately 100 people
live within a mile of the site and may be affected by the contaminated drinking water.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with PCBs and VOCs including trichloroethylene
(TCE), benzene, and vinyl chloride. The sediments, soil, and surface water at the site and
a nearby wetland are contaminated with PCBs and VOCs. VOCs, as well as vinyl
chloride, a known human carcinogen, have been found in downgradient drinking wells.
The contaminant plumes extend from the pit eastward into the park and to the south, to be
carried off by a small unnamed stream.
69
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
management and control of contaminant migration.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: GE erected a storm fence and covered the site with plastic in 1984. GE
then pumped out a pocket of contaminated oil found beneath the surface to prevent rain or
snow from further spreading the contamination. An alternate permanent water supply also
was provided to the restaurant and residences affected by the plume.
Source Control and Migration Management: The selected remedy is intended to
control the source of contamination and control and manage the migration of
contaminants. GE will perform all cleanup work. Source control includes excavation and
on-site incineration of approximately 15,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and sediment. Soils
excavated will be those above the water table that contain concentrated contaminants. Source
control remediation is estimated to take two years after the design is completed. Migration of
contaminants will be controlled by active restoration of the shallow aquifer by air filtering the VOCs
to a gas and then using carbon adsorption to remove the now-airborne contaminants. Groundwater
will be treated to reduce contaminants to levels that will meet drinking water standards. Sediments
and surface water in the small pond located near the disposal area also will be treated, and the pond
will be restored to its original wetlands character after remediation. Treatment of the VOCs will
render the PCBs relatively immobile in the saturated zone of the disposal area. Since PCBs will be
present in the groundwater, institutional controls including deed restrictions will be needed to
prevent groundwater use and any excavation below the water table within the disposal area. These
remedial activities are scheduled to begin in 1992 after design work is completed. Incineration will
involve the use of an innovative form of on-site incineration that will include an initial thermal
extraction phase instead of a chemical extraction phase to separate contaminants from soil.
Site Facts: In 1984, the EPA issued a joint enforcement order requiring GE to conduct removal
activities at the site. In 1989, the EPA and GE signed a Consent Decree to perform the cleanup and
to reimburse the EPA for past and future oversight costs.
Environmental Progress
The installation of a fence, the covering of the site, and the provision of an alternate water supply
have reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous materials, making the Rose Disposal site safer
while it awaits the planned actions to control the source and migration of contaminants and
restoration of the site soils and nearby wetlands.
April 1991 70 ROSE DISPOSAL PIT
-------
SALEM ACR
MASSACHUSE
EPA ID# MAD980525240,
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Essex County
Salem
Site Description
From 1946 through 1969, the 262-acre Salem Acres site received sludge, grit, and grease from the
South Essex Sewerage District through an agreement with the owners. The site also received
tannery waste. The sludge was placed in eight unlined, uncovered disposal pits on approximately 4
acres. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, arsenic,
and chromium were found to be present in the soils. Residential housing borders the site on the
south and the east. Approximately 65,000 people live within 1 mile, and 127,000 people live within
3 miles of the site. One of the disposal pits is approximately 20 feet from Strongwater Brook. The
site lies on the divide of two drainage basins that channel both surface water and groundwater
directly into two major aquifers.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site soils and sludge are contaminated with PCBs, volatile and semi-volatile
organic compounds, arsenic, and chromium. The sludge pit areas now are fenced, and
access to them is restricted. Emergency capping of the pits has largely eliminated them
as a current source of exposure.
71
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1988, the EPA covered the sludge pits with a synthetic cap, removed
wastes from the disposal pits to an off-site storage facility, and constructed concrete cut-
off walls to prevent further releases into the wetlands. In 1990, repairs were made to a
monitoring well and a security fence on site, and signs were posted to further restrict access.
Entire Site: The South Essex Sewerage District is conducting an investigation into the
nature and extent of the soil and sludge contamination. The investigation will define the
contaminants of concern and will recommend alternatives for final cleanup. The
investigation is planned to be completed in 1991.
