United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R01-86/018
September 1986
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision;
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pf~tUt 'tad Inrtructlons on tht rtVtf'ft btlart com"ftting)
1. REI'OIilT NO. r 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/ROl-86/0l8
.. TITL.E ANO SU8TITL.E 5. REPORT OATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION C'~~..~_....~~ 17 1 QRh
Auburn Road, NH 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
7. AUTMORCSI 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
V. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM EL.EMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND AOORESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOO COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency C' . "~, ~rH"\ D ~~~ ~..
401 M Street, S.W. 1.. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Auburn Road Landfill site, located in the Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire,
consists of approximately 200 acres which contain four documented h~zardous waste
disposal areas. The site was owned by Ms. Hariclia Thomopoulus from 1931 until 1974,
when Mr. George Thomopou1us inherited ownership from his mother. In 1977, the present:
owne r, Derry Sand and Gravel, Inc., purchased the site. Prior to the 19605, activities
at the site consisted of sand and gravel excavation. Between 1964 and 1974, the New
Hampshire Division of Public Health issued permits to the Town of Londonderry to ope rat
separate sections of the Thomopoulus property as disposal sites currently referred to a
the Town Dump, the Tire Dump, the Septage Lagoon, and the Solid Waste Landfill.
Although authorized for disposal of only municipal refuse, tires and demolition debris,
all four source areas contain evidence of disposal of industrial wastes including
numerous exposed and partially buried 55-gallon steel drums. In August 1979 the State
of New Hampshire required that no more drums be accepted, and later the same year, the
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission found contamination of
surface water and ground water caused by VOCs. In January 1980, landfill operations
were terminated on the entire site. Ground water, used as a drinking water source for
approximately 275 homes and 260 mobile homes - all within a one-mile radius of the site
is the principal problem of concern. The primary contaminants of concern include: VOC
(See attached sheet)
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANAL. YSIS
iI. OESCIII'I'TORS b.IOENTIFIERSiOPEN ENOED TERMS C. COSA TI FleldiGroup
Superfund Record of Decision
Auburn Road, NH
Contaminated Media: sw, gw, soil, sediments
Key contaminants: VOCs, TCE, organics,
inorganics, heavy metals
1B. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECuRITY CL.ASS /TlusRtpONI 21. NO. OF PAGES
None 41
20. SECURITY CL.ASS ,This palt!! 22. PRICE
"1~",....
!I'. 110'''' 2220-1 (R... .-77)
-------
EPA/ROD/ROl-86/018
Auburn Road, NH
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
including TCE, extractable organics, heavy metals, and inorganics.
The selected remedial action consists of extending the current water
service provided by the Manchester Water Works to 17 homes along Auburn Road
and to approximately 260 mobile home units in the Whispering Pines Mobile
Home Village. The estimated present worth cost for this remedy is
-------
~
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Site:
Auburn Road Landfill, Londonderry, New Hampshire
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents
describing the analysis of operable unit remedial alternatives
for the Auburn Road site:
1.
Auburn Road Landfill Remedial Investigation Report, Volumes
I-IV, April 10, 1986, prepared by the NUS Corporation
2.
Auburn Road Landfill site Final Focused Feasibility Study
Report, Londonderry, New Hampshire, July 8, 1986, prepared
by the NUS Corporation
3.
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
4.
Community Relations Responsiveness Summary
5.
State and EPA staff summaries and recommendations
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED OPERABLE UNIT ALTERNATIVE
o Installation of approximately 9,000 linear feet water line
from the Route 128/Auburn Road intersection, northerly
along Auburn Road and tying into the existing distribution
system for the residents along Auburn Road and in the
Whispering pines Mobile Home Village. Operation and
maintenance of this operable unit shall consist of servicing
each residential water connection and monthly sampling and
analysis of bedrock wells along Auburn Road.
DECLARATION
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Comp-
ensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
40 CFR Part 300, dated November 20, 1985, I have determined that
at the Auburn Road Landfill site, extension of a water line to
replace threatened water supplies of residents along Auburn
Road and at the Whispering pines Mobile Home village is a manage-
ment of migration response action that is cost-effective,
consistent with a permanent remedy for the total site cleanup,
effectively mitigates and minimizes threats to and provides
adequate protection of public health and welfare and the
environment, and attains or exceeds applicable or relevant
and appropriate Federal health and environmental requirements
-------
The State of New Hampshire has been consulted and concurs with
the selected operable unit alternative. The action will
require operation and maintenance activities to ensure continued
effectiveness of the operable unit. These activities will be
considered part of the approved action and eligible for Trust
Fund monies for a period not to exceed one year.
