United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/053
September 1991
PB92-963230
&EPA National
Priorities
List Sites:
RHODE
SLAND
1 U 3 1
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-739A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Rhode Island
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (P'-1?'}
17 West Jackson Bouieva.d, ma floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA22161
(703) 487-4650
The National Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large (1991),
may be ordered as PB92-963253.
The complete set of the overview documents, plus the 49 state reports may be ordered
as PB92-963253.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction:
A Brief Overview 1
Super fund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the State of Rhode Island 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 47
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 63
-------
INTRODUCTION
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a close, a series of
headline stories gave Americans a
look at the dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the land. First there
was New York's Love Canal. Hazardous
waste buried there over a 25-year period
contaminated streams and soil, and endangered
the health of nearby residents. The result:
evacuation of several hundred people. Then
the leaking barrels at the Valley of the Drums
in Kentucky attracted public attention, as did
the dioxin-tainted land and water in Times
Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human health and the envi-
ronment were threatened, lives were disrupted,
and property values were reduced. It became
increasingly clear that there were large num-
bers of serious hazardous waste problems that
were falling through the cracks of existing
environmental laws. The magnitude of these
emerging problems moved Congress to enact
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly known as Superfund
was the first Federal law established to deal
with the dangers posed by the Nation's hazard-
ous waste sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the problem until the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began the process of site discovery and site
evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste sites existed, and
they presented the Nation with some of the
most complex pollution problems it had ever
faced.
Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
A
Brief
Overview
ous waste has surfaced as a major environ-
mental concern in every part of the United
States. It wasn't just the land that was con-
taminated by past disposal practices. Chemi-
cals in the soil were spreading into the ground-
water (a source of drinking water for many)
and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
sites, while improperly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
community and the environment at others.
The EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites
The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
sites as the most serious in the Nation. These
sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
mates that, while some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list, commonly called
the NPL, will continue to grow by approxi-
mately 50 to 100 sites per year, potentially
reaching 2,100 sites by the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL CLEANUP
EFFORT IS MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the program, Congress
recognized that the Federal government could
-------
INTRODUCTION
not and should not address all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target.
Sites on the NPL (1,245) thus are a relatively
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and compelling cases. The
EPA has logged more than 35,000 sites on its
national inventory of potentially hazardous
waste sites and assesses each site within one
year of being logged.
THE EPA IS MAKING PROGRESS
ON SITE CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund program is to tackle
immediate dangers first and then move through
the progressive steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public health and the
environment.
Superfund responds immediately to sites
posing imminent threats to human health and
the environment at both NPL sites and sites not
on the NPL. The purpose is to stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a release of
hazardous substances, or the threat of one, into
the environment. These might include tire
fires or transportation accidents involving the
spill of hazardous chemicals. Because they
reduce the threat a site poses to human health
and the environment, immediate cleanup
actions are an integral part of the Superfund
program.
Immediate response to imminent threats is one
of Superfund's most noted achievements.
Where imminent threats to the public or
environment were evident, the EPA has initi-
ated or completed emergency actions that
attacked the most serious threats of toxic
exposure in more than 2,700 cases.
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent solution to an environ-
mental problem that presents a serious threat
to the public or the environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. The EPA has
aggressively accelerated its efforts to perform
these long-term cleanups of NPL sites. More
cleanups were started in 1987, when the
Superfund law was amended, than in any
previous year. By 1991, construction had
started at more than four times as many sites as
in 1986! Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half have had
construction cleanup activity. In addition,
more than 400 more sites presently are in the
investigation stage to determine the extent of
site contamination and to identify appropriate
cleanup remedies. Many other sites with
cleanup remedies selected are poised for the
start of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through the
cleanup pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining
momentum.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup construction to understand that envi-
ronmental protection does not end when the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies like those designed to clean up ground-
water must operate for many years in order
to accomplish their objectives.
The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed. No matter
who has been delegated responsibility for
monitoring the cleanup work, the EPA will
assure that the remedy is carefully followed
and that it continues to do its job.
Likewise, the EPA does not abandon a site
even after the cleanup work is done. Every
five years, the Agency reviews each site where
residues from hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public and environmental
-------
INTRODUCTION
health are being safeguarded. The EPA will
correct any deficiencies discovered and will
report to the public annually on all five-year
reviews conducted that year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also depend upon local
citizen participation. The EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and to deploy the experts,
but the Agency needs citizen input as it makes
choices for affected communities.
Because the people in a community where a
Superfund site is located will be those most
directly affected by hazardous waste problems
and cleanup processes, the EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in cleanup decisions.
Public involvement and comment does influ-
ence EPA cleanup plans by providing valuable
information about site conditions, community
concerns, and preferences.
The State and U.S. Territories volumes and the
companion National overview volume provide
general Superfund background information
and descriptions of activities at each NPL site.
These volumes clearly describe what the
problems are, what the EPA and others partici-
pating in site cleanups are doing, and how we,
as a Nation, can move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES TOGETHER
To understand the big picture on hazardous
waste cleanup, citizens need to hear about both
environmental progress across the country and
the cleanup accomplishments closer to home.
Citizens also should understand the challenges
involved in hazardous waste cleanup and the
decisions we must make, as a Nation, in
finding the best solutions.
The National overview, Superfund: Focusing
on the Nation at Large (1991), contains impor-
tant information to help you understand the
magnitude and challenges facing the
Superfund program, as well as an overview of
the National cleanup effort. The sections
describe the nature of the hazardous waste
problem nationwide, threats and contaminants
at NPL sites and their potential effects on
human health and the environment, vital roles
of the various participants in the cleanup
process, the Superfund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's serious hazardous
waste sites, and the current status of the NPL.
If you did not receive this overview volume,
ordering information is provided in the front of
this book.
This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
up under the Superfund program. These sites
represent the most serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation and require the most
complicated and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each book gives a "snapshot" of
the conditions and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site. Information
presented for each site is current as of April
1991. Conditions change as our cleanup
efforts continue, so these site summaries will
be updated annually to include information on
new progress being made.
To help you understand the cleanup accom-
plishments made at these sites, this volume
includes a description of the process for site
discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
cleanup of Superfund sites. This description,
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up
Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
which to review the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.
-------
SUPERFUND
The diverse problems posed by hazard-
ous waste sites have provided the EPA
with the challenge to establish a consis-
tent approach for evaluating and cleaning up
the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, the
EPA has had to step beyond its traditional role
as a regulatory agency to develop processes
and guidelines for each step in these techni-
cally complex site cleanups. The EPA has
established procedures to coordinate the
efforts of its Washington, D.C. Headquarters
program offices and its front-line staff in ten
Regional Offices, with the State and local
governments, contractors, and private parties
who are participating in site cleanup. An
important part of the process is that any time
How Does the
Program Work
to Clean Up
Sites?
THREE-STEP SUPERFUND PROCESS
STEP1
Discover site and
determine whether
an emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
environment
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
-------
SUPERFVND
a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose
of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called & feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered effective. Often, special pilot studies are
conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to
clean up a site. Therefore, the combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study can
take between 10 and 30 months to complete,
depending on the size and complexity of the
problem.
Does the public have a say in the
final cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made.
