&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/043
September 1991
PB92-963205
National
Priorities
List Sites:
New Hampshire
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-729 A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
New Hampshire
U.S. Environment' pr6—*T?n ,"-
Region 5, Library ''-I-1 "..
77 Wait Jackson i":: .- ;;,.;-,
Chicago, IL
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, VA 22161
(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 State of New Hampshire 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 57
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 73
-------
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 panics
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
STEP 3
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process.
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 a feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered effective. Often, special pilot studies are
conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to
clean up a site. Therefore, the combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study can
take between 10 and 30 months to complete,
depending on the size and complexity of the
problem.
Does the public have a say in the
final cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made.
The results of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, which also point out the
recommended cleanup choice, are published in
a report for public review and comment. The
EPA or the State encourages the public to
review the information and take an active role
in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets and
announcements in local papers let the commu-
nity know where they can get copies of the
study and other reference documents concern-
ing the site. Local information repositories,
such as libraries or other public buildings, are
established in cities and towns near each NPL
site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
to review all relevant information and the
proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
tion repositories for each NPL site described in
this volume are given in Appendix B.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
is published. These comments can be written
or given verbally at public meetings that the
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
ing written answers to specific community
comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
summary" is part of the EPA's write-up of the
final remedy decision, called the Record of
Decision, or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains
the cleanup remedy chosen and the reason it
-------
SUPERFUND.
was selected. Since sites frequently are large
and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD may
be necessary for each contaminated resource or
area of the site. This may be necessary when
contaminants have spread into the soil, water,
and air and affect such sensitive areas as
wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned
up in stages. This often means that a number
of remedies, using different cleanup technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.
If every cleanup action needs to be
tailored to a site, does the design
ofthe remedy need to be tailored,
too?
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried
out, it must be designed in detail to meet
specific site needs. This stage of the cleanup is
called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected rem-
edy will be engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may
appear to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to two years to
complete. This blueprint for site cleanup
includes not only the details on every aspect of
the construction work, but a description of the
types of hazardous wastes expected at the site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
how long does it take to actually
clean up the site, and how much
does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site
cleanup, called the remedial action, are as
varied as the remedies themselves. In a few
cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or
dredging contaminated river bottoms can take
several years of complex engineering work
before contamination is reduced to safe levels.
Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site.
Once the cleanup action is
completed, is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected
10
-------
SUPERFUND
remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
until public comments are taken into consid-
eration that a site actually can be deleted from
the NPL. All sites deleted from the NPL and
sites with completed construction are included
in the progress report found later in this book.
Can a site be taken off the NPL if
no cleanup has taken place?
Yes. But only if further site investigation
reveals that there are no threats present at the
site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
sary. In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
action" remedy and may move to delete the
site when monitoring confirms that the site
does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
the NPL if new information concerning site
cleanup or threats show that the site does not
warrant Superfund activities.
A site may be removed if a revised HRS
scoring, based on updated information, results
in a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
A site also may be removed from the NPL by
transferring it to other appropriate Federal
cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
cleanup actions.
Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
serves Superfund monies for the Nation's most
pressing hazardous waste problems where no
other cleanup authority is applicable.
Can the EPA make parties
responsible for the contamination
pay?
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters
should pay," after a site is placed on the NPL,
the EPA makes a thorough effort to identify
and find those responsible for causing con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
EPA is willing to negotiate with these private
parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it
has the authority under the Superfund law to
legally force those potentially responsible for
site hazards to take specific cleanup actions.
All work performed by these parties is closely
guided and monitored by the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for actions
financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the EPA may decide to use Superfund
monies to make sure a site is cleaned up
without unnecessary delay. For example, if a
site presents an imminent threat to public
health and the environment or if conditions at a
site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for
causing site contamination are liable under the
law (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.
11
-------
THE VOLUME
The site fact sheets presented in this
book are comprehensive summaries
that cover a broad range of information.
The fact sheets describe hazardous
waste sites on the NPL and their locations, as
well as the conditions leading to their listing
("Site Description"). The summaries list the
types of contaminants that have been discov-
ered and related threats to public and ecologi-
cal health ("Threats and Contaminants").
"Cleanup Approach" presents an overview of
the cleanup activities completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets conclude with a brief
synopsis of how much progress has been made
in protecting public health and the environ-
ment. The summaries also pinpoint other
actions, such as legal efforts to involve pollut-
ers responsible for site contamination and
community concerns.
The fact sheets are arranged in alphabetical
order by site name. Because site cleanup is a
dynamic and gradual process, all site informa-
tion is accurate as of the date shown on the
bottom of each page. Progress always is being
made at NPL sites, and the EPA periodically
will update the site fact sheets to reflect recent
actions and will publish updated State vol-
umes. The following two pages show a ge-
neric fact sheet and briefly describe the infor-
mation under each section.
HOW CAN YOU USE THIS STATE
BOOK?
You can use this book to keep informed about
the sites that concern you, particularly ones
close to home. The EPA is committed to
involving the public in the decision making
process associated with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Agency solicits input from area
residents in communities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely to be affected
not only by hazardous site conditions, but also
by the remedies that combat them. Site clean-
How to Use
the State
Book
ups take many forms and can affect communi-
ties in different ways. Local traffic may be
rerouted, residents may be relocated, tempo-
rary water supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a site can help
citizens sift through alternatives and make
decisions. To make good choices, you must
know what the threats are and how the EPA
intends to clean up the site. You must under-
stand the cleanup alternatives being proposed
for site cleanup and how residents may be
affected by each one. You also need to have
some idea of how your community intends to
use the site in the future, and you need to
know what the community can realistically
expect once the cleanup is complete.
The EPA wants to develop cleanup methods
that meet community needs, but the Agency
only can take local concerns into account if it
understands what they are. Information must
travel both ways in order for cleanups to be
effective and satisfactory. Please take this
opportunity to learn more, become involved,
and assure that hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your community's
concerns.
13
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Dates when the site was
Proposed, made Final, and
Deleted from the NPL.
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially respon-
sible parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOO
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL OIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Name*:
®
Site Responsibility: •
NPL Listing History
Pnopoxd: n*ttz
Flmt
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts: p.
Environmental Progress
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to
nearby residents and the surrounding environment;
progress towards cleaning up the site and goals of
the cleanup plan are given here.
14
-------
THE VOLUME
SITE DESCRIPTION
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes descrip-
tions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have con-
tributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
THREATS AND CONTAMINANTS
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted, as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil, and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding environ-
ments arising from the site contamination also are described.
CLEANUP APPROACH
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
RESPONSE ACTION STATUS
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean
up the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided
into separate phases, depending on the complexity and required actions at the
site. Two major types of cleanup activities often are described: initial,
immediate, or emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent
threats to the community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial
phases directed at final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy
is presented in this section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of
the cleanup process (initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the
cleanup remedy, engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway, and
completed cleanup) are located in the margin next to each activity descrip-
tion.
SITE FACTS
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by the EPA to
achieve site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with
the site cleanup process are reported here.
15
-------
THE VOLUME
The "icons," or symbols, accompanying the text allow the reader to see at a glance which envi-
ronmental resources are affected and the status of cleanup activities at the site.
Icons in the Threats and
Contaminants Section
Contaminated Groundwater resources
in the Contaminated Groundwater in
the vicinity or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used as a
drinking water source.)
Contaminated Surface Water and
Sediments on or near the site. (These
include lakes, ponds, streams, and
rivers.)
Contaminated Air in the vicinity of
the site. (Air pollution usually is
periodic and involves contaminated
dust particles or hazardous gas emis-
sions.)
Contaminated Soil and Sludges on or
near the site. (This contamination
category may include bulk or other
surface hazardous wastes found on the
site.)
Threatened or contaminated Environ-
mentally Sensitive Areas in the vicin-
ity of the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas or critical
habitats.)
Icons in the Response Action
Status Section
Initial Actions have been taken or are
underway to eliminate immediate
threats at the site.
Site Studies at the site to determine the
nature and extent of contamination are
planned or underway.