I have also determined that the operable unit remedial alternative
that will be undertaken is consistent with Section 300.68(c)
of the National Contingency Plan and is appropriate when
balanced against the availability of Trust Fund monies for
use at other sites.
The recommended operable unit alternative will not address
the sources of contamination or the residual groundwater
contamination at the site. EPA will prepare a comprehensive
feasibility study that will address source control and further
management of migration alternatives which are adequately
protective of public health, welfare and the environment and.
otherwise consistent with CERCLA and the NCP. An additional
Record of Decision will be prepared for the approval of any
future remedial actions at the site.
q~1/~
-------
SUMMARY OF OPERABLE UNIT REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Auburn Road Land f i 11 Site
Londonderry, New Bampshire
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Auburn Road Landfill Site (lithe Site ") is located in the
northeast corner of the Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire and
is approximately1bounded by Auburn Road to the west, Old Derry
Road to the south, By-pass 28 to the east and the Londonderry-
Auburn town line to the north. The Site's coordinates are
approximately 42° 56' 15" north and 71° 21' 15" west. The
USGS Map, on which the Site appears, is the Derry, New Bampshire
Quadrangle Map which was published in 1968 and photo-revised
in 1974.
The climate of Londonderry is typical of northern New England.
The mean annual temperature in 1985 was 46.1° F. The total.
annual precipitation (as water) was 48 inches and a total annual,
snowfalYof 55 inches. As with most of New Englahd, precipitation
in the area occurs throughout the year.
The Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire, based on the 1980 U.S.
Census, has a total population of 13,598. The Site is located
in a rural area. Within a I-mile radius of the Site, there
are approximately 275 homes plus approximately 260 mobile home
units in the Whispering pines Mobile Home Village. The
population within the I-mile radius is estimated to be hetween
1,300 to 1,900 people.
Groundwater in this area, from both the overburden and bedrock
aquifers, is classified as Class IIA under the EPA Groundwater
Protection Strategy. Class IIA groundwaters are groundwaters
which are currently being used as a source of drinking water.
The Site consists of approximately 200 acres on which four
disposal areas containing hazardous wastes have been documented.
The Old Town Dump, which is the oldest of the four source
. areas, consists of approximately 2.9 acres. The next oldest area
is the Tire Dump area which is contained within 2.0 acres
followed by the Solid Waste area within 6.2 acres and the Septage
Lagoon within 0.7 acres. There are numerous hills and other
topographic features on and around the Site. Two unnamed
brooks drain the local area and flow in a northwesterly direction
eventually emptying into Whispering pines Pond to the north of
the Site. Outflow from Whispering pines Pond combines with
Cohas Brook and flows to the northwest (Figure 1). The Auburn
Road Landfill Site was listed on the Superfund National Priority
List on September R, 1983, ranking 383 out of 416 sites.
"
-------
--
ClltA'IR PIT
.
BROOK --- -- -
~OH~ ;...---
r-
o
-Z
o
~
rn
~
..(
\
'~ 7
It %s
~.. c.
.. :II
\ -Z
f/
11/
o
f
Ii .. .
i
~ ..
.
I .
N 0
I 5
~~
/
/
I
.
..... ~...
fill ~q;. ,
.... ",O+Q /
. ~v ,
,,0 / ~...
, ~q;.
/Q
.../'
",,/'
'" .
-------
SITE HISTORY
Prior to the 1960s, activities at the Auburn Road Site consisted
of sand and gravel excavation. From 1931 - 1974 the Site property
was owned by Ms. Hariclia Thomopoulus. In 1974, Mr. George
Thomopoulus inherited ownership of the Site from his mother upon
her death. In 1977, Derry Sand and Gravel, Inc., purchased
the Site and it continues to own the Site at the present time.
In 1964, the New Hampshire Division of Public Health issued a
permit to the Town of Londonderry ("the Town") to operate a section
of the Thomopoulus property as a disposal site, currently referred
to as the Town Dump. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s several
other permits were issued to the Town for operation of the Tire
Dump, the Septage Lagoon and finally in October of 1974 the
Solid Waste Landfill.