Site Facts: On May 26,1987, the EPA signed a Consent Order with the South Essex Sewerage
District to have the District perform the studies to examine the nature and extent of contamination
and the technical options for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The EPA has assessed conditions at Salem Acres and has determined that the initial capping actions,
combined with the site security measures taken, have reduced the potential for exposure to
contamination while the site awaits the results of the investigation for final cleanup alternatives.
April 1991 72 SALEM ACRES
-------
SHPACK
MASSACHUS
EPA ID# MAD980503&Z2
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Bristol County
On the Attleboro/Norton town line
The Shpack Landfill covers 8 acres, 5 1/2 acres of which are within the Town of Norton, and the
remaining 2 1/2 acres are in the City of Attleboro. The landfill was operated from 1946 until 1965,
when a court order forced its closing. This landfill received domestic and industrial waste, including
inorganic and organic chemicals, as well as radioactive waste. The area near the site includes a
wooded swamp. Approximately 40,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site. Municipal
water supplies for both townships do not extend to the area around the site. Therefore, residents in
this area use private drinking water wells, most of which withdraw water from the bedrock aquifer.
The distance from Shpack Landfill to the nearest residential well is about 150 feet. There are 27
private wells within a mile of the site that serve 103 people. The two municipal water supply well
fields for Norton are situated in the shallow aquifer and are located 3 miles east and
5 1/4 miles northeast of the area. Municipal well fields for Attleboro also are completed in the
shallow aquifer and are located 12,000 feet and 24,000 feet west of the study area. The Shpack
Landfill directly borders the currently operating 50-acre Attleboro Landfill.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater has been shown to contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
including vinyl chloride, and trichloroethylene (TCE), as well as heavy metals, including
chromium, barium, copper, nickel, manganese, arsenic, cadmium, and lead. Sediments
on the edge of the swamp and soils contain radionuclides including radium and uranium.
Surface water in the swampy area is contaminated with radium and alpha and beta
particles, as well as organic compounds. The site is fenced to limit access. People who
trespass on the site may be exposed to contamination by coming in direct contact with or
accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments. In
addition, contaminants may be transported off site by flooding of the swamp.
73
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup alternatives for
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation into the nature and extent of the contamination at the site
was begun by the potentially responsible parties in 1990. Through sampling and
characterization of soil, sediments, surface water, and groundwater, the investigation will
define the contaminants of concern and will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The
investigation is planned to be completed in 1993.
Site Facts: The Shpack Landfill currently is under the supervision of the U.S. Department of
Energy.
Environmental Progress
Fencing the area has reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous substances on the Shpack
Landfill site while the investigation into the cleanup alternatives is taking place.
April 1991 74 SHPACK LANDFILL
-------
SILRESIM
CHEMICAL
CORP.
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID# MAD000192393
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Middlesex County
Lowell
The Silresim Chemical Corporation site covers approximately 5 acres in an industrial area. Starting
in 1971, Silresim began reclaiming a variety of chemical wastes, waste oil, solvents, and sludges
containing heavy metals. In 1977, Silresim declared bankruptcy and abandoned the site, leaving
behind 30,000 decaying drums and several large storage tanks. The State began to clean up the site
in 1978. The site is located a mile south of the central business district of Lowell and several
hundred feet from the nearest residential area. Approximately 10,000 people live within 1 mile, and
an estimated 24,000 people live within 3 miles of the site. Groundwater flows generally to the
northwest towards Meadow Brook, which drains into the Concord and then the Merrimack River.
The Merrimack River is the source of water for three neighboring cities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile
organic compounds, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals.
The soil is polluted with VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides, and PCBs.
Low levels of dioxin also are present in the soil. People could be exposed to
contaminants by coming in contact with off-site soils and groundwater.
75
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: interim actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Interim Actions: Before the site was listed on the NPL, the State removed all chemical
wastes in aboveground storage containers, fenced the site, and dismantled buildings. In
1983, the EPA monitored the air and sampled soils, finding contamination both on and off
site. The EPA raised the height of the fence from 6 to 8 feet. The EPA covered highly contaminated
areas with 9 inches of crushed gravel and a clay cap. This work was finished in 1984. In 1986,
damage to the original fence was repaired. Subsequent sampling revealed an additional area of soil
contamination that the EPA then enclosed. In 1986, the EPA discovered dioxin, so the fence was
relocated to prevent public access, and a temporary gravel cover was laid over the contaminated soil
to prevent contact.