Remedy Selected indicates that site
investigations have been concluded,
and the EPA has selected a final
cleanup remedy for the site or part of
the site.
Remedy Design means that engineers
are preparing specifications and
drawings for the selected cleanup
technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing indicates that the
selected cleanup remedies for the
contaminated site, or part of the site,
currently are underway.
Cleanup Complete shows that all
cleanup goals have been achieved for
the contaminated site or part of the
site.
Environmental Progress summa-
rizes the activities taken to date to
protect human health and to clean
up site contamination.
16
-------
NPL SITES
The State of
New Hampshire
The State of New Hampshire, within EPA Region 1, is located along the Canadian border by the
Atlantic Ocean on its southwestern corner. The state covers 9,279 square miles consisting of a
low, rolling coast, followed by hilly terrain and mountains rising out of a central plateau. New
Hampshire experienced a 21% increase in population between 1980 and 1990, according to the
1990 Census, and currently has approximately 1,109,000 residents, ranking 40th in U.S. popula-
tions. Principal state industries include the manufacture of machinery, electrical and electronics
products, plastics, fabricated metal products, and leather goods; as well as tourism, agriculture,
trade, and mining of non-fuel minerals.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of New Hampshire?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
16
SI
16
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional District 1 12 sites
Congressional District 2 4 sites
What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
in the State of New Hampshire?
# of sites
4
3
3
2
4
type of sites
Municipal & Industrial Landfills
Metals & Allied Products
Storage Facilities
Disposal Facilities
Others (Federal facility, recyclers, chemicals
& allied products)
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
9-
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals
(inorganics).
Soil: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), heavy metals (inorganics),
creosote (organics), and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
heavy metals (inorganics) and polychlo-
rinated biphenyls (PCBs).
I
GW Soil SW SM<
Contamination Area
Air
Air: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs).
* Appear at 20% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Super-fund Cleanup Process?*
7
Sites
with ^
Studies
Underway
3
Sites
*• with •
Remedy
Selected
2
Sites
•>• with
Remedy
Design
4
Sites
••>» with ••>>
Cleanup
Ongoing
\
Sites
with
Construction
Complete .
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 12 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
ApriM991
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
Apr/11991
-------
(A
0)
4-»
55
a.
c
(0
_0>
o
CO
0)
O)
o
"8
«
§.
tts
3-5.
.— o
S '° A
2 ? U
oo
Is
il
S
ft
ft ft
ftftftft
ft
ftft ft
ftft ft
S ll ftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft
ftft ft ftftftftftft ftftft
m \o m
•a -a -a -a
il £ S it
I
April! 991
20
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 1
21
April! 991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in New Hampshire, 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
New Hampshire Superfund Office
(617) 565-3425
(617) 573-9645
(800) 424-9346
(202) 260-2080
(603) 271-2908
April 1991
22
-------
AUBURN ROAD /-X / EPA REGION i
Muouniv nwMis CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
LANDFILL I'T^, .-S^-jM Londonderry
IVIC1AI LJ AIV/IDCUIDC r^^im***'-,-" - * \ 2 miles north of Route 28 on Auburn Road
EPA ID# NHD980524086
Site Description
The Auburn Road Landfill in Londonderry is a 200-acre site that consists of four separate disposal
areas: the former Londonderry Town Dump, which operated during the 1960s and was the disposal
site for over 1,000 drums of chemical waste; a tire disposal area, where tires and demolition debris
and several hundred drums of chemical waste were dumped; a solid waste landfill, the largest
disposal area, active until the entire site was closed in early 1980; and a septage lagoon, which is
next to a mound of overflow waste from the tire dump. Most of the residents in the area depend on
bedrock wells for their water supply. The State ordered the landfill closed early in 1980, after
hazardous wastes were identified in soil, and toxic organics were found in surface water and
groundwater. In 1986, the EPA determined that contaminated groundwater flowed off site toward
the drinking water supply wells at the Whispering Pines Mobile Home Park, and potentially to other
private residential wells. The area surrounding the landfill is residential and commercial, and the
300 homes and 270 mobile homes within a 1-mile radius use groundwater as a primary source of
drinking water. Approximately 1,000 people live within 3 miles of the site. Two unnamed streams
drain from the site and flow into Cohas Brook, which in turn empties into the Merrimack River.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), creosotes,
and inorganic chemicals. The soil also is contaminated with VOCs, creosote compounds,
and inorganics, as well as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides. Whispering
Pines Pond and Cohas Brook are polluted with low levels of VOCs. The fencing of the
town dump, the tire dump, and solid waste areas decreases the likelihood of exposure to
contaminated soils, although the areas adjacent to the fences are used for riding dirt bikes
and horses. Exposure to contaminated groundwater is eliminated at the present time
because the municipal water supply has been extended to local residents, but bedrock
fractures may promote migration of contaminants into off-site groundwater and present a
potential threat to private wells outside the area. The site includes large areas of wetlands
and ponds, which are environmentally sensitive.
23 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: initial actions and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on providing a water supply, cleanup of the groundwater contamination, and capping the
site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) temporarily
relocated 17 families beginning in early 1986. At that time, the EPA excavated 1,666
drums in three locations and then restored two of the excavated areas. Drums were
consolidated, covered, and sampled prior to their disposal off site. A 24-hour security guard was on
duty prior to disposal. The owner fenced the four disposal areas from 1987 to 1988 and posted
warning signs. In 1988, the EPA excavated 360 drums from the tire dump.
Water Supply Line: In late 1987, the Town of Londonderry extended the current water
service provided by the Manchester Water Works to 17 homes along Auburn Road and to
260 mobile homes in the Whispering Pines mobile home village. Nine thousand linear
feet of water line were installed. Londonderry constructed and paid for the water supply line under
an agreement with the EPA.
Groundwater: In 1989, the EPA selected cleanup technologies that specified the
collection of contaminated groundwater through a series of shallow and deep bedrock
wells and the use of groundwater collection trenches. Inorganic contamination is to be
removed using chemical precipitation. Groundwater then will be treated for removal of organic
contaminants using a combination of air stripping and, if necessary, carbon treatment. An
engineering design for this remedy currently is underway and is planned for completion in 1992.
Cap: The EPA specified that a multi-layer cap be placed over the solid waste area, the
town dump area, and the tire dump area to prevent the further spread of contaminants to
the groundwater. A design for the cap currently is underway and is planned for
completion in 1992.
Environmental Progress
The EPA, the FEMA, and the Town of Londonderry have acted to protect area residents from site
contamination by relocating affected populations, erecting a fence to restrict site access, providing a
safe water supply, and removing a large number of drums containing contaminants. The planned
capping will prevent any further spread of contamination as the groundwater is cleaned up at the
Auburn Road Landfill site.
April 1991 24 AUBURN ROAD LANDFILL
-------
COAKLEY
lrUMI\L.CT
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID* NHD064424153
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Rockingham County
Greenland and
The Coakley Landfill site is a 92-acre parcel of land within the to\v > of Greenland and North
Hampton, and is owned and operated by several municipalities. The landfill area encompasses 27
acres in the southern portion of the site. The site accepted municipal and industrial wastes from the
Portsmouth area between 1972 and 1982 and incinerator residue from the Incineration Recovery
Plant Refuse to Energy Project between 1982 and 1985. The primary source of contamination is the
landfill itself. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals are the predominant contaminants
found. On- and off-site surface water and groundwater are contaminated. The site is located on a
groundwater/surface water divide, and residential wells to the south, southeast, and northeast of the
landfill are contaminated with low levels of VOCs. Public water service has been extended to the
areas with contaminated wells by local communities. Approximately 79,300 people are served by
wells within 3 miles of the site. There also are several small commercial facilities, motels, and
restaurants nearby.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater is contaminated with arsenic, phenol, and methyl ethyl ketones; off-
site groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic, chromium, and
lead and VOCs including benzene and methyl ethyl ketones. On-site sediments are
contaminated with arsenic and lead. Stream sediments contain contamination from
arsenic and VOCs. Leachate contamination at the site includes VOCs, tetrahydrofuran,
and ketones. Potential use of groundwater as a water supply is the main threat to human
health.