Although authorized for disposal of only municipal refuse, tires
and demolition debris, all four source areas contain evidence of
disposal of industrial wastes including numerous exposed and
partially buried 55 gallon steel drums. In August 1979, an
investigation by the State of New Hampshire substantiated that
industrial wastes were being disposed of on Site and issued a
letter to the Town of Londonderry requiring that no more drums
be accepted. Later the same year, the New Hampshire Water Supply
and Pollution Control Commission sampled and analyzed monitoring
wells and surface water on and around the Site and found contam-
ination of surface water and groundwater caused from volatile
organic compounds. In January 1980, the current site owner,
Derry Sand and Gravel, Inc., terminated landfilling operations
on the entire Site.
In 1981, an EPA contractor, Ecology and Environment, Inc. ("E&E"),
prepared a "Preliminary Site Assessment for the Auburn Road
Landfill" which concluded that the Site could contain hazardous
wastes and recommended further study. A hydrogeologic investigation
was performed by E&E in 1982 to further define the presence and
extent of groundwater contamination. There are presently no
natural or man made barriers which act to contain or limit the
movement of groundwater through the Site. The Site was formally
listed in the National Priority List on September 8, 1983 and,
in the Spring of 1984, EPA contracted with NUS Corporation ("NUS")
to perform a Remedial Investigation (RI). The RI Report was
completed and presented to the public in April 1986 and concluded:
o All four disposal areas are contributing to the contamination
of the Site.
o Contamination onsite is attributable to volatile organic
compounds, extractable organic compounds and inorganic
substances.
-------
o Although highly variable in concentration, composition and
distribution, contamination has been detected in all onsite
environmental media with the highest contamination found in
groundwater and soils.
o All four source areas contain buried and exposed steel drums
in varying conditions.
o The Whispering pines Mobile Home Village supply wells,
which are down gradient of the source areas, are receptors
of groundwater contamination.
o Contamination in groundwater, surface water and sediments
has been confirmed offsite.
Other findings made in the RI Report are summarized in the
Current Site Status - Groundwater Contamination section below.
Also in April 1986 a draft Feasibility Study ("FS") Report was
completed by the NUS Corporation and submitted to EPA for review.
The draft FS Report evaluated source control remedial options
as well as management of migration options.
During the months of May and June of 1986, the EPA Environmental
services Division (ESD) commenced the removal of exposed and
partially exposed drummed materials from the four source areas.
Approximately 1900 drums were excavated and are being stored
onsite until final disposition is arranged. Although this action
resulted in a significant number of drums being removed from the
source areas, the likelihood that all of the buried drums were
removed is remote. Further removal actions to secure the Site
(e.g., fencing) appear necessary.
As result of the removal action, the evaluation of the source
control and management of migration alternatives and associated
costs evaluated in the draft FS may have been affected. Rather
than delay implementation of an alternative water supply response
action pending a re-evaluation of source control and management
of migration alternatives, EPA decided to divide the response
action into Operable Units in accordance with Section 300.68(c)
of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). A Focused Feasibility
Study ("FFS") was prepared that addresses the provision of an
alternate water supply to off site areas threatened by contam-
inated groundwater. This action is consistent with achieving
a permanent remedy at the Site. The FFS was completed and
presented to the public in July 1986. 8PA held a public hearing
on the RI and FFS and closed the public comment period on
August 14, 1986. The findings of the FFS and RI are summarized
below.
CURRENT SITE STATUS - GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
Groundwater contamination is the principal problem of concern
identified in the Remedial Investigation ("RI") Report. Drums
of buried hazardous substances appear to have been deteriorating
and releasing such substances into the environment. These
-------
contaminants have leached through the soils and dehris ~nd
have eventually combined and traveled with the groundwater
flow. Figure 2 presents the gener~l plume configurations
observed at the Auburn Road site. The elongation of the con-
taminant contours indicates the direction of groundwater and
contaminant travel. Figure 3 is a schematic profile of each of
the source areas and shows the relation of each source area to
bedrock and the groundwater elevation. As seen in Figure 3,
the base of each of the source areas is at or near the average
groundwater elevation.
The hazardous substances found at the Site include hoth volatile
and semi-volatile organic compounds. These have been identified
in both the overburden and the bedrock aquifers, with the
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) being predominant. This is
expected, as VOCs are typically more soluble and mobile in
water than semi-volatile compounds. Sampling data from 19R4
and 1985 indicates that the concentration and distrihution of
VOCs in the groundwater fluctuates. This fluctuation may be
related to the irregular release of contaminants from the source
areas.
At the Auburn Road Landfill Site, the overburden aquifer is used'
to supply water to the Whispering Pines Mobile Horne Village
while private residents along Auburn Road rely on bedrock
wells for water. Figure 2 shows that the groundwater contami-
nant plumes in the overburden aquifer converge south of the
Whispering Pines Pond, then pass under it, discharging to
the wetlands north of Auburn Road. The Whispering Pines
supply wells draw water from this aquifer and also draw some
of the contaminants along with the groundwater.