The results of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, which also point out the
recommended cleanup choice, are published in
a report for public review and comment. The
EPA or the State encourages the public to
review the information and take an active role
in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets and
announcements in local papers let the commu-
nity know where they can get copies of the
study and other reference documents concern-
ing the site. Local information repositories,
such as libraries or other public buildings, are
established in cities and towns near each NPL
site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
to review all relevant information and the
proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
tion repositories for each NPL site described in
this volume are given in Appendix B.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
is published. These comments can be written
or given verbally at public meetings that the
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
ing written answers to specific community
comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
summary" is part of the EPA's write-up of the
final remedy decision, called the Record of
Decision, or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains
the cleanup remedy chosen and the reason it
-------
SUPERFUND
was selected. Since sites frequently are large
and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD may
be necessary for each contaminated resource or
area of the site. This may be necessary when
contaminants have spread into the soil, water,
and air and affect such sensitive areas as
wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned
up in stages. This often means that a number
of remedies, using different cleanup technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.
If every cleanup action needs to be
tailored to a site, does the design
ofthe remedy need to be tailored,
too?
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried
out, it must be designed in detail to meet
specific site needs. This stage of the cleanup is
called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected rem-
edy will be engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may
appear to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to two years to
complete. This blueprint for site cleanup
includes not only the details on every aspect of
the construction work, but a description of the
types of hazardous wastes expected at the site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
how long does it take to actually
clean up the site, and how much
does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site
cleanup, called the remedial action, are as
varied as the remedies themselves. In a few
cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or
dredging contaminated river bottoms can take
several years of complex engineering work
before contamination is reduced to safe levels.
Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site .
Once the cleanup action is
completed, is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected
10
-------
SUPERFUND
remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
until public comments are taken into consid-
eration that a site actually can be deleted from
the NPL. All sites deleted from the NPL and
sites with completed construction are included
in the progress report found later in this book.
Can a site be taken off the NPL if
no cleanup has taken place?
Yes. But only if further site investigation
reveals that there are no threats present at the
site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
sary. In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
action" remedy and may move to delete the
site when monitoring confirms that the site
does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
the NPL if new information concerning site
cleanup or threats show that the site does not
warrant Superfund activities.
A site may be removed if a revised HRS
scoring, based on updated information, results
in a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
A site also may be removed from the NPL by
transferring it to other appropriate Federal
cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
cleanup actions.
Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
serves Superfund monies for the Nation's most
pressing hazardous waste problems where no
other cleanup authority is applicable.
Can the EPA make parties
responsible for the contamination
pay?
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters
should pay," after a site is placed on the NPL,
the EPA makes a thorough effort to identify
and find those responsible for causing con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
EPA is willing to negotiate with these private
parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it
has the authority under the Superfund law to
legally force those potentially responsible for
site hazards to take specific cleanup actions.
All work performed by these parties is closely
guided and monitored by the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for actions
financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the EPA may decide to use Superfund
monies to make sure a site is cleaned up
without unnecessary delay. For example, if a
site presents an imminent threat to public
health and the environment or if conditions at a
site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for
causing site contamination are liable under the
law (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.
11
-------
THE VOLUME
The site fact sheets presented in this
book are comprehensive summaries
that cover a broad range of information.
The fact sheets describe hazardous
waste sites on the NPL and their locations, as
well as the conditions leading to their listing
("Site Description"). The summaries list the
types of contaminants that have been discov-
ered and related threats to public and ecologi-
cal health ("Threats and Contaminants").
"Cleanup Approach" presents an overview of
the cleanup activities completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets conclude with a brief
synopsis of how much progress has been made
in protecting public health and the environ-
ment. The summaries also pinpoint other
actions, such as legal efforts to involve pollut-
ers responsible for site contamination and
community concerns.
The fact sheets are arranged in alphabetical
order by site name. Because site cleanup is a
dynamic and gradual process, all site informa-
tion is accurate as of the date shown on the
bottom of each page. Progress always is being
made at NPL sites, and the EPA periodically
will update the site fact sheets to reflect recent
actions and will publish updated State vol-
umes. The following two pages show a ge-
neric fact sheet and briefly describe the infor-
mation under each section.
HOW CAN YOU USE THIS STATE
BOOK?
You can use this book to keep informed about
the sites that concern you, particularly ones
close to home. The EPA is committed to
involving the public in the decision making
process associated with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Agency solicits input from area
residents in communities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely to be affected
not only by hazardous site conditions, but also
by the remedies that combat them. Site clean-
How to Use
the State
Book
ups take many forms and can affect communi-
ties in different ways. Local traffic may be
rerouted, residents may be relocated, tempo-
rary water supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a site can help
citizens sift through alternatives and make
decisions. To make good choices, you must
know what the threats are and how the EPA
intends to clean up the site. You must under-
stand the cleanup alternatives being proposed
for site cleanup and how residents may be
affected by each one. You also need to have
some idea of how your community intends to
use the site in the future, and you need to
know what the community can realistically
expect once the cleanup is complete.
The EPA wants to develop cleanup methods
that meet community needs, but the Agency
only can take local concerns into account if it
understands what they are. Information must
travel both ways in order for cleanups to be
effective and satisfactory. Please take this
opportunity to learn more, become involved,
and assure that hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your community's
concerns.
13
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Dates when the site was
Proposed, made Final, and
Deleted from the NPL.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOO
""Sttetoscriptlon
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Namn:
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially respon-
sible parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
Site Responsibility:
NPL Listing History
Proposed: TouanaL
Flnt nnm
treats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts:,
Environmental Progress
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to
nearby residents and the surrounding environment;
progress towards cleaning up the site and goals of
the cleanup plan are given here.
14
-------
THE VOLUME
SITE DESCRIPTION
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes descrip-
tions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have con-
tributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
THREATS AND CONTAMINANTS
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted, as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil, and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding environ-
ments arising from the site contamination also are described.
CLEANUP APPROACH
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
RESPONSE ACTION STATUS
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean
up the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided
into separate phases, depending on the complexity and required actions at the
site. Two major types of cleanup activities often are described: initial,
immediate, or emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent
threats to the community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial
phases directed at final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy
is presented in this section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of
the cleanup process (initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the
cleanup remedy, engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway, and
completed cleanup) are located in the margin next to each activity descrip-
tion.
SITE FACTS
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by the EPA to
achieve site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with
the site cleanup process are reported here.
15
-------
THE VOLUME
The "icons," or symbols, accompanying the text allow the reader to see at a glance which envi-
ronmental resources are affected and the status of cleanup activities at the site.
Icons in the Threats and
Contaminants Section
Contaminated Groundwater resources
in the Contaminated Groundwater in
the vicinity or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used as a
drinking water source.)
Contaminated Surface Water and
Sediments on or near the site. (These
include lakes, ponds, streams, and
rivers.)
Contaminated Air in the vicinity of
the site. (Air pollution usually is
periodic and involves contaminated
dust particles or hazardous gas emis-
sions.)
Contaminated Soil and Sludges on or
near the site. (This contamination
category may include bulk or other
surface hazardous wastes found on the
site.)
Threatened or contaminated Environ-
mentally Sensitive Areas in the vicin-
ity of the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas or critical
habitats.)
Icons in the Response Action
Status Section
Initial Actions have been taken or are
underway to eliminate immediate
threats at the site.
Site Studies at the site to determine the
nature and extent of contamination are
planned or underway.