Entire Site: The potentially responsible parties are conducting investigations into the
contamination and, with the EPA, will assess the alternative technologies for cleanup.
Activities include groundwater, surface water and sediments sampling; monitoring; well
installation; and sampling vents for air contamination/ Surface soil testing and sampling beneath the
clay cap and outside the fence will determine the extent of soil contamination. These activities are
scheduled to end in 1991, and remedies for final cleanup will be selected shortly thereafter.
Site Facts: The EPA negotiated with a group of the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination to conduct the studies to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to
develop alternative cleanup technologies. In the past, some residents and doctors of the community
had attributed health effects to site contamination.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions to fence the site and to cap or cover areas of contamination have reduced the potential
for accidental exposure and the further migration of contamination from the Silresim Chemical site.
These actions have eliminated the immediate threats posed by the site while ongoing investigations
identify alternatives for addressing groundwater and soil contamination.
April 1991 76 SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORP.
-------
SULLIVAN'S
LEDGE
MASSACHUSETTS
EPAID#MAD980731343
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 12
Bristol County
New Bedford
Site Description
The 12-acre Sullivan's Ledge disposal area, in the northwestern corner of New Bedford, operated as
a quarry until about 1932. In 1935, the City of New Bedford acquired the site through tax tide
foreclosure. Between the 1940s and the 1970s, local industries used the quarry pits and adjacent
areas for disposal of hazardous material and other wastes including electrical capacitors, fuel oil,
volatile liquids, tires, scrap rubber, demolition materials, and brush and trees. After a fire at the site
in the 1970s, the City backfilled the only existing open pit and covered all exposed refuse. In 1982,
when the Massachusetts Department of Public Works drilled test borings as part of a plan to build a
commuter parking lot, electrical capacitors, which may have caused polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCBs) contamination, were unearthed. Approximately 98,500 people live within 3 miles of the site
in this residential area. Within a mile of the site are two nursing homes and three schools. The New
Bedford Municipal Golf Course is immediately north of the site. An unnamed stream borders the
site and discharges into Middle Marsh, which is on the golf course. Immediately north of the marsh
lie railroad tracks, the Apponagansett Swamp, and the City of New Bedford municipal landfill.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
In 1982, the EPA detected PCBs in ambient air. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in
the on-site and immediately off-site groundwater increase with depth. Inorganic
compounds and PCBs also are present in the groundwater. The soil is contaminated with
PCBs and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The soils along the eastern and
southern boundaries contain the highest contaminant concentrations. Soils have eroded
from the site into the unnamed stream and have been transported from the site.
Sediments in the unnamed stream, Middle Marsh, four golf course water hazards, and a
portion of the Apponagansett Swamp are contaminated with PCBs. People may become
exposed to the contaminated dusts stirred up at the site. At the heavily used golf course,
people may be exposed to contaminants in soil and sediments, particularly from dry
intermittent stream beds.
77
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being cleaned up in three stages: an initial action and two long-term remedial phases
aimed at cleanup of the entire site and the Middle Marsh.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: The City of New Bedford constructed a fence around the Sullivan's
Ledge Landfill in 1984 to 1985 to limit the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at
the site.
Entire Site: The EPA has chosen the following remedies for cleaning up the site: (1)
prepare the site for cleanup activities by establishing security measures, connecting the site
to power lines, and furnishing sanitary facilities; (2) excavate, solidify, and dispose of soils
on the site; (3) excavate, solidify, and dispose of sediments from the stream and the golf course
water hazards; (4) construct an impermeable cap over an 11-acre area to cover the quarry pits and
contain the contaminated surface soils and sediments that would be solidified and placed on site; (5)
divert and line a portion of the unnamed stream to prevent water from being pulled into extraction
wells; (6) install an active pumping system to collect contaminated shallow bedrock groundwater, a
passive collection system to collect contaminated seeps and shallow groundwater, and a treatment
system to treat collected groundwater; (7) restore and enhance the wetlands to reasonably similar
hydrologic and botanical conditions that existed prior to excavation; (8) monitor the site with 5-year
reviews; and (9) use institutional controls to ensure that the bedrock groundwater will not be used for
drinking water, since it cannot be cleaned to drinking water standards. These actions will begin to
be designed in 1991, and cleanup work is scheduled to begin in 1993.