.
At present, because such supply wells are only at the fringes
of the contaminant plume, only low levels of a few contaminants
are being captured. Compounds detected in samples ohtained
from the supply wells are presented in Table 1. The highest
concentration of total volatile organic compounds detected
was 60 parts per billion (ppb) which occured in April, lqA~.
Although the contaminants detected in the supply wells have
heen few in number and of low concentrations (within federal
and state drinking water standards), the number and conc.entration
of contaminants'found in groundwater across the entire :Iite
are much higher. ~able 2 presents the highest concentrations
of contaminants detected onsite. Therefore, increased pumping
rates or higher concentration of contaminants in the groundwater
plume due to intermittent or unpredictable releases of source
area hazardous substances could result in significantly higher
contaminant levels in the whispering pines supply wells which
are less than 200 feet away.
The movement of groundwater in the bedrock aquifer is more
difficult to define than the flow in the overburden aquifer.
This is because fracture patterns within the bedrock can result
in significant variations in water bearing characteristics in
-------
~
I
II
o
'0
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
AUBURN ROAD LANDFILL
LONDON DERRY, NH
APRIL
-6-
LEGEN D:
6S. DATA nOM NUS"., ,..S SA"'LI~G ,,,.,
6$ OA'A'IOII...."" """""'NO I''''
"0 YOLATlLf OIGA..le eowOU..OS-OOOf DIffereD
- Y.l' 6OOOMAL' LOCATlO~
~ .."OC. .....
$- ove..uao.. .ILL CI.CL.UOIII. MUL Tf-LI.IL .ILLI)
'3 "0."'0-'"0 WILL iC".I.IO .11 OYI..UtlO'" . ..o-oc.
t) 11.1"""" 8(1.1.
- - - TO... \.,... 101.1110"'."
:::::: O"IIT -0"0
'*
.....,...
""'J'"
'11100..
PLUME
~NUS
I I I~TD\J
A Halliburton COfT1panv
1986
FIGURE
-------
--------
I
I I
--.J
I
- -;-~."",--=--'--=----;a.- -- ---
-- - --- -- - .~-:-._---
-- -- -
, .
SEPT AGE LAGOON ARI;:.~
101
TOWN DUMP AREA
100'
; or ....
s
N
N
s
150'
SOLID WASTE LANDFILL
101
TIRE DUMP AREA
10'
<,
..:>
N
S
""C'.. ..-'--'1
',i;'
,~" JL
N
: .Nl/~\
I NOTE: ..
All lOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND INFERRED
N NORTH
S SOUTH
~~
o A Halliburton Coolpany
FIGURE 3
11/ -\l~\=(/! BED ROC K
D REFUSE
SZWATER TABLE (12/85)
/ /1 OVERBURDEN
; I
SOURCE AREA SCHEMATIC PROFILES
(INFERRED)
AUBURN ROAD LANDFILL
-------
/.
TABLE 1
MAXIMUM VOC LEVELS DETECTED IN WHISPERING PINES SUPPL Y WELLS
AUBURN ROAD LANDFILL SITE
Date: 8/23/85 10/9/85 11/20/85 1/14/86 2/20/86 3/19/86 4/8/86 5/14/86
* * *
Well No.: #3, 04 113, 114 113, 114 03, 114 113, 114 113 , 114 113, 114 113, 114
T richlorof! uoromethane 6 6 9 9 11 <5 5
I,I-Dichloroethane
-------
TABLE 2
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
DETECTED ONSITE
(VALUES IN ppb)
Highest
Cone.
Highest
Cone.
Vol'atile Organic Compounds
Chloromethane
*Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
*Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
1,I-Dichloroethene
1,I-Dichloroethane
*Trans-I,2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
* 2-Butanone
1,1, I-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
*Trichloroethene
1 , 1 ,2- Trichloroethane
Ben zene
2-Hexanone
4-M ethyl- 2-Pentanone
*T etrachloroethene
*Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethy1benzene
Styrene
Total Xylenes
Inorganics
* Arsenic
*Cadmium
* Lead
Footnotes:
59J
82J
120
300
4840
20J
540
1800
330000
140J
51
12000
730J
ND
8J
1600
44
12J
16
500J
8500
6500J
8J
77
ND
320
130J
36J
231J
2-Chlorophenol
Phenol
Aniline
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methy1pheno1
4-Methy1phenol
lsophorone
Benzoic Acid
1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloro-3-Methy1phenol
2-M ethy 1naphthalene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Dimethyl Phthalate
Acenaphthy1ene
A enaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethy1phtha1ate
Fluorene .