25
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on source control and cleanup of off-site groundwater.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1989, North Hampton extended a municipal water line to residents
who had been supplied by 13 private wells that were contaminated with VOCs. The State
set up an early warning system to detect well contamination in the entire area. Most area
residents now have uncontaminated water.
Source Control: An investigation was conducted by the State from 1986 to 1987. The
goals of the field work were to characterize the hydrogeologic conditions at the site,
including an estimate of the total area of the landfill and soil deposits, hydraulic properties
of bedrock and selected surface streams, and to identify pathways for contaminant migration from
the site. The State completed the study in 1990. Based on the results of the study, a cleanup remedy
was selected, which includes consolidating approximately 2,000 cubic yards of wetland sediments;
consolidating approximately 30,000 cubic yards of on-site solid waste; fencing and capping the
landfill; collecting and treating landfill gases by thermal destruction; extracting groundwater and
treating it with a combination of chemical, biological, and physical processes; and long-term
monitoring and institutional controls. Design of these remedies is expected to begin in 1992.
Off-site Groundwater: The EPA began a study in 1990 on the migration of
contaminants into off-site groundwater and the ecological effects of the site contamination.
This study is scheduled for completion in 1993.
Site Facts: The State issued a Consent Order requiring the owner to accept only incinerator ash
from the Refuse to Energy Project in 1983. As of February 1990, notices have been sent to 60
parties potentially responsible for the site contamination.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate drinking water source has reduced the potential for exposure to
contamination, making the Coakley Landfill safer while it awaits further cleanup activity.
April 1991 26 COAKLEY LANDFILL
-------
DOVER MUNICI
LANDFILL
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPAID#NHD980520191
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Stratford County
In Mallego Plains section of Dover
The Dover Municipal Landfill is a 55-acre inactive landfill located on Tolend Road in the
Mallego Plains section, in the western corner of Dover. Owned and operated by the City since
1960, the landfill initially accepted domestic refuse from Dover, but by the 1960s, it took in
drums and loose trash from both Dover and Madbury. Buried materials include leather-tanning
wastes, organic solvents, municipal trash, and sludge from the Dover wastewater plant. It is
believed that drums were no longer accepted after 1975. In 1977, the State installed monitoring
wells around the area and found that organic solvents were entering groundwater, posing a
potential threat to public water supplies for Dover and Portsmouth. The State and the Dover City
Council closed the landfill in 1980. The site is in a residential area; the nearest home is 100
yards to the southeast. A nursing home is 2,500 feet away, and a prison and work farm are
located nearby. There are 50 homes within 1 mile of the landfill, and the surrounding area is
used for hunting and berry picking. Two water supplies are at risk, but currently are not
contaminated: the Calderwood municipal well, 1/2 mile north, which supplies 20% of Dover's
water; and Bellamy Reservoir, 1/3 mile south, which supplies Portsmouth, Newington, New
Castle, Greenland, and portions of Rye, Madbury, and Durham. Leachate from the landfill is
entering the Cocheco River, 400 feet away from the site at the closest point. Wetlands also exist
near the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
2.
Air is polluted with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which have been detected
above background levels near leachate streams on the site. The groundwater is
contaminated with VOCs, acid and base/neutral extractable organic compounds, and
heavy metals. Two residential wells have been contaminated with organics from the
site; however, water currently is not being consumed from them. Sediments are
contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead. Soil
contamination includes polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) off site and heavy metals,
including arsenic, chromium, and lead both on and off site. The Cocheco River
receives leachate; VOCs have also been detected in the surface water. People on or
near the site could be exposed to contaminants that have evaporated into the air.
People using the site for recreational purposes could come in direct contact with,
accidentally ingest, or inhale contaminated dust. Drinking contaminated groundwater
and swimming or wading in the contaminated Cocheco River also could expose
people to harmful chemicals. Nearby wetlands are potentially threatened by site
contamination.
27
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase aimed at cleanup of
contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1984, the State began a study of the site to assess the nature and
extent of contamination. The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
have assumed responsibility for the study that will identify the alternate cleanup
strategies. The EPA will evaluate the study findings and expects to select a final cleanup
strategy for the site in 1991.
Site Facts: The State and City Council closed the landfill in 1980. The EPA and the
potentially responsible parties entered into an Administrative Agreement to complete a
feasibility study of site cleanup strategies.
Environmental Progress
Following the listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA determined that the Dover Municipal
Landfill site currently poses no immediate threat to public health or the environment while it
awaits further cleanup activities.
April 1991 28 DOVER MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
-------
FLETCHER'S PA
WORKS & STO
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPAID#NHD001079649
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Hillsborough County
21 Elm Street in Milford
Other Names:
Fletcher Paint on Elm Street
Fletcher Storage Facility on Mill Street
This 2-acre site consists of two neighboring lots owned by Fletcher's Paint Works: a
manufacturing plant/retail outlet on Elm Street and a storage area 700 feet south on Mill Street.
Fletcher's has manufactured and sold paints and stains for residential use at its plant since 1949.
Bulk paint pigments are stored at the warehouse. The owner stored several hundred drums
behind the plant, and naphtha and mineral spirits are stored in unlined underground tanks.
Contaminants from the storage facility were found in a drainage ditch on the adjoining
Hampshire Paper Co. property, and this ditch was made a part of the site. The State inspected
the facility in 1982 in response to a complaint and found 800 drums of alkyd resins and 21 drums
of solvent. Leaking and open drums, as well as stained soil, were observed. EPA investigation
of the site was prompted by discovery of contamination of the adjacent Keyes municipal water
supply well. Drums were removed from the Elm Street facility, and a synthetic liner and clean
fill have been placed over the high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at the Mill Street
and Elm Street locations. The site is situated in a densely populated residential/commercial area
approximately 1/4 mile from the downtown area. Approximately 11,400 people within 3 miles
obtain drinking water from public and private wells. There are three schools within 1/2 mile of
the site. The site is adjacent to and upgradient from the Souhegan River, which is used for
recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Air contaminants consist of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Bagged
asbestos is being stored on the site and the drummed wastes are contaminated
with VOCs, base/neutral solids and liquids, and PCB liquids. Sediments from the
Souhegan River, upgradient and adjacent to the site, and surface waters contain
VOC contaminants, including benzene and toluene, as well as heavy metals
including nickel and lead, and PCBs. Soil contamination consists of VOCs,
heavy metals such as barium, lead, and nickel and PCBs in on-site soils, as well as
organic solvents. The plant is easily accessible and is adjacent to a road leading
to a popular recreation area. People on or near the site could risk exposure to
contaminants by accidentally ingesting, coming into direct contact with, or
inhaling chemicals in the air, water, soil, or sediments.
29
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial phase,
with major attention being given to the soil and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The EPA mounted an emergency removal effort at the site in 1988.
Twelve bags of asbestos were contained and sent to an EPA approved landfill. Soil
and air samples were taken. Air monitoring was conducted regularly during the
cleanup activities. The EPA lined the surface of the PCB-contaminated lot with a synthetic liner,
covered it with 6 to 8 inches of gravel and topped it with 1 1/2 inches of stone dust Safe
drummed materials were left on site, but hazardous ones were numbered, consolidated, packed in
new containers, and sent to a federally approved landfill.
Soil and Groundwater: The EPA is conducting an intensive study of soil and
groundwater contamination at the site and will recommend cleanup strategies. The
investigation is expected to be completed in 1992, and a final remedy selection will be
made at that time.
Environmental Progress
With the cleanup actions described above, the EPA has greatly reduced the potential for
accidental soil and dust exposure at both Fletcher Paint Works locations. Upon completion of
the soil and groundwater cleanup, contamination levels will be reduced to meet established
health and ecological standards for the site.