Remedy Selected indicates that site
investigations have been concluded,
and the EPA has selected a final
cleanup remedy for the site or part of
the site.
Remedy Design means that engineers
are preparing specifications and
drawings for the selected cleanup
technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing indicates that the
selected cleanup remedies for the
contaminated site, or part of the site,
currently are underway.
Cleanup Complete shows that all
cleanup goals have been achieved for
the contaminated site or part of the
site.
Environmental Progress summa-
rizes the activities taken to date to
protect human health and to clean
up site contamination.
16
-------
NPL SITES
The State of
Rhode Island
The State of Rhode Island is the smallest state in the United States, covering 1,212 square miles.
Located in EPA's northeastern Region 1, which includes six states in the northeastern United
States, Rhode Island's topography changes from the eastern lowlands of the Narrangansett Basin
to the western uplands of flat and rolling hills. According to the 1990 Census, the state experi-
enced a 6% increase in population between 1980 and 1990. Rhode Island has approximately
1,007,000 residents and currently ranks 43rd in U.S. populations. Rhode Island's principal
industries are service industries and the manufacture of costume jewelry, machinery, textiles,
electronics, and silverware.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Rhode Island?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
11
Jl
11
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional District 1 6 sites
Congressional District 2 5 sites
What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
in the State of Rhode Island?
# of sites
4
3
2
1
1
type of sites
Municipal & Industrial Landfills
Disposal Facilities
Federal Facilities
Chemical & Allied Products
Textile Mill Products
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
10--
8 -
M
2 --
I
GW SW Soil Sed Air
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), and gases.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
heavy metals (inorganics), polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs), and creosotes
(organics).
Soil: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), heavy metals (inorganics),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
creosotes (organics).
Air: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), pesticides, and gases.
'Appear at 25% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?1
4
Sites
with I
StudiM
Underway
1
Sit*
with
RmMdy
Selected
1
Site
with
Remedy
Design
3
Sites
with
Cleanup
Ongoing
Sites
with
Construction
Complete
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 6 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April! 991
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
April 1991
-------
u
c
o
CC
*o
0>
CO
0)
in
0)
4-»
c/5
Q.
z
C
(U
_0)
o
o
<5
I
(/>
u)
0)
O)
o
.2 *
II
O O
u
a at
i! ftftftft
w
«g
U
ftft
a° ss. g ^
3 T3 "3 -3
.5 .S .S .S
U-tt.tI.tU
i lii
ft o ft
ft ft ftft
ft ftft ftft
ftftftft
5 ^
S S
S S S S 2 8 8
3 -a -3-3-3
It I i§ i§
IB
o.
a a
April 1991
20
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
EPA REGION 1
Summary
of Site
Activities
21
April 1991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Rhode Island, 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
Rhode Island Superfund Office
(617) 565-3425
(617) 573-9645
(800) 424-9346
(202) 260-2080
(401) 277-2797
April 1991
22
-------
CENTRAL LAIN
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID* RID980520183
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Providence County
Johnston
Other Names:
Rhode bland Central Landfill
Silveatri Bros. Landfill
Johnston Site
Site Description
The Central Landfill site covers approximately 155 acres of a 600-acre tract in Johnston. Licensed
by Rhode Island and supported by State funds, this active municipal landfill receives approximately
85% of Rhode Island's solid waste. State records indicate that 1 1/2 million gallons of hazardous
wastes generated within the State were disposed of at the site in 1978 and 1979. In 1982, the owner
complied with a State order to close the areas that had received hazardous wastes. These areas have
been excavated, backfilled, and capped to prevent further contamination of the groundwater and
surface water and revegetated as part of the closure plan. Approximately 4,000 people live within 3
miles of the site. The nearest home is 1/2 mile away. Nearby private wells downgradient from the
site are contaminated with solvents. The bedrock aquifer may be contaminated, and the adjacent
wetlands also may be affected. Cedar Swamp Brook, used for recreational boating, flows southeast
along the southwest perimeter of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Dale: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and surface water are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), including toluene and methylene chloride from disposal of
solvents. People who come in direct contact with or drink water from nearby wells
are under potential health risk, because the groundwater is reported to contain
elevated lead levels. Cedar Swamp Brook and adjacent wetlands also may contain
contamination.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
23
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, the owner began a study to determine the extent and nature of
groundwater, soil, and sediment contamination on the site and to evaluate alternatives for
cleanup. Groundwater monitoring and sampling wells have been completed. The EPA
expects to evaluate study findings and select a cleanup remedy in 1992. At that point, the EPA will
outline the owner's responsibilities for cleaning up the site.
Site Facts: The owner of the landfill entered into a Consent Order with the EPA, signed in 1987, to
conduct a study of the contamination conditions at the site.
Environmental Progress
Following the listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA has determined that the public and
environment are not at immediate risk from site contamination. The site is safe while studies at the
Central Landfill are being conducted and the final cleanup alternatives are being addressed.
April 1991
24
CENTRAL LANDFILL
-------
DAVIS (GSR)
LANDFILL
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID# RID980731459
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Providence County
Glocester/Smithfield
Site Description
The Davis (GSR) Landfill is a 58-acre inactive landfill located in Glocester and is opposite the Davis
Liquid Waste Site in Smithfield, which was placed on the NPL in 1983. Between 1974 and 1976,
the landfill, which was privately owned and licensed by the State to accept municipal wastes,
accepted such wastes from Glocester, Smithfield, Warwick, and Providence. In 1978, the State
declined to renew the permit because the facility, during the previous year, had violated numerous
rules and regulations for operating solid waste management facilities. Numerous legal actions to
close the site ensued, and the State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State in 1982, at which time
the site was closed, but it was not properly capped or stabilized. The State found both surface water
and groundwater contamination on site, and the EPA confirmed off-site contamination. No
municipal water supplies are readily available. Fifteen people live within 1,000 feet of the site.
Approximately 200 residents who utilize private water wells live within a 1-mile radius, and within a
3-mile radius there are approximately 4,700 people using private wells. The State believes that
contaminated groundwater is moving toward Waterman Reservoir, which is used for recreation and
drinking water.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/01/85
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, and sediments are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), such as toluene and benzene and heavy metals including lead.
Access to the site is limited only by a locked gate on the access road. Direct contact with
or accidental ingestion of contaminated surface water, sediment, or groundwater threaten
the health of people, as does inhaling airborne contaminants.
25
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1990, the EPA began an investigation into the nature and extent of
contamination at the site, the results of which will led to the identification of cleanup
alternatives. Study completion is planned for 1992, at which time the EPA will select a
final cleanup remedy.
Environmental Progress
In 1990, the EPA conducted tests of the site conditions and determined that the Davis Landfill poses
no immediate threat to the public or the environment while the investigation leading to final cleanup
activities is taking place.