* N-N i trosodi phen y lamine
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-Butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)Anthraocene
* bis(2-E thylhexyl)Phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-Octyl Phthalate
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Pentachloro pheno 1
1,4-0ichlorobenzene
Beta-BHC
* Aroclor-1242
Aroclor-1248
Aroclor-1254
J
ND -
Selected as indicator chemicals of concern (GCA Corp., 1986)
Approximate value after quality control review
Not detected in groundwater
*'
-9-
3J
12J
NO
ND
NO
120J
ND
600J
NO
3J
2J .
1J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
34J
ND
NO
ND
NO
10J
ND
1J
NO
NO
330J
NO
11J
ND
IJ
ND
21J
3J
2J
ND
0.86
ND
-------
different zones of the bedrock aquifer. The bedrock underlying
the site varies (laterally and with depth) with regard to the
occurence of open faults and fractures. There also appears to
be a major structural zone of weakness (faults/fractures) near
the western border of the Site, roughly parallel to Auburn
Road. These variations influence groundwater movement within
the bedrock aquifer.
Bedrock wells supplying the residents along Auhurn Road are
threatened by contaminants detected onsite. Most bedrock
monitoring wells onsite show at least some level of contamination
from volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Concentrations over
3,400 parts per billion (ppb) of VOCs have been detected in a
bedrock monitoring well adjacent to Auburn Road. Geophysical
logging of bedrock monitoring wells onsite near Auburn Road
suggests that many significant water bearing fractures exist
even at depths in excess of 200 feet. Orientation of the
bedrock fractures in the area is believed to be in a northeast,
southwest direction. The water supply wells which intercept
and are hydrologically connected to the same faults and fractures
identified in the hedrock monitoring wells onsite are threatened
by aquifer contamination.
RISK ASSESSMENT
As presented in the Remedial Investigation Report (Volume III,
Appendix P.), groundwater samples collected in 1984 from
monitoring wells in the vicinity of the Auburn Road site showed
the groundwater in the overburden as well as the bedrock aquifer
to be contaminated with the soluble, highly mobile contaminants
that are readily leached from waste sources. However, in recent
sampling (1985), the less soluble, less mobile contaminants
(semi-volatile compounds and inorganics) have also begun to
appear in groundwater samples taken onsite. This suggests that
contaminants were released from the source areas and are slowly
migrating with the flow of groundwater. The remaining buried
drums have the potential to contribute additional release of
contaminants in the future. As depicted in Figure 2, a ground
water contaminant plume emanates from each of the four source
areas and flows in a northerly direction. These plumes converge
to form one combined plume south of the Whispering pines Pond,
then pass under the pond and continue in a northwesterly
direction toward Cohas Brook. The vertical groundwater flow
gradient in Cohas Brook is upward, which suggests that the
contaminant plume migrates upward and discharges to the Cohas
Brook and its associated wetland. Borizontally, the main
longitudinal axis of the plume is located only several hundred
feet to the west of the Whispering pines supply wells. The
low level volatile organic contamination found in the Whispering
pines water supply is attributable to the two western most
wells, indicating that the western side of the cone of depression
is slightly intercepting the eastern edge of the contaminant
-------
plume. This plume could possibly shift laterally to the east
or west. In any event, any significant increase in water
withdrawal which increases the cone of depression could increase
the levels of contamination in the water from the supply wells.
The most probable pathway of human exposure to contaminants in
groundwater is through ingestion of and direct contact (i.e., hathing
and showering) with water that comes from contaminated residential
wells. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been detected in
onsite overburden monitoring wells in excess of 300,000 parts per
billion (ppb) while total semi-volatile organic compounds were
detected at levels up to 1,000 pph. Contaminants in hedrock
monitoring wells along Auburn Road,have also been detected at
concentrations up to 3,400 ppb.
Analysis of samples taken from the Whispering Pines supply wells
in April 1986 shows total contaminant levels of 60 ppb consisting
of Trichlorofluoromethane; 1,1 Dichloroethane; 1,1,1 Trichloroethane;
Trichloroethylene; Tetrachloroethylene and 1,1,2-Trichloro-l,2,2
Trifluoroethane. The cumulative cancer risk from life time
expcsure to these compounds at the maximum concentrations detected
to date is 9.13xlO_6 (Table 3). This current risk level falls with-
in EPA guidance which indicates that the target total individual
carcinogenic risk resulting from exposures at a Superfund site
may range between 10-4 and 10-7. However, the cancer risk
associated with the potential lifetime exposure to the highest
levels of contaminants detected onsite is 7.?.xlO_2 (Tahle 4).