April 1991 30 FLETCHER'S PAINT WORKS & STORAGE
-------
HOLTON CIRCLE
GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPAID#NHD981063860
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Rockingham County
Londonderry
Holton Circle is a development of about 25 homes. The site has a series of residential wells and
one commercial well, known as the Town Garage well. According to tests conducted in 1984 by
the State, the wells are contaminated. The EPA and the State have been investigating the area
since 1985 and have not yet verified a source of the contamination. The Department of Defense
owned the Town Garage well, located 1,000 feet west of the Holton Circle, from the early 1940s
to 1968 and operated a radio beacon there during World War n. The EPA also investigated a
small auto repair shop about 1,000 feet south of Holton Circle. The shop uses 1 to 2 gallons of
degreasing solvents annually. The area around the site consists of mixed rural and residential
properties and is being actively developed. Approximately 7,400 people obtain drinking water
from private wells within 3 miles of Holton Circle.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater in the wells is contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including dichloroethylene and dichloroethane. People may be exposed
to these VOCs by drinking the contaminated groundwater. The six residences
with contaminated drinking water wells have been connected to a public water
supply.
31
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on groundwater
cleanup.
Response Action Status
Groundwater: The EPA is conducting an investigation into the groundwater
contamination at the site. The investigation will define the contaminants and will
recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation is expected to be
completed in 1992.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA assessed conditions and determined that, besides
connecting six residences with contaminated wells to the public water supply, no further
immediate actions are required to make the Holton Circle Ground Water Contamination site safe
while waiting for cleanup actions to begin.
April 1991 32 HOLTON CIRCLE
GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
-------
KEARSARGE
METALLURGICAL
CORP.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPAID#NHD062002001
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Carroll County
Conway
Precision stainless castings were manufactured on this 9-acre site from 1964 until Kearsarge
Metallurgical Corporation went out of business in 1982. Of the 9 acres, Kearsarge owned 5; the 4
remaining acres have different ownership but are included within the site boundaries. The wastes
produced from the processes of making the casts (casting, cleaning, finishing, and pickling) initially
were disposed of on site. During the 1970s and 1980s some of these wastes were drummed and
stored on site. A large, 8-foot-high pile of approximately 4,250 cubic yards of solid wastes is
located behind a foundry building is surrounded by a chain link fence. This waste pile contains
ceramic sand, scrap metal, rusted drums, and various other refuse from foundry operations and
extends across the Kearsarge property line. That is surrounded by a chainlink fence. A smaller pile
of approximately 400 cubic yards of solid wastes is also located on the site. The closest drinking
water wells are two wells that supply water for the municipality and a water supply well for the
residential area across the Pequawket Pond. The municipal wells are approximately 3,000 feet north
of the site and supply most of the water to the area. Pequawket Pond marks the southern boundary
of the site and is used for recreational purposes. Approximately 8,100 people live within 3 miles of
the site, and 2,700 people within 3 miles of the site use groundwater in the area for drinking
purposes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
trichloroethane. Sediment samples taken from Pequawket Pond indicated the presence of
some heavy metals. The soils in the woodlands area east of the site and in the drainage
way area are contaminated with low levels of VOCs, primarily trichloroethane. Samples
taken from Pequawket Pond indicate the presence of heavy metals including chromium,
copper, and nickel. VOCs were detected in off-site surface water, primarily in the
swampy area to the east of the site and the catch basins. There is a potential for human
exposure to VOCs by inhalation and ingestion of the dusts and dirt from the site. The
potential exists for exposure to contaminants from the sediments and surface water in the
swamp and drainage area, soils, the waste pile, and contaminated groundwater. The
town's drinking water supply has not been shown to be contaminated; however, the
33
April 1991
-------
possibility exists that the site may contribute groundwater to the municipal wells during periods of
low recharge and high pumping rates. Residents have the potential for exposure through contact
with the contaminated soils and surface water in the swamp areas east of the site and with the soils in
the waste pile.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being cleaned up in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The site owner arranged for the removal of 300 drums from the site. In
addition, 23 monitoring and observation wells were installed. The wells supplemented the
8 monitoring wells previously installed by the State of New Hampshire. Seventeen test
pits were excavated and solid waste samples were collected from drums. Three rounds of
groundwater samples were also collected. Surface water and sediment samples were collected from
the Pequawket Pond. In 1991, six additional drums and two pails of hazardous materials were
removed from the site.
Entire Site: Based on investigations performed by the EPA and Kearsarge Metallurgical
Corp., the following remedy was selected: the removal of a septic tank and contents to an
off-site incinerator for thermal destruction, excavation of approximately 250 cubic yards
of contaminated leaching field soils, and excavation and off-site disposal of materials in the two
waste piles. To control migration of contaminated groundwater, groundwater will be extracted and
treated in a clarifier to remove heavy metals, then by air stripping to remove VOCs, followed by
carbon adsorption of the airborne contaminants. Long-term monitoring of groundwater, soil,
sediments, and surface water will be implemented to ensure the effectiveness of the remedy. The
design for this remedy is scheduled to start in 1992.
Site Facts: The State of New Hampshire filed a Civil Action in the Superior Court of Carroll
County in 1983, asking for civil penalties for disposal of hazardous waste and ordering the owner to
conduct a hydrogeological study.
Environmental Progress
The initial cleanup actions to remove contaminated drums and soil have greatly reduced the potential
of exposure to hazardous substances, making the Kearsarge area safer while it awaits final cleanup
activities.
April1991 34 KEARSARGE METALLURGICAL CORP.
-------
KEEFE 1 EPA REGION1
ixk-i-i i. CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
ENVIRONMENT/™"™^^ Rockmgham County
_™_™«™_____™»«» Epping
Wi$WliMM&ssii*l^liP l
SERVICES
NEW HAMPSHIRE J f ^ <, KES
EPAID#NHD092059112
Site Description
The Keefe Environmental Services site, covering 7 acres in Rockingham County, was operated as a
chemical waste storage facility from 1978 until 1981, when the company filed for bankruptcy. Waste
storage containers that were present on site at that time included 4,100 drums, four 5,000-gallon and
four 10,000-gallon aboveground storage tanks, and a 700,000-gallon synthetically lined lagoon.
Solvents, acids, caustics, heavy metals, paint sludges, waste oils, and organic chemicals were
disposed at the site. Soil and groundwater on and off site have been contaminated. The site is
located in a State-protected watershed with wetland areas draining to the Piscassic River. The site is
located in a semi-rural area. There are approximately 12 houses, with a population of 30 people,
located along Exeter Road, south of the site. The groundwater aquifer is used as a water supply for
ten residences located nearby and is the major source of drinking water for approximately 2,000
people within a 3-mile radius of the site. The Town of New Market has a water supply intake on the
Piscassic River 7 miles downstream from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater at the site and off-site surface water are contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including trichloroethane and benzene. The health threats to
workers or others nearby consist of drinking the contaminated water or coming in direct
contact with hazardous wastes left on the site.
35 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed up in three stages: initial actions to control site contamination and two
long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the lagoon and the groundwater.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1981, when the site operations ceased, the EPA declared an
emergency at the site after determining that the waste lagoon was about to overflow. The
EPA and the State initiated emergency actions that included drawing down the lagoon to
lessen the threat of a spill. In continuing emergency actions during 1983 and 1984, the EPA and the
State removed more than 4,000 drums, four 5,000-gallon aboveground tanks, and four 10,000-gallon
aboveground tanks of hazardous waste.
Lagoon: The actions for cleanup of the lagoon included removal of the contents of the
lagoon, lagoon liner, and the highly contaminated soil adjacent to the lagoon for disposal
at a regulated facility. These cleanup activities were completed in 1984.
Groundwater: The cleanup activities chosen by the EPA for the groundwater include
treatment by pumping the contaminated groundwater, filtering volatile contaminants by
exposing the groundwater to air, and containing the airborne chemicals by carbon
adsorption. Treated groundwater will be discharged to a groundwater recharge area adjacent to the
wetland along the site border. The State completed the technical specifications and design for the
selected remedy. Construction of the groundwater treatment facility is scheduled to be completed in
1992. Construction and operation and maintenance will be accomplished by the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination under a Unilateral Administrative Order.
Site Facts: A Consent Agreement was entered into with 119 settling potentially responsible parties
in 1986. The EPA filed suit against the non-settling parties in 1989. A Unilateral Administrative
Order (UAO) was issued in 1990. One of the non-settling parties currently is in compliance with the
UAO to clean up the site.