April 1991
26
DAVIS (GSR) LANDFILL
-------
DAVIS LIQUID
WASTE
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID# RID980523070
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Providence County
Smithfield
The Davis Liquid Waste site is a disposal facility for hazardous wastes that covers approximately 10
acres and is located in a rural section of Smithfield. Throughout the 1970s, the site accepted liquid
and chemical wastes such as paint and metal sludges, oily wastes, solvents, acids, caustics,
pesticides, phenols, halogens, metals, fly ash, and laboratory pharmaceuticals. Liquid wastes were
transported in drums and bulk tank trucks and were dumped directly into unlined lagoons and
seepage pits. The operator periodically excavated the semi-solid lagoon materials, dumped them at
several locations on the site, and covered them with soil. Other operations included the collection of
junked vehicles and machine parts, metal recycling, and tire shredding. These activities resulted in
soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater contamination, both on and off the site. In 1978,
discovery of off-site well contamination prompted the State Superior Court to prohibit further
dumping of hazardous substances on the Davis property. The owner still is using sections of the
disposal area and adjacent property (20 acres) as a staging and storage area for 10 to IS million tires.
The area is residential; the nearest homes are within 1,500 feet of the site. There are 240 people
living within 1 mile and 4,700 people within 3 miles of the site; the nearest well is 300 feet away.
The property is bordered on the north and south by wetlands and swamp areas.
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
IT
Groundwater contamination consists of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy
metals including arsenic and lead from the lagoons and seepage pit areas. The soil,
lagoon sediments, and surface water also are contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals.
Residential wells to the north and northeast of the site are contaminated with VOCs.
People could be exposed to contaminants by ingesting or using contaminated
groundwater, coming in direct contact with contaminated soils on site, or by inhaling
chemicals that evaporate from the soil or surface water. Because the bordering wetlands
have been filled with tires and waste material, water elevations have increased, resulting
in a large area of stressed wetland vegetation.
27
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on provision of a new water supply line and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1985 to 1986, the EPA sampled, packed, and staged approximately
600 intact and crushed drums and shipped them off site for approved disposal. At the
same time, bottled water for drinking and cooking was supplied by the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management to residences with contaminated wells. This temporary
action provided a safe water supply while a permanent remedy was being investigated.
Water Supply Line: Residents with contaminated wells are being provided a permanent
source of clean water. This water distribution system will serve 120 lots along Forge
Road, Log Road, Burlingame Road, and Bayberry Road. The new system includes
construction of a 300,000-gallon water storage tank, a water main, pumping stations, and
connections to existing residences. For undeveloped lots, the EPA will bring a service connection
up to the property line so that future connection may take place at the owner's expense. Installation
is expected to be completed in 1993.
Entire Site: The EPA has obtained a court order for access to the site to clean it up.
Features of the remedy include: (1) excavation of 25,000 cubic yards of raw waste and
contaminated soils for on-site incineration; (2) testing of treated soilclean soil will be
used as backfill and the rest will be placed in an EPA-approved landfill on the site; and (3) on-site
groundwater treatment using air stripping followed by carbon filtering to remove the contaminants
from the air, with cleaned water being recirculated into the aquifer. The remedy selected in 1987 for
cleaning up the site now is being designed by an environmental engineering design firm under U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers oversight and EPA monitoring. Design activities are expected to be
completed in 1993.
Site Facts: Discovery of off-site well contamination in 1978 resulted in the State Superior Court
banning dumping on the site. The EPA obtained a Court Oder to gain temporary access to the site.
The Department of Justice is preparing a motion for a "conditional" site access to be entered in the
Rhode Island Federal Court. The site owner has resisted attempts by Federal officials to investigate
the site for cleanup and has continued to conduct business operations within 100 feet of the
hazardous dumping site.
Environmental Progress
The initial cleanup actions at the Davis Liquid Waste site to remove drums and provide an
alternative water supply have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances in the
drinking water and on the site while it awaits the completion of planned cleanup activities.
April 1991 28 DAVIS LIQUID WASTE
-------
DAVISVILLE NAVAL
CONSTRUCTION
BATTALION CE
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID# RI6170022036
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Washington County
N. Kingstown, 18 miles south of Providence
Other Names:
Camp Fogarty
Calf Pasture Point Landfill
NCBC Davisville
Allan Harbor Estuary
DOD/NCBC/Allans Harbor Landfill
Covering approximately 1,500 acres, the Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center
(NCBC) is 18 miles south of Providence in North Kingstown. A military installation since 1951,
its primary mission is to provide mobilization support to Naval construction forces. Much of the
NCBC-Davisville site is contiguous with Narragansett Bay and consists of three areas, including
the Main Center, the West Davisville storage area, and Camp Fogarty, a training facility 4 miles
west of the Main Center in the town of East Greenwich. Adjoining NCBC's South Boundary is
the decommissioned Naval Air Station Quonset Point, which was given to the Rhode Island Port
Authority in 1973. The Navy disposed of wastes in all four areas. The Navy has identified at
least 24 areas with potential hazardous contamination, but the Department no longer owns
several of them. These areas are being investigated by the Army Corps of Engineers; chief
among them is the Camp Avenue Landfill at the decommissioned Naval Air Station. The Navy's
current studies focus on ten areas: the Allen Harbor Landfill (the largest of the areas) received
solvents, paint thinners, degreasers, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from transformers,
sewage sludge, and contaminated fuel oil from 1946 to 1972; the Calf Pasture Landfill, which
received "decontamination agents" and various other contaminants; the Construction Equipment
Department (CED) Battery Acid Disposal Area; the CED Solvent Disposal Area; the
Transformer Oil Disposal Area (near Building 37); the Solvent Disposal Area; the Defense
Property Disposal Office (DPDO) Film Processing Disposal Area; the Camp Fogarty Disposal
Area; the Fire Fighting Training Area; and the Disposal Areas Northwest of Buildings W-3, W-4
and T-l. About twenty 5-gallon cans of calcium hypochlorite were disposed of in a drainage
ditch on the site between 1960 and 1971. In 1973, thirty to forty 35-gallon cardboard containers
of chloride were stored at the site and deteriorated over time. From 1968 to 1974, about 2,500
3-gallon cans also were disposed of. From 1968 to 1974, the Transformer Oil Disposal Area
received 30 gallons of PCB-containing oil, which was drained from transformers and poured on
the ground east of Building 37. The surrounding area is single-family residential.
Approximately 27,000 people get their drinking water from public wells within 3 miles of the
site.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/15/89
29
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Heavy metals including lead, cadmium, silver, mercury, and chromium were found in the
sediments and shoreline of Allen Harbor. Other contaminants in Allen Harbor include
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs),
solvents, and PCBs. Soil contamination is not specified, but dumping practices involved
organic solvents, PCBs, sewage sludge, contaminated fuel oil, and halogens. Some public
wells are located upgradient between 1 and 3 miles from disposal sites. The potential for
contamination of these wells is small. Groundwater is shallow (2-4 feet in some areas),
and the soil is permeable, conditions that facilitate movement of contaminants into the
groundwater. In addition, it has been shown that Allen Harbor is polluted. A number of
salt marshes that could be affected by contamination from the site have been identified in
the Allen Harbor, Calf Pasture Point, and Narragansett Bay areas.
Cleanup Approach
The Navy has separated its cleanup efforts into four stages: initial actions and three long-term
remedial phases that correspond to the main areas of contamination it is investigating.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1991, the Navy removed materials from two on-site buildings that
were contaminated by PCB spills. Planning activities have entered a second phase to
arrange for the removal of more PCB-contaminated materials in on-site buildings that
were not addressed before.