Middle Marsh: In 1989, the EPA began a study of the contamination in the Middle
Marsh sediments. Results of the studies were released in 1991 and indicated significant
PCB accumulation in wildlife in and around Middle Marsh. While sediment in the Marsh
also were found to be heavily contaminated with PCBs, the threat to human health was judged to be
negligible. A decision on the appropriate cleanup remedy is expected to be reached in late 1991.
Site Facts: An agreement was reached with 14 potentially responsible parties to pay for cleanup of
the Sulllivan's Ledge disposal area.
Environmental Progress
Fencing the area has limited the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Sullivan's
Ledge Landfill while awaiting further cleanup actions to address contaminated sediments and
groundwater resources.
April 1991 78 SULLIVAN'S LEDGE
-------
WELLS G
MASSACHUSE
EPAID#MAD98073216
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Middlesex County
City of Woburn
Site Description
Wells G & H were two municipal wells developed in 1964 and 1967 to supplement the water supply
of the City of Wobum. The site covers a total area of 330 acres. The wells supplied 25% of the
city's drinking water. In 1979, city police discovered several 55-gallon drums of industrial waste
abandoned on a vacant lot in the vicinity of the site; these drums subsequently were removed. As a
result of this finding, the nearby wells were tested and found to be contaminated. Both of the wells
were shut down in 1979. The population of Woburn is approximately 36,600 people. The area
surrounding the site is predominantly residential; some non-residential properties are fenced to limit
unauthorized access. The area includes commercial and industrial parks, as well as greenhouses and
many residential gardens. The Aberjona River flows through the middle of the site. Surface water
runoff from the site is directed through drainage systems toward the river and its tributaries. Many
of the areas around the site are used for recreation.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
trichloroethylene (TCE), heavy metals including lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). Sediments are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
heavy metals such as chromium, zinc, mercury, and arsenic. Soil is contaminated with
PAHs, PCBs, VOCs, and heavy metals. A pond that receives drainage from Wildwood
Industrial Park is used by children for fishing and swimming. Children also use an
undeveloped portion of Olympia Nominee Trust, located near the site, for riding dirt
bikes. People are at risk if they accidentally touch or swallow contaminated surface
water, groundwater, soil, or sediments. The site is located on land that serves as a
recharge area for the aquifer from which the Woburn Municipal Wells G & H drew
water.
79
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: immediate actions and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on source control and contaminant migration and cleanup alternatives for the central
aquifer and the Aberjona River.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The party potentially responsible for site contamination secured
the site with a fence and a guard. Drums containing PCB sludge and solid materials
contaminated with PCBs, as well as a pool of contaminated liquid located near the aquifer,
were removed to an approved facility. The potentially responsible parties were required to
investigate and remove the pure tetrachlorothene found in a well on the site.
Source Control and Contaminant Migration: The EPA's selected remedy includes
excavating and incinerating 2,100 cubic yards of contaminated soils on site and backfilling
the excavated areas; treating additional contaminated soil in place by extracting soil vapors
for treatment with activated carbon; and pumping contaminated groundwater from the aquifers and
removing the contaminants by using a stream of air that is forced through the water. Contaminants
removed by the air stream will be further treated prior to being released into the atmosphere. The
EPA negotiated with the potentially responsible parties to prepare the technical specifications and
design for the cleanup. Five separate properties on the site were found to be sources of
contamination under a Consent Order between the EPA and the responsible parties. The parties have
begun pre-design cleanup activities at two of the properties that are expected to be completed by late
1991. Pre-design work at two of the remaining three properties also is scheduled to begin and is
expected to be completed in 1993.
Central Aquifer: Three of the five parties potentially responsible for site contamination
are performing a study of the nature and extent of contamination in the central aquifer area
beyond the various other source area property boundaries within the Wells G & H area.