Environmental Progress
The health risks and environmental threats posed by the hazardous materials at the Keefe
Environmental Services site are being eliminated as the cleanup work progresses, and all direct
contact threats from contaminated soil have been eliminated.
April 1991 36 KEEFE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
-------
MOTTOLO PIG F
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPAID#NHD980503361
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Rockingham County
Off Blueberry Hill Road in Raymond
Other Names:
Raymond Hazardous Waste Site
The 50-acre Mottolo Pig Farm site is an abandoned pig farm located in an undeveloped wooded
area. From 1975 to 1979, Richard Mottolo, the owner of the property, disposed of chemical
manufacturing wastes from two companies in a 1/4-acre fill area adjacent to the piggery buildings.
During this 4-year period, over 1,600 drums and pails of wastes, including organic compounds such
as toluene, xylene, and methyl ethyl ketone, were disposed of at the site. State studies showed that
groundwater beneath the site was contaminated and that contaminants were seeping into a brook
that empties into the Exeter River. The Exeter River is a drinking water supply for the nearby
communities of Exeter, Hampton, and Stratham. An estimated 1,600 people depend on groundwater
within 3 miles of the site as a source of drinking water. There are approximately 200 single family
residences within 1 mile of the site, with the nearest residence located approximately 150 yards
from the source area. Residential areas border the site property on three sides.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/01/85
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
Specific contaminants detected in groundwater include volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and heavy metals such as iron, manganese, arsenic, and zinc. Contaminated
leachate from the site seeps into an adjacent brook. A small area of on-site soils contains
YOCs. Threats to human health include drinking contaminated groundwater, direct
contact with or accidental ingestion of contaminated surface water or soils and inhaling
contaminated dusts.
37
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being cleaned up in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1980, under authority of the Clean Water Act, the EPA used
emergency funds to excavate and store drums on site. From 1981 to 1982, the EPA
removed drums and pails from the site along with 160 tons of contaminated soil,
preventing further contamination of the soil and groundwater. EPA actions also included limiting
site access, sampling and analysis, strengthening of berms, overpacking containers, and removing
and disposing of materials. The EPA excavated observation pits to determine if surface water
diversion was feasible.
Entire Site: Based on studies performed by the parties potentially responsible for
contamination at the site, the EPA selected groundwater, surface water, and soil cleanup
alternatives. The remedy selected consists of installation of a groundwater interceptor
trench, sealing the ground surface in both the former drum disposal area and the southern boundary
area with temporary caps, and installation and operation of a vacuum extraction system to remove air
and vapor phase VOCs from the soil gas. Groundwater will clean itself naturally after the sources of
contamination are removed. Additional measures include installation of a security fence to limit
access to contaminated areas, continued monitoring of groundwater and surface water, and
institutional controls, which will restrict the use of contaminated groundwater and prevent
disturbance of cleanup activities. The technical specifications for this remedy are scheduled to get
underway in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1988, the EPA and the K.J. Quinn Company signed an Administrative Consent
Order, in which the company agreed to perform an investigation of the site under EPA monitoring.
K. J. Quinn is one of several parties potentially responsible for contamination problems originating at
the site.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions to limit access to the site and to remove contaminated drums and soil have eliminated
all direct contact threats from contaminated soil while the Mottolo Pig Farm site awaits final cleanup
actions.
April 1991 38 MOTTOLO PIG FARM
-------
OTTATI & GOSS/
KINGSTON
STEEL DRUM
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPAID#NHD990717647
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Rockingham County
Kingston
Other Names:
Kingston Steel Drum/CRT Lak«* Container
The Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum site, situated on 35 acres, contains a 1-acre parcel in the
southwestern portion that was leased and known as the Ottati & Goss (O&G) site and a 6-acre Great
Lakes Container Corporation (GLCC) site consisting of a rectangular parcel bordered on the east by
Route 125. From the late 1950s through 1967, Conway Barrel & Drum Company (CBD) owned the
site and performed drum reconditioning operations on the parcel of land later owned by the Great
Lakes Container Corporation. The reconditioning operations included caustic rinsing of drums and
disposal of the rinse water in a dry well near South Brook. Kingston Steel Drum, the operator of the
facility from 1967, continued the same operations as GLCC through 1973. South Brook and
Country Pond became polluted, so CBD established leaching pits in an area removed from South
Brook. The State's Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission reported on-site runoff and
seepage from the leaching pits draining into South Brook and eventually into Country Pond, where
fish kills occurred. Vegetation along South Brook died and swimmers experienced skin irritation.
In 1973, International Mineral & Chemical Corporation (IMC), purchased the drum and
reconditioning plant and operated it until 1976. In 1978, heavy sludges from the wash tank and from
drainings, as well as residues from incinerator operations, were brought to the O&G site for
processing. After O&G operations ceased in 1979, the New Hampshire Bureau of Solid Waste
Management ordered the owners and operators not to restart operations and to remove
approximately 4,400 drums that were at various stages of deterioration and were spilling organic
compounds onto the ground. Approximately 450 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site. Most
of these residents rely on bedrock wells for their water supply. An estimated 4,500 people live
within 3 miles of the site. A marshy area lies downgradient of the site. The Powwow River and
Country Pond, located nearby, are used for swimming and fishing.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
39
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, and soils are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). The on-site soil also contains polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
metals, and acids and base/neutral compounds. Sampling conducted in 1989 indicated
no current public threat was likely at the site; however, there is a potential for future
threat due to contaminated groundwater off site. The overburden and bedrock aquifers
are contaminated, but residential water supply wells show no contamination. Some
PCBs have migrated into South Brook; however, no PCBs have been detected in the
marsh or Country Pond water or sediments. Adjacent marshland is considered an
environmentally sensitive area and could become contaminated.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in five stages: initial actions and four long-term remedial phases
concentrating on soil excavation, groundwater cleanup at two separate areas, and soil cleanup.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Beginning in 1980, several actions were taken: the site was secured by
fencing, leaking drums were packed and removed, and contaminated soils and debris were
removed. About 12,800 tons of soil, drums, and metals were removed, plus 101,700 tons
of flammable sludge, 6,000 cubic yards of flammable liquid, and other materials.
Soil Excavation: Based on the results of the site investigation conducted by the EPA,
the selected remedy was to excavate and treat the contaminated soil on the Ottati & Goss
portion of the site. The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination excavated
approximately 4,700 cubic yards of contaminated soil and sediments, which were treated by low
temperature thermal aeration. The remedial action was completed in 1989.
Kingston Steel Groundwater Treatment: Extraction and treatment of contaminated
groundwater, with eventual discharge of treated groundwater, is planned for the cleanup of
the groundwater on the site. One of the potentially responsible parties is designing the
groundwater extraction and treatment system. Design of this system is expected to be completed in
1993, with cleanup work to commence shortly thereafter.
Ottati & Goss Groundwater Remediation: Based on the results of the site
investigation, the EPA has selected extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater
with the eventual discharge of treated groundwater on the site. Design of the cleanup
remedy is expected to be completed in 1993.
Kingston Steel Soil Remediation: The EPA-selected cleanup at the Kingston Steel
area and the remainder of the site is similar to soil excavations and cleanups previously
performed at the site and also includes cleanup of adjacent stream sediment.
April! 991 40 OTTATI & GOSS/KINGSTON STEEL DRUM
-------
Site Facts: The Justice Department, on behalf of the EPA, brought a civil action suit against
several potentially responsible parties in 1980. The court found the defendants liable for
contamination on and off site. The EPA settled with a group of potentially responsible parties
during the trial and they, under a Consent Decree, have completed the soil remedy on the Ottati
& Goss portion of the site.
Environmental Progress
Although some direct contact threats remain, the EPA has determined that the removal of
contaminated soils and sediments has greatly reduced the potential for exposure to contamination
at the Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum site. These completed actions and other site cleanup
will continue to reduce site contamination levels, making the site safer as it approaches final
cleanup.