Allen Harbor Landfill: The water, sediment, and organisms in Allen Harbor were
sampled as part of the confirmation studies and found to be contaminated. Given the
landfill's location adjacent to the Harbor, it is quite likely that leachate will migrate
into the Harbor. A study of the nature and extent of site contamination and assessment of
possible cleanup choices is underway and is scheduled for completion in 1992.
DPO/FPD: The Navy took 16 soil samples from the transformer oil disposal area in
1985 and 6 samples in 1986 and analyzed them for PCBs. A study of the nature and
extent of site contamination and assessment of possible cleanup choices is underway.
The migration potential of contaminants off site is moderate to high. Groundwater flow is
assumed to be toward Hall Creek, which is 600 feet from the site.
Other Areas: A magnetometer study was conducted at the Calf Pasture Point area to
locate the cans containing contaminants. Soil borings were taken in 1985 to determine
the depth of contamination. The mobility of contaminants is moderate to high;
however, the effect on the groundwater to date is minimal. A study of the nature and extent of
site contamination and assessment of possible cleanup choices is underway.
AnriM991 30 DAVISVILLE NAVAL CONSTRUCTION
BATTALION CENTER
-------
Site Facts: NCBC is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a specially funded
program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978 to identify, investigate, and
control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD facilities. In 1988,
the EPA and the Naval Ocean Systems Center began conducting a study at the Allen Harbor
landfill, under a Memorandum of Agreement. An Interagency Agreement to cover current site
studies is expected to be signed in 1991.
Environmental Progress
Following the listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA determined that the contamination at
NCBC Davisville does not pose an immediate threat to surrounding residents or the environment
at the present time. The site is safe while it awaits further cleanup actions.
DAVISVILLE NAVAL CONSTRUCTION
BATTALION CENTER
31
April 1991
-------
LANDFILL A
RESOURCE
RECOVERY, I
RHODE ISLAND
EPAID#RID093212439
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Providence County
1/2 mile east of Slatersville Reservoir
in North Smithfield
Site Description
The Landfill and Resource Recovery, Inc. (L&RR) site is a 28-acre landfill on a 36-acre parcel of
land. The site originally was a sand and gravel pit and was used for small-scale refuse disposal from
1927 to 1974. In 1974, the site was sold and developed into a large-scale disposal facility accepting
commercial, municipal, and industrial wastes. Until 1979, an estimated 1 1/2 million gallons of
hazardous wastes were accepted and disposed with other wastes in the central portion of the landfill.
The hazardous wastes included many types of bulk and drummed organic and inorganic materials in
liquid, sludge, and solid forms. In 1979, the operator placed a polyvinyl chloride cover over the area
containing hazardous waste to prevent rainwater from entering. Landfilling of commercial and
residential wastes continued until 1985, when the owners closed the landfill and placed another
synthetic cover over nearly the entire landfill. Soil was placed over the synthetic cover, and it was
partially planted with vegetation. Although the area still is rural, there are approximately 10,000
residents in a 25-square-mile area; the area appears to be undergoing a substantial growth in
residential development. Within a 1/2-mile radius of the site, there are fewer than 50 residences and
no multi-residential housing developments. More than 3,000 people live within 3 miles of the site.
An industrial park is located approximately 3,000 feet to the north, and Air National Guard
installations are approximately 1,000 feet to the east and 3,000 feet to the south of the site. Most, if
not all, residences in the site vicinity obtain their drinking water from individual wells. Trout Brook,
adjacent to the site, and the Slatersville Reservoir, into which it discharges, are used for fishing and
other recreation, but are not public water supply sources.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
33
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
The air at the landfill vents is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, and benzene. The groundwater on site is
contaminated with arsenic, lead, and VOCs from waste liquids disposed of on site and
from rainwater entering the landfilled wastes and causing contamination to move into the
groundwater. The surface water on the site is contaminated with lead. The only health
threat is from gaseous emissions from the landfill. The landfill is enclosed by a single-
strand fence. The only significant environmental threat is to the wetlands surrounding the
site. The wetlands are being affected by sand eroding from the landfill. The eroded sand
is not contaminated; however, it is filling in the wetlands, destroying vegetation and
decreasing the ability of the wetland area to support plant and animal life.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1977, the owner installed monitoring wells on site to ensure compliance
with State regulations. The owner closed the landfill in 1985, and 3/4 of the site was
covered with a synthetic cap to minimize infiltration of rain and melted snow. Soil also
was used to establish a vegetative cover. The cap was designed and constructed with gas vents to
prevent the buildup of gases under the cap. These vents currently are sealed. The selected long-term
remedy for this site includes: (1) installation of more substantial fencing; (2) stabilization of the
steep side slopes of the landfill and installation of a synthetic cap over the uncapped area of the
landfill, with establishment of a vegetative cover over the entire landfill; (3) collection and thermal
destruction of underlying gases; and (4) groundwater and air monitoring. Design of these cleanup
actions by the potentially responsible parties began in 1990.
Site Facts: In 1985, the landfill was closed by the owner under a Consent Order with the State. In
1990, an Administrative Order was issued to the potentially responsible parties to conduct design
and cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
Closing the landfill, installing a cover, and constructing a fence to limit access to the site have
reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Landfill and Resource Recovery site
while cleanup activities are being designed and implemented.
April 1991 34 LANDFILL AND RESOURCE RECOVERY, INC.
-------
NEWPORT NAVAL
EDUCATION A
TRAINING CE
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID# RI6170085470
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Newport County
Aquidneck Island
Other Names:
U.S. Navy McAllister
Melville North Landfill
DOD/NETC/McAllister Point Landfill
Site Description
The 1,064-acre Newport Naval Education and Training Center (NETC) site has been used by the
Navy as a refueling depot since 1900. From 1955 to the mid-1970s, the 6-acre McAllister Point
Landfill, along the shore of Narragansett Bay, accepted wastes consisting primarily of domestic
refuse, acids, solvents, paint, waste oil, and oil contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). Similar wastes were deposited at the 10-acre Melville North Landfill, located in a low-
lying wetland area along the shore of the Bay. It was sold to Melville Marine Industries/Hood
Enterprises in 1984. Three tank farms are located in the Melville area and one in Midway.
Sludge from nearby tank farms was dumped on the ground or burned in chambers. Other
contaminated areas on site are classified as Formerly Used Defense sites and are being addressed
separately. Surface water and groundwater flow from the landfill into the bay, which is used for
boating and fishing. One tank farm is 300 feet from a coastal wetland. An estimated 4,800
people obtain drinking water and 220 acres of land are irrigated from private wells within 3 miles
of hazardous substances at the site. Approximately 10,000 people live within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/15/89
Threats and Contaminants
2GJ
Monitoring wells detected petroleum products and heavy metals, including lead
and copper, in the groundwater. Sediments collected from Narragansett Bay
contain lead, copper and nickel. Landfill soil and leachate contain heavy metals,
petroleum hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Initial studies
have shown that none of the areas within the site pose an immediate threat to
human health. However, the site warrants a study to assess potential long-term
impacts. Tidal action of the Narragansett Bay may spread contamination to
nearby wetlands.
35
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on the McAllister Point
Landfill, Tank Farms, and the remaining areas of the site.