Completion of the study is scheduled for 1993.
Aberjona River Study: The EPA is conducting an investigation into the risk to human
health and the environment within the Aberjona River and the upper Mystic Lake. If risks
are found, a more complete investigation of contamination and cleanup alternatives will be
undertaken. The investigation is expected to be completed in 1993.
Site Facts: The EPA has signed a Consent Decree with three of the potentially responsible parties
to conduct a study of contamination at the Central Aquifer area.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated materials and the fencing of the Wells G & H site have reduced the
potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the site while it awaits the commencement of the soil
treatment remedy and the final results of the investigation into the possible alternatives for cleanup
of the remaining site contamination.
April 1991 80 WELLS G & H
-------
W. R. GRACED
& CO., INC.
(ACTON PLA
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA ID#MADO01002252
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Middlesex County
Off Independence Road
in Acton and Concord
The W. R. Grace and Company site covers approximately 200 acres. The site was the former
location of the American Cyanamid Company and the Dewey & Almy Chemical Company. These
companies produced sealant products for rubber containers, latex products, plasticizers, resins, and
other products. Operations at the W. R. Grace facility included the production of materials used to
make concrete, container sealing compounds, latex products, and paper and plastic battery
separators. Effluent wastes from these operations flowed into several unlined lagoons (the Primary
Lagoon, Secondary Lagoon, North Lagoon, and Emergency Lagoon), and solid and hazardous
wastes were buried in or placed onto an on-site industrial landfill and several other disposal areas.
These other waste sites include the Battery Separator Lagoons, the Battery Separator Chip Pile, the
Boil Lagoon, and the Tank Car Area. In addition, the by-products of some chemical processes were
disposed of in the Slowdown Pit. Discharge to all lagoons and the Battery Separator Area ceased in
1980. Investigations in 1978 indicated that two municipal wells, Assabet #1 and #2, were
contaminated. As a result of these findings, the Town took precautionary action and closed the two
wells. The site is bounded in part by Fort Pond Brook and by the Assabet River.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/3Q/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals
including lead, arsenic, chromium, and nickel. Sediments are contaminated with
cadmium. The soil and sludge are contaminated with arsenic, vinyl chloride, and
benzene. Trespassers may be at risk by coming in direct contact with or accidentally
ingesting contaminated groundwater, surface water, sediments, soil, or sludge.
81
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: interim actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on aquifer restoration and landfill and lagoon closure.
Response Action Status
Interim Actions: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination removed
tanks from the site in 1982 and 1983.
Aquifer Restoration: The potentially responsible parties have installed an aquifer
~~ restoration facility. This has been in operation since 1985 to stop the discharge of
contaminated groundwater into the Assabet River, Fort Pond Brook, and various other
ponds.
Landfill and Lagoon Closure: The EPA's recommended cleanup plan includes: (1)
excavating and transporting off-site for incineration the highly contaminated material from
the Slowdown Pit; (2) excavating and stabilizing the material in the Blowdown Pit, the
Primary Lagoon, Secondary Lagoon, North Lagoon, and Emergency Lagoon by mixing it with
cement, lime, and fly ash to form a solid; (3) excavating the soils from the Battery Separator
Lagoons, Boiler Lagoon, and Tank Car area; (4) placing both the stabilized and non-stabilized
materials excavated from the site in the existing industrial landfill and covering these materials with
a cap to prevent surface water or rain water from coming into contact with the buried contaminants;
(5) closing the Chip Pile area; (6) modifying the Aquifer Restoration System to address emission
controls; and (7) monitoring each area. The design for this remedy is being conducted in phases, the
final portion of which is expected to be completed in 1993.
Site Facts: The company entered into a Consent Decree with the EPA in 1980 to conduct a study
of the site and to carry out cleanup activities. Since 1973, residents in South Acton have filed
complaints about periodic odors and irritants in the air around the W. R. Grace plant.
Environmental Progress
The interim cleanup action involving removal of tanks has reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances in groundwater and leaking tanks, making the W. R. Grace area safer while
selected cleanup activities are being designed and constructed.
April 1991 82 W. R. GRACE & CO., INC.