OTTATI & GOSS/KINGSTON STEEL DRUM
41
April! 991
-------
PFAQF AIR FORPF RAQH EPA REGION 1
Kb Ab t AIK |-UKU,bA»tl CONGRESSIONAL DIST 01
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID* NH7570024847
Site Description
The Pease Air Force Base site maintained aircraft from the 1950s on a 4,365-acre parcel of land until
1991 when the base closed. A 1990 study identified 22 waste disposal areas on the base, 13 of
which received hazardous wastes including organic solvents, pesticides, paint strippers, and other
industrial wastes. Of these disposal areas, 6 were used as landfills, 2 were areas where waste oil and
solvents were burned for firefighting exercises, and 4 were areas where solvents and other liquid
wastes were discharged. All hazardous wastes generated on the base now are disposed of off site at
EPA-regulated facilities. In 1977, a well supplying drinking water to 8,700 people on the base was
found to be contaminated and was closed. In 1984, the Air Force installed an aeration system to
remove contaminants from all water supply wells. Surface water and sediments are contaminated by
runoff from one of the landfills. An estimated 30,000 people obtain drinking water from public and
private wells that are within 3 miles of hazardous substances on the base. Shellfish are harvested
from Great Bay and Little Bay, which are within 3 miles downstream of the base. The bays also are
used for recreational activities. Because the bays and Piscataqua River are connected to the Atlantic
Ocean, tides may move any contamination into the ocean. The base abuts Great Bay, which is a
tidal estuary. Both coastal and freshwater wetlands are along surface water migration pathways
from the disposal areas.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through NPL USTING HISTORY
Federal actions.
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE). Sediments of three
drainage ditches are contaminated with heavy metals including lead and zinc. The soil is
contaminated with organic solvents and fuel oils. Surface water runoff from one landfill
is contaminated with heptachlor and lindane. People who live on the base may be
threatened by accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater, surface water, sediments,
or soil. Some disposal areas on the base are not fenced, making it possible for people and
animals to come into direct contact with hazardous substances. In addition, eating
contaminated fish or waterfowl poses a health threat. A nearby estuary and coastal
freshwater wetlands could be affected by contamination. Potential threats also exist for
the bald eagles that nest in the area.
43 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in six stages: initial actions and five long-term remedial phases focusing
on cleanup of the landfills, fire training areas; Buildings 113,119, and 222; burn areas/rubble
dumps; and any remaining areas.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Since beginning site studies, the Air Force has removed 50 drums from
the landfill area and has removed contaminated soil and installed a groundwater pre-
treatment system in the five training areas to begin reducing levels of contamination. Soil
removal also is underway at Buildings 113,119, and 122.
Landfills: The Air Force is conducting an investigation into the contamination of several
landfills at the site. The investigation, which started in 1989, will recommend alternatives
for the final cleanup.
Fire Training Areas: The Air Force also started an investigation in 1989 into the
contamination of the two fire training areas. The investigation, expected to be completed
in 1992, will define the contaminants at these areas and will recommend alternatives for
the final cleanup.
Buildings 113,119, and 222: The Air Force began conducting an investigation into
contamination from TCE and petroleum product releases at several buildings on site. The
investigation will define the contaminants at the site and will recommend alternatives for
Burn Areas/Rubble Dumps: The Air Force is studying possible contamination at
several former fire training burn areas and construction rubble dumps.
Remaining Areas: The Air Force is conducting an investigation to identify any
remaining areas of contamination at the site.
Site Facts: The EPA issued a Special Notice Letter to the Air Force in 1989 to initiate an
Interagency Agreement (IAG) negotiation among the EPA, the Air Force, and the State of New
Hampshire. In 1990, the Air Force signed an IAG with the EPA and the State outlining cleanup
responsibilities at the site. Pease Air Force Base is participating in the Installation Restoration
Program, a specially funded program by the Department of Defense (DoD). The Pease Air Force
Base closed in early 1991 and is now in the process of being transferred by the Air Force to the
State. The Air Force will continue its program to clean up the entire Base.
Environmental Progress
The removal of drums and contaminated soils is making the Pease Air Force Base safer while
investigations leading to cleanup actions are underway.
April 1991 44 PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
-------
SAVAGE MUNI
WATER SUPPL
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPAID#NHD980671002
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Hillsborough County
2 miles west of Milford
Other Names:
Milford Wall and Trailer Park
The Savage Municipal Water Supply site covers about 30 acres west of the center of Milford and
consists of a municipal well and the underlying aquifer, the water-bearing layer of rock and gravel
from which the Town of Milford gets its water. The Savage Municipal Well operated from 1960 to
1983, during which time it supplied 40% to 45% of Milford's water. The remainder of the water
came from the Keyes and Kokko Wells. During Savage's years of operation, several metal
industries opened plants near the well, along the Souhegan River. Investigations at the site began in
1983, as part of a statewide water sampling program. Sampling detected contamination, and the well
was closed. Following the closing of the well, the State began investigations to locate the source of
contaminants, which also were present in water samples taken at nearby industries. The land
surrounding the Savage Well is planted with feed corn intended for silage. A stream that receives
discharge from two industries, Hendrix Wire and Cable and Hitchner Manufacturing, flows through
the farmland prior to discharging to the Souhegan River. Hitchner Manufacturing has purchased the
well from the Town of Milford.
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
\
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including
trichloroethylene (TCE) and vinyl chloride and heavy metals, including lead, chromium,
and mercury. The soil is contaminated with VOCs. The stream on site is contaminated
with VOCs and lead. Trespassers who come in direct contact with or accidentally ingest
contaminated groundwater, surface water, or soil are potentially at risk.
45
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the EPA provided bottled water to the 75 residents of the
Milford Mobile Home Park affected by contaminated well water and then connected the
park to the municipal water supply.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination are conducting
an investigation into the nature and extent of the contamination at the site. The
investigation will define the contaminants of concern and will recommend effective
alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation is planned to be completed in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1987, the EPA and the parties potentially responsible for the contamination of the
site signed a Consent Order to conduct an investigation at the site.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate drinking water source has reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous materials at the Savage Municipal Water site while the investigation is being completed
and cleanup activities begin.
April 1991 46 SAVAGE MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
-------
SOUTH MUNICI
WATER SUPPL
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPAID#NHD980671069
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Hillsborough County
Sharon Road, 2 miles south of Peterborough
The South Municipal Water Supply Well site covers 250 acres in a rural portion of the
Contoocook River Valley. The well was installed in 1952 and provided water to the Town of
Peterborough for nearly 30 years. The well served approximately 4,600 people. In 1982, the
State conducted a routine sampling of the water supply and found contaminants in the South
Well, at which time it was shut down. The source of the contamination was thought to be the
New Hampshire Ball Bearings (NHBB) facility, located 1,200 feet west of the well, which has
manufactured precision ball bearings at the site since 1946. In 1955, the company purchased the
24 acres it now occupies. Major source areas include discharges from three drainage outfalls, an
inactive leachfield, and drainage from a tank truck used to haul waste from the facility. A brook
200 feet from the plant drains into a wetland area and Noone Pond before emptying into the
Contoocook River. Discharges to the leachfield and sump ceased in 1972 with the connection of
the town sewer line. Periodic on-site dumping of a 275-gallon tank truck containing waste
solvents ceased in the late 1970s. Floor drains in the plant were sealed in 1983. The population
of the Town of Peterborough is over 5,000. Less than 100 single-family residences are located
within a mile of NHBB, and the nearest private residence is located approximately 1,000 feet
from the facility.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
II
The groundwater, soils, and surface water are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including chloroform, benzene, and toluene. Sediments also
are contaminated with VOCs and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). People who
accidentally ingest or come in direct contact with contaminated groundwater,
surface water, soil, or sediments may be at risk. Included within the site area is
the Contoocook River/ Noone Pond system and a wetlands area that could be at
risk from contamination.
47
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on contamination at the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination and
to identify alternatives for cleanup was completed by New Hampshire Ball Bearings, and
the final decision on the method to be used to clean up the site was reached in 1989. The
methods of site cleanup selected by the EPA include: constructing a groundwater pump and
treatment system, vacuum extraction for small areas of soils contaminated with VOCs, and
excavation, with off-site disposal for sediments contaminated with PCBs. NHBB currently is
designing the cleanup remedies and is expected to complete the design in 1992.