Response Action Status
McAllister Point Landfill: Bay sediments, biota, landfill soil, and leachate samples
were collected and analyzed as part of the confirmation studies. High levels of metals
were detected, as well as elevated levels of PCBs and petroleum hydrocarbons. A more
thorough investigation into the contamination in, and emanating from, the landfill will begin in
1991. The investigation will define the contaminants and will recommend final cleanup alternatives.
Tank Farms: Groundwater and soil samples taken in and around Tank Farm One during
the confimation studies revealed the presence of high concentrations of gasoline or oil
contaminants in the groundwater and oil, grease, and lead contamination in the soils. The
study recommended that additional testing be conducted to determine the condition of the remaining
tanks and other Tank Farms. Tank Farms Four and Five will be investigated beginning in 1991.
Field investigations at Tank Farms One, Two, and Three will be designed, based on the sampling
and analysis results of Tank Farms Four and Five.
Other Site Areas: Another investigation into the contamination remaining at other
areas on the NETC will begin in 1991. The investigation will define the contaminants and
will recommend cleanup alternatives. Once the site investigation for each of the
contaminated areas has been completed, the EPA will evaluate the findings and will determine any
additional action necessary to clean up these areas.
Site Facts: This site is being addressed under the Installation Restoration Program, a specially
funded program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978 to identify, investigate,
and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD facilities.
Environmental Progress
Following listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA completed a site assessment and determined that
the Newport Naval Center does not pose an immediate threat to public health or the environment at
the present time. The Newport Naval Center site is safe while it awaits the start of cleanup actions.
April 1991 36 NEWPORT NAVAL EDUCATION
AND TRAINING CFNTFR
-------
PETERSON/
PURITAN, INC.
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID# RID055176283
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Providence County
Along the Blackstone River in
Cumberland and Lincoln
Other Name*:
Blackstone Valley
The Peterson/Puritan Inc., plant was built in 1959 and began packaging aerosol consumer products.
During the mid-1970s, a change was made in the product formula due to Federal restrictions on
fluorocarbons. The plant began using carbon dioxide and several gaseous hydrocarbons. In 1976,
following a major fire, the plant was rebuilt. The site "study area" comprises an industrial park,
extraction areas, an inactive landfill, an inactive solid waste transfer station, the Dexter Quarry/
Dupaw Dump, and numerous interspersed areas of undeveloped land along the Blackstone River.
Production wells for public water supplies are located within the site study area. The Martin Street
well and Lenox Street well in the Town of Cumberland and the Quinnville well field in the Town of
Lincoln were closed and remain out of service. Attempts to flush contaminants from the wells were
abandoned after repeated efforts to remove the contaminants failed. With the expansion of the
municipal water supply system, residential wells in Cumberland and Lincoln were abandoned.
Lincoln residents currently obtain their water from the Providence water system. The Peterson/
Puritan Inc., site is located in a mixed industrial and residential area. There are approximately
12,000 people living within a 4-mile radius of the site; the nearest residence is less than 1/4 mile
away. Approximately 17,000 people are affected by the contaminated groundwater.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with chlorinated solvents, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including acetone and benzene; phthalates; and heavy metals such as chromium,
lead, and mercury. Certain sediment sample locations are contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Surface water is contaminated with low
concentrations of VOCs. People are at risk if they come in direct contact with or
accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater, surface water, sediment, leachate or
potentially contaminated soil. The site is located in a flood plain, which may cause
water, sediments, plants, and animals to become contaminated.
37
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases directed at cleanup of the entire site
and the J.M. Mills Landfill.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The party potentially responsible for contamination at the site is studying
the nature and extent of the contamination. The investigation will define the contaminants
of concern and will recommend alternatives for site cleanup. Based on the initial findings
of the investigation, the EPA determined that a more detailed study will be required. The study
currently is scheduled to begin in 1991. Once the study is completed in 1993, the EPA will evaluate
the recommended alternatives and will select the final cleanup remedy.
J.M. Mills Landfill: In 1992, the potentially responsible party is scheduled to begin an
investigation. The investigation will characterize the nature and extent of contamination
that may be attributable to the landfill.
Site Facts: After a preliminary investigation in 1982, the EPA identified the Peterson/Puritan
facility as the major source of the contamination in the Quinnville well field. The Town of Lincoln
filed a lawsuit against Peterson/Puritan, Inc. based on these findings. In 1984, the company reached
a settlement with Lincoln and assisted with the cost of the town's new water supply. The company
also installed a recovery well on its property for the purpose of capturing contaminated groundwater
underlying its property. In 1987, an Administrative Order was issued to Peterson/Puritan, Inc. to
take over from the EPA and conduct the site investigation.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions have provided a safe drinking water supply to affected area residents, and
preliminary cleanup of contaminated groundwater has commenced. The EPA continues to assess the
conditions at the Peterson/Puritan, Inc. site and has determined that there currently are no immediate
actions required to make the site safe while it awaits the results of the investigation into cleanup
alternatives.
April 1991 38 PETERSON/PURITAN, INC.
-------
PICILLO FARM
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID# RID980579056
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Kent County
Piggy Hill Lane in Coventry
Other Names:
Candy Box Farm
Site Description
The Picillo Farm site is a portion of a former 100-acre pig farm. More than 10,000 drums of
hazardous waste and an undetermined bulk volume of liquid chemicals were disposed of into several
unlined trenches on an 8-acre area of the farm. The site was discovered in 1977, when a fire and
explosion occurred. After requiring the property owners to halt the illegal disposal operations, the
State of Rhode Island conducted an emergency removal of drums containing sodium aluminum
hydride. From 1980 through 1982, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
and the EPA excavated the trenches and removed the majority of the wastes. The contaminated soil
was stored on site in three piles. These piles were moved off site in 1988. More than 2,000 people
live within 3 miles of the site. There are 50 residences located within a mile of the site; two are
within 1/4 mile. All residences rely on private wells for their water, these wells are sampled once a
year by the Rhode Island Department of Health. The site lies near the upper Roaring Brook
watershed, which is a tributary to the Moosup River. Groundwater and surface water runoff flows
away from the disposal site toward an unnamed swamp, Great Cedar Swamp, and Whitford Pond,
which is used to irrigate a cranberry bog.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
E
Air on the site contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and pesticides. On-site
groundwater is contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and VOCs including
toluene and xylene. Off-site groundwater and surface water in the swamp are
contaminated with VOCs. On-site soil is contaminated with phenols, PCBs, and VOCs.
Potential threats include direct contact with contaminated soil, surface water, or
sediments; drinking of groundwater, and inhalation of VOCs. Contaminated surface
water and sediments may pose ecological risks, especially to the nearby wetlands.
39
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on controlling the source of the contamination and cleanup of groundwater and surface
water.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: From 1980 to 1982, the EPA and the State conducted emergency
actions by removing 10,000 buried drums from five trenches on the site. Bulk wastes also
were removed. Contaminated soils were dug from trenches and were stockpiled on site.
Source Control: The remedy selected by the EPA and performed by the parties
potentially responsible for the site contamination included: (1) disposal of 3,500 cubic
yards of PCB-contaminated soils and 3,000 cubic yards of phenol-contaminated soils off
site in an approved landfill; (2) installation of a fence; (3) installation of a surface drainage control
system; and (4) closure of the site. These remedies were completed in 1988. The Rhode Island
Department of Health samples private wells in the vicinity once a year. The Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management is responsible for operation and maintenance activities
for the cleanup remedies.