(ACTON PLANT)
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
83
-------
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.
-------
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
86
-------
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.
87
-------
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.
Emulsiflers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
-------
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
89
-------
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,
90
-------
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
91
-------
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 the 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.
92
-------
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.
93
-------
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
alternative(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
94
-------
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
96
-------
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-
me"ntal 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
96
-------
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.
97
-------
APPENDIX B
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in Massachusetts
99
-------
ssachusetts
(0
*o
0)
(Q
CO
0)
0>
CO
Q.
z
(fl
o
T*
; Information Repos
sites may have more than one repository
i file at these repositories. The quantity
site and may include some or all of the
ng acdvides at sites, documents relating
pertaining to site acdvides.
§§5^1
public can obtain additional information related to site activities. So;
below. All public access information pertaining to the site will be
tries depends on the extent of activity and cleanup progress for ea
i for public meetings, minutes from public meetings, fact sheets deti
cadons of other public information centers, and any other docume
IP If-
S ^3 2 u §
co o "3 O *"*
2 * c 5 %
' RepositoriesareestablishedforallNPLsi
: location, however, the primary site repos
and nature of the documentation found i
1 following: community relations plans, at
to the selection of cleanup remedies, pre
Site Repository
Site Name
Fairhaven Public Library, Center Street, Fairhaven, MA 02719
ATLAS TACK CORPORATION
Holbrook Public Library, 2 Plymouth Street, Holbrook, MA 02343
Bridgewater Public Library, 15 South Street, Bridgewater, MA 02324
2
0
BAIRD&MCGUIRE
CANNON ENGINEERINGCORPORATI
r
Littlefield Public Library, 25 Middlesex Road, Tyngsborough, MA 01!
Goodnow Library, 21 Concord Street, Sudburg, MA 01776
X
co 2
^ 2
P« <
CHARLES-GEORGERECLAMATION1
FORTDEVENS-SUDBURY TRAINING
Ayer Library, 26 East Main Street, Ayer, MA 01432
FORTDEVENS
Langley- Adams Library, Main Street, Groveland, MA 01834
Not Established
GROVELAND WELLS
HA VERHILL MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
<
oo
W~l
Westborough Public Library, West Main Street, Westborough, MA 01:
HOCOMONCOPOND
Reading Public Library, 64 Middlesex Library, Reading, MA 01867
Billerica Public Library, 25 Concord Road, Billerica, MA 01821
INDUSTRI-PLEX
IRON HORSE PARK
New Bedford Free Library, 613 Pleasant Street, Bedford, MA 02740
NEW BEDFORD SITE
Morrill Memorial Library, Walpole Street, Norwood, MA 02062
Ashland Public Library, 66 Front Street, Ashland, MA 01721
NORWOOD PCBS
NYANZA CHEMICAL WASTE DUMP
o*
1
|
CO
u
o
n
1
CO
Q
<£
£
Q
U
OTIS AIR NAT'L GUARD BASE/CAMP
Plymouth Public Library, 1 1 North Street, Plymouth. MA 02360
Palmer Public Library, 455 North Main Street, Palmer, MA 01069
a.'
O
U
PLYMOUTH HARBOR/CANNON ENG.
PSC RESOURCES
00
Southworth Public Library, 732 Dartmouth Street, Dartmouth, MA 02"
Lanesborough Public Library, Main Street, Lanesborough, MA 01237
RE-SOLVE, INC.
ROSE DISPOSAL PIT
"*O
£5
Salem Public Library, 370 Essex Street, Salem, MA 01970
Norton Conservation Commission, 70 East Main Street, Norton, MA 0
SALEM ACRES
SHPACK LANDFILL
few Bedford, MA 02740
z;
Pollard Memorial Library, 401 Merrimack Street, Lowell, MA 01850
New Bedford City Hall, City Planning Department, 133 Williams Stree
SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION
SULLIVAN'SLEDGE
Thompson Public Library, 45 Pleasant Street, Wobum. MA 01801
Action Public Library, 486 Main Street, Action, MA 01720
WELLS G & H
W.R. GRACE AND COMPANY, INC.
*U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893:60634
101
------- |