Site Facts: The EPA and New Hampshire Ball Bearings signed a Consent Order in 1989, in which
the company agreed to conduct a study of the contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
The EPA has conducted studies of the conditions at the South Municipal Water Supply Well site and
has determined that there currently are no immediate actions needed to make the site safer while
waiting for the selected cleanup actions to begin.
April 1991 48 SOUTH MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY WELL
-------
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONALDIST. 01
SANITARY LAN
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD980520225
Site Description
The Somersworth Sanitary Landfill is located on 26acresof land approximately 1 milesouthwestof
downtown Somersworth. The City operatedadisposalsite on the property from themid-1930suntil
1981. Originally,theCitybumedresidential,cx>mmercial, and industrialwastesatthesite. In 1958,
the dumpwasconvertedtoalandfill.UnknownquantitiesofsJudges, solvents, acids, dyes, metals,
laboratory or pharmaceutical wastes, and potash weredisposed of atthissite. Fourgroundwater
monitoringwells installed as part of site closure plan activities indicated thatvolatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and inorganiccontaminants were present The landfill islocatedina
preciominantiy residential area of Somersvvorth.ForestGlade Park, which was reclaimed asa
recreational parkin 1978, sits atop the easternmost 10acresofthesite. An apartmentbuildingfor
senior citizens.afire station, andaNationalGuardArmoryabuttheproperty to theeast and an
elementary school islocated approximately 2,300feetnortheast Approximately 11,000 people live
in Somersworth. Theformer Somersworth Municipal Supply Well #3 is located approximately
2,300 feetfrom the landfill. Thiswell was closed and dismantled because of historically high levels
of iron and manganese. Previously, the well supplied approximately 10% ofthetown'stotal water
supply and was used during peak periods. Mostofthe residences in thearea obtain drinking water
from theSornersworthrrHjnfcipalsuppry system
the area. Peter's Marsh Brook, located adjacentto the western edge of the landfill, is a tributary of
Tate'sBrook, which,in turn, isatributaryoftheSalmon Falls River. Both the City of Somersworth
and theCity of Berwick, Maine, withdraw waterfrom the riverfortheirdrinkingwater supplies.
Water intakes are located approximately 11/2 milesfrom the landfill.
Site Responsibility: Thesiteisbeingaddressedthrough
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
TriegroundwaterisccMitamiViated with VCX& Sediment
and heavy metalsincludingarsenic,chromium, and lead. Theon-sitesoil is
contaminated with VOCs, polycydicaromatichydrocarDons(PAHs),andheavy metals.
Peter's Marsh BrookandTate'sBrookhave been shown to contain VOCsand heavy
metals including arsenic and mercury. Thereare no barriers restricting access to the
landfill from the park. Peter's Marsh Brookisconsideredto be the primary receptor of
groundwatercontamination. If private watersuppry wells were installed or reopened in
thisarea or near Peter's Marsh Brook, long-term exposure tocontaminated drinking
waterwould pose health risks.
49 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
Thissite is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanupof the entire
site.
Response Action Status —
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsibleforthesite contamination currently are
conducting an investigation into the natureandextentof contamination atthesite. The
investigation will define the contaminants of concern and will evaluate altemativesforthe
finalcleanup. Theinvestigationisplannedtobecompletedin 1991.
Site Facts: The EPAentered into a Consent Agreement requiringthe parties potentially
responsibleforcontaminationatthesitetoconductastudy of site contamination. The settling
partiesalsohaveagreed to pay pastStateand Federal costsforthesiteandfutureoversightcosts, as
well.
Environmental Progress
Following listing of the Somersworth Sanitary Landfill site on the NPU the EPAdeterminedthatthe
sitecontamination does not posean immediate threatto public health ortheenvironment Currently,
no actions are neededto make the site saferwhilewaitingforfinal cleanup actionsto begin.
April! 991 50 SOMERSWORTH
SANITARY LANDFILL
-------
SYLVESTER
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD099363541
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Hillsborough County
Nashua
Other Names:
Gilson Road Sit*
The 6-acre Sylvester hazardous waste dump site was used as a sand borrow pit for an
undetermined number of years. During the late 1960s, after much of the sand had been removed
from the property, the operator of the pit began an unapproved and illegal waste disposal
operation, apparently intending to fill the excavation. Household refuse, demolition materials,
chemical sludges, and hazardous liquid chemicals were dumped at the site. The household
refuse and demolition materials usually were buried, while the hazardous liquids were allowed to
percolate into the ground adjacent to the old sand pit or were stored in steel drums that were
placed on the ground. The illegal solid waste activity at the site first was discovered in late 1970.
The first indication that hazardous wastes also were being dumped occurred in 1978, when State
personnel observed drums being stored at the site. A court order was issued in 1979 prohibiting
all further disposal of hazardous wastes on the site. The site is in a residential area, with
approximately 1,000 people living in an adjoining mobile home park, and there are five private
water wells within 1/4 mile of the site. The site is about 680 feet from Lyle Reed Brook, which
flows through the trailer park and enters the Nashua River, a source of drinking water. The
Merrimack River is 11 miles downstream and also is a source of drinking water.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
z\
Approximately 900,000 gallons of hazardous wastes were discharged to leachfields
on site in 1979, contaminating hundreds of thousands of gallons of groundwater. The
groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Lyle Reed Brook also is contaminated with VOCs and metals. The main
health threat associated with the site is drinking or direct contact with contaminants in
the groundwater and surface water. Groundwater currently is not used, since all
residents are connected to a separate municipal supply. Contaminants may leach into
the bedrock aquifer; however, capping the site has greatly reduced the likelihood of
continued contamination of the surface water.
51
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases to
cap the site and to extract and treat the groundwater.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1979, the State removed 1,000 drums from the site. In early
1980, the EPA constructed a fence around the dumping area and removed 1,314 accessible
surface drums. The groundwater contaminant plume movement was monitored and an
access road was built. Between 1981 and 1982, the EPA installed a groundwater interception and
recirculation system to temporarily pump and recirculate the contaminated groundwater to prevent it
from reaching Lyle Brook and from further contaminating the aquifer.
Capping: The State constructed a slurry wall surrounding a 20-acre area and built an
impervious membrane cap to prevent any further contamination of on-site groundwater.
Groundwater Treatment: A 300-gallon-per-minute groundwater treatment facility
was constructed to remove toxic substances in the groundwater. The treatment process
consists of a combination of physical, chemical, and biological treatments. The process
involves pumping the groundwater from within the slurry wall containment area and then exposing it
to air to remove contaminants. Based on a review of the effectiveness of the treatment by the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, the EPA, in 1990, called for a continuation of
groundwater treatment until 1994, and also ordered that new extraction wells be installed, and that
the recharge trenches be repaired.
Site Facts: Several Consent Decrees were entered into by the EPA, the State, and numerous
potentially responsible parties to provide for reimbursement of past costs and the undertaking of
cleanup designs and actions.
Environmental Progress
The removal, fencing, capping, and groundwater containment activities described above have
reduced the risk of exposure to hazardous materials at the Sylvester site. The threat of direct contact
with contaminants in soil has been eliminated. Cleanup actions at the Sylvester site have reduced
contamination levels, and additional cleanup is underway.
April 1991 52 SYLVESTER
-------
TIRRPTQ ROAn A r\ EPA REGION 1
I IBDC I O riUMU / CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
NEW HAMPSHIRE ( strand county
VWiiik J 1 Barrmgton
EPA ID# NHD989090469
Site Description
The Tibbets Road site occupies approximately 2 acres. The site was used for storing drums
collected from 1944 to 1958. Many of the drums were leaking and rusted and contained
thinners, solvents, antifreeze, kerosene, motor and transmission oil, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), grease, and brake fluid. The EPA removed all the deteriorating drums in 1984.