Groundwater and Surface Water The EPA is studying the on- and off-site
groundwater and surface water contamination. The investigation will define the
contaminants and will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The study is expected
to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1988, the EPA entered into an agreement with 12 potentially responsible parties.
Four of these companies removed contaminants and closed down the site under close monitoring by
the EPA in 1988.
Environmental Progress
With the cleanup actions described above, the EPA has greatly reduced the potential for accidental
contact or exposure to contaminated soil and dust. Removing the contaminated soil from the
trenches also removed the source of contamination to groundwater, which will be cleaned up in
future actions at the Picillo Farm site.
April 1991 40 PICILLO FARM
-------
ROSE HILL
REGIONAL LAN
RHODE ISLAND
EPAID#RID980521025
Site Description
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Washington County
Rose Hill Road
The Rose Hill Regional Landfill site is a former municipal landfill located in the Town of South
Kingstown. The Town leased the land for a domestic and industrial waste disposal facility, which
operated from 1967 to 1983. In 1983, the site was closed, and the operator reportedly graded and
seeded the disposal areas. A transfer station for municipal waste, currently owned and operated by
the Town, is located on a portion of the site. Three separate areas on the site received waste: a solid
waste landfill, a bulky waste disposal area, and a sewage sludge landfill. An estimated 17,300
people obtain water from wells within 3 miles of the site. The area is rural to residential, with
forested areas, fields, small farms and sand/gravel extraction activities nearby. It is bordered by the
Saugatucket Riverto the east, and Mitchell Brook flows through the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/21/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
On-site monitoring wells contain several volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
chloroform, benzene, and xylenes, as well as some heavy metals. Observations indicate
that Mitchell Brook, an unnamed brook, and the Saugatucket River could be affected by
contaminated runoff from the site. Three private wells adjacent to the site are
contaminated with low levels of organic compounds, as is on-site soil. The site is not
completely fenced, making it possible for people to come into direct contact with
hazardous substances. Saugatucket Pond, 2,000 feet downstream, is used for fishing and
swimming. A freshwater wetland is 500 feet downstream and also could be subject to
contamination.
41
April!991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1985, the Town of South Kingstown Utilities Department extended
the municipal water line to residences adjacent to the site with contaminated wells, with
the exception of one resident who refused hookup.
Entire Site: An investigation into the nature and extent of contamination in three
separate disposal areas within the site and recommendations for alternative cleanup
strategies is scheduled to begin in 1991. Once completed, the EPA will evaluate the
recommended cleanup alternatives and will select final remedies for groundwater, surface water,
soils and other contamination areas identified in the study.
Environmental Progress
With the provision of a safe drinking water supply to the affected residents, the EPA has determined
that the site does not currently pose an imminent threat to the public or the surrounding environment.
The EPA will continue to assess conditions at the Rose Hill Regional Landfill site as studies leading
to the selection of cleanup alternatives are continued.
April 1991 42 ROSE HILL REGIONAL LANDFILL
-------
STAMINA
MILLS, INC.
RHODE ISLAND
EPAID#RID980731442
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Providence County
North Smithfield
Other Names:
ForastdaU-Stamina
Mills. Inc.
Site Description
Stamina Mills is on a 5-acre parcel of land and began operating as a textile mill in the early 1900s. It
was closed for an undetermined period of time during the Depression and changed ownership in the
1940s. In 1969, a solvent scouring system for removing oil and dirt from newly woven fabric was
installed. Some time during that year, a trichloroethylene (TCE) spill occurred and never was
cleaned up. In 1975, the mill was closed. In 1977, a fire destroyed the manufacturing complex; the
site has been vacant and unused since then. In 1981, in response to the discovery of private well
contamination, the Rhode Island Water Resources Board and the Town of North Smithfield installed
a public water line to area residences. However, not all residences connected to the service; the EPA
provided resources to extend the water system and complete connections to those residences in 1984.
By 1987, all residences were on the public water supply. The Village of Forestdale, with a
population of approximately 1,000, is within a 1/2-mile radius of the site. A school and private
residences with nearly 300 people are within 1/4 mile of the site. Industrial and commercial
facilities with about 1,200 people are within 1/2 mile of the site. The site is bordered by wetlands
and the Branch River to the south.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primarily TCE
and its constituents. Sediments are contaminated with TCE, dieldrin, and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The soil is contaminated with TCE, the pesticide
dieldrin, and heavy metals including lead, arsenic, and cadmium, as well as PAHs.
Surface water is contaminated primarily with VOCs. People who trespass on the site
potentially are at risk from direct contact with contaminated soils, surface water, or
groundwater. In 1986, a security fence was erected to prevent entry to the site.
43
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup alternatives for the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1981, the Rhode Island Water Resources Board and the Town
of North Smithfield installed a public water line to area residences and provided bottled
water to those residences that were not connected to the services. In 1984, the EPA
provided resources for extending the public water system and connecting additional residences to the
system. By 1987, all residences were on the public water supply. In 1986, the EPA also installed a
fence to prevent entry to the site. In 1988, the EPA removed two tanks from the site, pumped the
waste from the tanks, and sent it to an approved hazardous waste facility. In 1990, the EPA removed
the contents of an aboveground storage tank, decontaminated the tank shell, and disposed of the tank
contents at an approved hazardous waste facility.
Entire Site: Based on its investigation, the EPA selected the following remedy to clean
up the site: in-situ vacuum extraction of soil contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) in
the spill area, which involves installation of a number of shallow wells to withdraw air
containing TCE and other VOCs for carbon treatment, and excavation of approximately 550 cubic
yards of landfill waste and sediments to be redeposited into a landfill under the new multi-layer cap
to be installed. Groundwater will be extracted and treated with ultraviolet light and hydrogen
peroxide, an innovative technology, to remove VOCs. Mill raceways will be sealed, and on-site
buildings will be demolished. Deed restrictions will be used at the site to regulate land use and
preserve the integrity of the remedy's components. The septic tank location will be confirmed and
its contents tested and removed. The contents of the tank and the tank itself will be disposed of. A
monitoring program for the groundwater, soil, surface water, and sediments will be implemented to
ensure the effectiveness of the remedy selected. The design of the remedy is scheduled to begin in
late 1991.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions of providing a public water supply and fencing of the site have reduced the
potential of people to be exposed to the contamination at the Stamina Mills site. A deteriorating tank
containing low pH hazardous substances was removed and properly disposed of. Some drums of
hazardous substances will be addressed in the near future, further reducing the potential for exposure
to contamination while the site awaits final cleanup activities.
April 1991 44 STAMINA MILLS, INC.
-------
WESTERN
SAND
& GRAVEL
RHODE ISLAND
EPA ID* RID009764929
EPA REGION 1
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Providence County
Burrillville, adjacent to Douglas Pike
Site Description
Western Sand & Gravel, a 20-acrc site located in a rural residential area of Burrillville, was a sand
and gravel quarry operation from 1953 until 1975. The quarrying operation is continuing. From
1975 to April 1979, approximately 12 acres of the 20-acre site were used for the disposal of liquid
wastes, including chemicals and septic waste. Over time, the wastes penetrated into the porous soil
and contaminated the groundwater. Contents of tank trucks were emptied directly into 12 open
lagoons and pits, none of which were lined with protective materials. The pits were concentrated on
a hill that slopes to Tarkiln Brook, which is used for recreational purposes and drains into the
Slaterville Reservoir. The State closed the disposal operation because nearby residents complained
of odors. Approximately 600 people within a 1-mile radius of the site depend on groundwater.