Approximately 2,100 people living within 3 miles of the site depend on groundwater for drinking
water. The New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission found drinking
water wells serving approximately 20 people to be contaminated. The site is situated in a
residential area upgradient from a lake used for recreational purposes.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through NPL USTING HISTORY
Federal and State actions.
Proposed Date: 04/10/85
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
/ V
The groundwater and soils are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including benzene, trichloroethylene (TCE), toluene, and xylenes,
according to tests conducted by the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission. People who accidentally ingest or come in direct contact
with contaminated groundwater or soil are at potential risk.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase to
investigate the extent of soil and groundwater contamination and cleanup alternatives.
53 ApriM991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1984, the EPA removed approximately 350 deteriorated
and leaking drums stored within 50 yards of private residences and disposed of them at
an approved disposal site. Residents were temporarily relocated while the drums were
being removed. During the summer of 1985, the EPA and the State conducted an investigation
to determine whether any additional materials needed to be removed from the site. Low levels of
dioxin were detected in the soil and VOCs were found in the drinking water. The EPA and the
State began a joint soil removal effort. Between 1985 and the summer of 1988, PCB- and
dioxin-contaminated soil was incinerated, and the solvent-contaminated soil was excavated and
disposed of by the State. A water supply system was constructed to provide drinking water to
the 45 homes with contaminated wells.
Soil and Groundwater: An investigation currently is being conducted by the EPA
to determine the extent of soil and groundwater contamination remaining at the site
and alternative technologies for cleanup. This investigation is scheduled to be
completed in late 1991.
Environmental Progress
The removal of the drums and soil from the Tibbets Road site and the provision of a new water
supply have reduced the potential for exposure to contamination. These actions have helped to
protect the public health and the environment while the site awaits further cleanup action.
April 1991 54 TIBBETS ROAD
-------
TINKHAM GARA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA ID# NHD062004569
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Rockingham County
Londonderry
The Tinkham Garage site covers about 375 acres in Londonderry. During 1978 and 1979, oil,
oily wastes, washings from septic tank trucks, and other substances were discharged at the site.
In 1978, residents complained of foam and odors in a small unnamed brook, which then
prompted an investigation revealing that improper waste disposal had occurred. The State
ordered the site owner to prevent further degradation of surface water and groundwater. In early
1983, wells of the Londonderry Green Apartment complex and several other private wells were
closed due to contamination, and residents were provided with municipal water. The open and
wooded land that comprises the majority of the site is bordered by residential and agricultural
land. Approximately 400 people reside within a condominium complex on the western boundary
of the site. Additional residences include private, one-family homes within site boundaries to the
north.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
IT
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were identified in the surface water and
groundwater on site and in areas adjacent to the site. The soils located in the field
behind Tinkham Garage and in some condominium complex leachfields also have
been shown to contain VOC contamination. A potential threat to residential wells
adjacent to the site may exist if the contaminated groundwater continues to be
used as a water source. The contaminated area in the field behind the garage
poses a threat if people accidentally ingest or come in direct contact with the soils,
surface water, or groundwater.
55
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase to
conduct a study of cleanup alternatives.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The State issued a health order in early 1983, advising residents not
to drink well water. Bottled water was provided, and a municipal water supply line
was installed and operational by the fall of 1983.
Entire Site: In 1987, the EPA entered into an agreement with 23 of the parties
potentially responsible for the site contamination to conduct a study before the cleanup
technologies were designed. The following three areas of contamination were
identified as needing attention: the soil in the garage area; the groundwater in the general area of
the garage and the condominium complex; and a soil pile that contains soil removed during
earlier excavations of leachfield soils. The remedies selected include: (1) excavation of
approximately 10,800 cubic yards of contaminated soils behind Tinkham Garage; (2) field work
and analytical modeling to determine the need for removal of additional potentially contaminated
soils in the condominium complex; (3) on-site treatment of contaminated soils by vacuum
extraction; (4) regrading and revegetation of excavated source areas after treated soils have been
returned to their original locations; (5) reconstruction of any removed leachfields; (6) restoration
of wetlands where contaminated soils are excavated; (7) extraction and off-site treatment of
contaminated groundwater at the Town of Derry's wastewater treatment works, which may
require off-site pretreatment; and (8) groundwater monitoring on and off site. Activities to plan
the cleanup approach are underway. The cleanup is expected to begin in 1991 and is scheduled
for completion in 1993.
Site Facts: The potentially responsible parties, under a Consent Decree, have agreed to
undertake the cleanup design and activities at the site. This site is closely associated with the
Sylvester's, Plymouth Harbor, and Cannon Engineering NPL sites.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate drinking water source has reduced the potential for exposure to
contamination at the Tinkham Garage site, and has protected the public health while it awaits
planned cleanup activities.
April 1991 56 TINKHAM GARAGE
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
57
-------
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.
59
-------
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 Bisulfide: 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
60
-------
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.
61
-------
GLOSSARY.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental
effects.
Contingency Plan: A document setting out
an organized, planned, and coordinated course
of action to be followed in case of a fire,
explosion, or other accident that releases toxic
chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioactive
materials into the environment
Cooperative Agreement: A contract be-
tween the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site
cleanup responsibilities and other activities on
a cost-sharing basis.
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].
Cover: Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserv-
ing operations and produced by distillation of
tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
[see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating
sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes
may cause skin ulcerations and cancer
through prolonged exposure.
Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an
embankment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a
chemical is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to settle with
small, or de minimis contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort.
Dewater: To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land farming, deep well
injection, or incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgra-
dient of a contaminated groundwater source
are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas of commercial or industrial
facilities.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
62
-------
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 parry's qualifications
63
-------
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,
64
-------
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 die 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
65
-------
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-Trinitrotbluene (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.
66
-------
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.
67
-------
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
68
-------
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
69
-------
GLOSSARY.
or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction: A treatment process
that uses vacuum wells to remove hazardous
gases from soil.
Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to
remove undesirable materials. There are two
approaches: dissolving or suspending them in
the wash solution for later treatment by
conventional methods, and concentrating
them into a smaller volume of soil through
simple particle size separation techniques [see
Solvent Extraction].
Stabilization: The process of changing an
active substance into inert, harmless material,
or physical activities at a site that act to limit
the further spread of contamination without
actual reduction of toxicity.
Solidification/Stabilization: A chemical or
physical reduction of the mobility of hazard-
ous constituents. Mobility is reduced through
the binding of hazardous constituents into a
solid mass with low permeability and resis-
tance to leaching.
Solvent: A substance capable of dissolving
another substance to form a solution. The
primary uses of industrial solvents are as
cleaners for degreasing, in paints, and in
Pharmaceuticals. Many solvents are flam-
mable and toxic to varying degrees.
Solvent Extraction: A means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges,
and sediment, thereby reducing the volume of
the hazardous waste that must be treated. It
generally is used as one in a series of unit
operations. An organic chemical is used to
dissolve contaminants as opposed to water-
based compounds, which usually are used in
soil washing.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or at-
tracting substances. It is used in many pollu-
tion control systems.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air
Stripping].
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.
Superfund: The program operated under the
legislative authority of the CERCLA and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) to update and improve environ-
mental laws. The program has the authority
to respond directly to releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare, or the envi-
ronment. The "Superfund" is a trust fund that
finances cleanup actions at hazardous waste
sites.
Surge Tanks: A holding structure used to
absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, includ-
ing liquid waste materials.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated
by woody vegetation and does not accumulate
peat moss deposits. Swamps may be fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wet-
lands].
Thermal Treatment: The use of heat to
remove or destroy contaminants from soil.
Treatability Studies: Testing a treatment
method on contaminated groundwater, soil,
etc., to determine whether and how well the
method will work.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, color-
less liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as
70
-------
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.
71
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in New Hampshire
73
-------
0)
I*! I
o. cr1 5S *•
a a 2 S
•a
-------
'tl =
ill
a
s
•= 1-888-5
f I1111
I
r
00 2
in 2J
-------
CO
S'S'I
JB « «
O
'i
JT
a i
- &
II
in
(0
£ 11 i
c &S "§
—i 05 5 S
z
*
75
* U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893:60636
------- |