Eight homes were found to have contaminated wells.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
ZE
The on-site groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including toluene, trichloroethylene (TCE), trichloroethane, benzene, chlorobenzene, and
dichloroethane. The water of Tarkiln Brook contains similar contaminants. The soil also
is contaminated with VOCs. Prior to the capping of the soil and sludge and the
installation of carbon filters, potential exposure to VOCs may have occurred by
inhalation, ingestion, or direct contact with contaminated soil or groundwater.
45
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: initial actions to limit the spread of contamination and
three long-term remedial phases concentrating on installation of a permanent water supply, capping
of the contaminated soil and sludge, and investigating the extent of groundwater contamination and
cleanup alternatives.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Early in 1980, the State began to pump one lagoon dry to halt leachate
movement. Approximately 60,000 gallons of liquid chemical and septic waste were
removed for off-site disposal. A groundwater recirculation system was installed.
Water Line: The EPA will install a permanent alternate water supply to service
approximately 56 parcels of land, and the potentially responsible parties installed carbon
canister filters as a temporary protective measure in all the homes in the affected area until
the permanent water supply is functional. Construction of the water line was completed in 1990. A
schedule for operation of the water line currently is being negotiated between the State and the EPA.
Soil Capping: The parties potentially responsible for the contamination have installed a
2 1/2-acre cap over the areas of contaminated soil and sludge and graded the site to
promote runoff and drainage. Also included are fencing, fence maintenance, and posting
of the site and cap.
Groundwater: The potentially responsible parties conducted an investigation to
determine the extent of contamination and to evaluate alternatives for cleanup of the
groundwater. The investigation was completed in early 1991. Based on the investigation,
the EPA selected a remedy of natural attenuation. If monitoring shows that natural cleanup is not
occurring as predicted, a system to pump and treat the groundwater will be installed. The potentially
responsible parties will monitor groundwater and conduct evaluations every three years, with EPA
oversight.
Site Facts: Approximately 45 potentially responsible parties entered into a Consent Decree with
the EPA and agreed to pay for past costs, to construct a cap, to conduct an investigation to determine
the nature and extent of contamination, and to identify alternatives for cleanup of contaminated
groundwater. The parties also will pay the EPA to construct the permanent alternate water supply.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions including fencing, capping, and grading the contaminated areas of the Western
Sand & Gravel site and installing the carbon canister filters have met the goals for cleanup of the
land, thereby protecting human health and the environment while the site awaits final cleanup
activities.
April 1991 46 WESTERN SAND & GRAVEL
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
47
-------
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.
49
-------
GLOSSARY.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring pro-
cess by which a compound is reduced in
concentration over time through adsorption,
degradation, dilution, and/or transformation.
Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.
Baghouse Dust: Dust accumulated in remov-
ing particulates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive
in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed
with acids, they neutralize each other, form-
ing salts.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth
used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some
contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living
tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people, as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contami-
nated water, or eat contaminated food.
Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria or
other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
and water.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-
nents.
Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on moisture from the air for their water
source, are usually acidic, and are rich in plant
residue [see Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.
Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-
water.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a
synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated
materials. The surface of the cap generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing
water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that
attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Carbon Disulfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and or-
ganic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also
cause chemical reactions that increase the
hazard to human health and the environment
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-
tion].
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series
of holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.
CERCLA: [see Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act].
Characterization: The sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis of a site to determine the
50
-------
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 die 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.
51
-------
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 fanning, 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.
52
-------
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
fanning, 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
53
-------
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,
54
-------
GLOSSARY
setting forth the roles and responsibilities of
the agencies for performing and overseeing
the activities. States often are parties to
interagency agreements.
Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a permanent permit. The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.
Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure. Lagoons typically are
used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges,
liquid wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or
incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in layers, compacted to
the smallest practical volume, and covered
with soil at the end of each operating day.
Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for
hazardous waste. They are designed to
minimize the chance of release of hazardous
substances into the environment [see Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act].
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles
through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leach-
ing [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and
carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Leachate Collection System: A system that
gathers liquid that has leaked into a landfill or
other waste disposal area and pumps it to the
surface for treatment.
Liner: A relatively impermeable barrier
designed to prevent leachate (waste residue)
from leaking from a landfill. Liner materials
include plastic and dense clay.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often
incremental, steps that are taken to solve site
pollution problems. Depending on the com-
plexity, site cleanup activities can be sepa-
rated into several of these phases.
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
contain peat moss deposits and is dominated
by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetland].
Migration: The movement of oil, gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable soils or rock.
Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].
Mine Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left
from mining operations. Tailings often
contain high concentrations of lead, uranium,
and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Mitigation: Actions taken to improve site
conditions by limiting, reducing, or control-
ling toxicity and contamination sources.
Modeling: A technique using a mathematical
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
system components have on the overall
performance of the system.
Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at
specific locations within, or surrounding, a
hazardous waste site where groundwater can
be sampled at selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in
55
-------
GLOSSARY.
which groundwater flows and the types and
amounts of contaminants present
National Priorities List (NPL): The EPA's
list of the most serious uncontrolled or aban-
doned hazardous waste sites identified for
possible long-term cleanup under Superfund.
The EPA is required to update the NPL at
least once a year.
Neutrals: Organic compounds that have a
relatively neutral pH, complex structure and,
due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed
into the environment. Naphthalene, pyrene,
and trichlorobenzene are examples of
neutrals.
Nitroaromatics: Common components of
explosive materials, which will explode if
activated by very high temperatures or pres-
sures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a
nitroaromatic.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter
notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability.
A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which the
EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against poten-
tially responsible parties, although the EPA
may undertake certain investigatory and
planning activities. The 60-day period may
be extended if the EPA receives a good faith
offer within that period.
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC): The
predesignated EPA, Coast Guard, or Depart-
ment of Defense official who coordinates and
directs Superfund removal actions or Clean
Water Act oil- or hazardous-spill corrective
actions.
Operation and Maintenance: Activities
conducted at a site after a cleanup action is
completed to ensure that the cleanup or
containment system is functioning properly.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds: Chemical
substances containing mainly carbon, hydro-
gen, and oxygen.
Outfall: The place where wastewater is
discharged into receiving waters.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating
large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or
leakage of contaminating materials. Leaking
drums may be contained within oversized
barrels as an interim measure prior to removal
and final disposal.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic,
modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites
and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.
Perched (groundwater): Groundwater
separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often clay
or rock.
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering
of water or other liquids through subsurface
rock or soil layers, usually continuing down-
ward to groundwater.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery opera-
tions and as fuel oil residues. These include
fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are the bases
from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are
made. These chemical substances often are
toxic to humans and the environment.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used
in plastics manufacturing and are by-products
of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye,
and resin manufacturing. Phenols are highly
poisonous.
56
-------
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 ACL
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.
57
-------
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
58
-------
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
59
-------
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
60
-------
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.
61
-------
^ I
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in Rhode Island
63
-------
j/>
HM ^ jr
oc "5
+- 3.8 £8.
8«
** o u
« -a 3
w i|
I
0) 1
WJ k. .S
855
'lie
III
u
66
* U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893:60643
------- |