Comparing the detected concentrations of each contaminant to
applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and State health
standards reveals that at present levels the contaminants detected
in the supply wells are not anticipated to cause significant
adverse health effects. Life time exposure (70 years) to this
mixture of contaminants is, however, not considered acceptable.
In addition, if the higher contaminant levels detected onsite
migrate to the supply wells, then the following contaminants
would exceed "acceptable levels": 2-Butanone; Tetrachloroethylene;
Toluene; trans 1,2 Dichloroethylene; Trichloroethytlene; Vinyl
Chloride; Arsenic; Cadmium and Lead (Table 5). Rased on
analyses of site conditions and the results of a one-dimensional
contaminant 'transport model, the contaminant plume centers
(areas of highest contaminant concentration detected onsite)
could reach the Whispering Pines supply wells within 1 to 7
years. Until then, the contaminant concentrations in the
supply wells. may continue to increase.
Sampling of residential bedrock wells in the vicinity of the
Auburn Road Landfilll site has not identified the presence of
any recurrent organic compounds. A tap water sample taken from
a residence along Auburn Road in October of 19R4 did show 57
ppb of 2 - Butanone. However, re-sampling this well later in
1984 and again in 1985 could not confirm the presence of this
compound. A tap water sample from a different residence along
Auburn Road, taken in March 198h, showed 0 ppb of Toluene.
Re-sampling of this residence in May 1980 could not confirm
the presence of Toluene
-------
,
t-'
tV
I
TABLE 3
, POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC RISK FROM LIFETIME INGESTION
OF ,CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER AT
THE flHlSPERING PINES SUPPLY WELLS
Potential
Carcinogens
Highest Cone.
(ppb) al
Est. Lifetime
Exposure Dose bl
Unit of
Cancer Risk cl
Est. Cancer
Risk dl
1,2-Dichloroethane
3.0
0.086
6.90E-02
5.90E-06
Trichloroethene
6.0
0.14
1.90E-02
3.23E-06
Cumulati ve Estimated
Cancer Risk = 9.13E-06
al
maximum concentration detected in Whispering Pines wells 113 and 114 from Aug.
1985 thru May 1986.
bl
estimated exposure dose averaged over, lifetime of 70 yrs.; expressed in
ug/kgJday.
cl
unit. cancer risk is the carcinogenic potency factor peveloped by the EPA
Carcinogen Assessment Group; expressed in (mg/kg/dayf .
dl
estimated c~cer risk = est. lifetime exposure (mg/kg/day) x unit cancer risk
(mg/kg/dayf .
E
-------
TABLE 4
"IE.TlM. UltI8ElIt 1'51 flllllIFfJ'. '.511.. IF 18..1111(1 --lEI
II . - - l8F'LL
. It". M.IE8III¥£
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C8'M'''1 .
~
I ..-IM. I CK. Iff. I elK. IFIEI I 1811 UIIII I ESI. U'" I
I "-11. 1Il1O'1". al 1IIEIIIIATlDI ., I 1'51 el lOSE "
ESt. tMCO
liSt: "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ItUI,ltN 011 wi. . kU. I " .,. I 1.2](-02 '.57 1.IE-04
T,t'IC'larltt.... I " .1. I 3098( -02 242." '.1(-03
.,ie"..t.... I .'" .,. I 1.'.-02 45.71 '.1(-04
Vi.,1 OII.i. I 12' .,. I 2.3 2.3' 5.4£-03
IHi t, DIDIIIi"", lui.. I U .,. I 4. '2( -03" 0.01' '.2£-07
I'
Pth I 0." .1. 4.34 '.025 1.IE-04
I .....ie 1 .38.1 .1. 15 3.11 5o6E-02
t-'
w ----------
I
c.l.U" £It.
c.." Ii.. . 7.2£-02
., - ...i- e...trati. of e8t..i..t "Kt,. il 8.it, .11., ,.,,"... il q/L
., - t.....i[ll e_tlt,aU.., ",,"- il ,,'L
[/ - .it c." ,iI. i. tu ellfd.....ie "18C' flCt. *"1.,. " tM EN tarei..... Is_t Ir.
""11'" ,. ...,."..,1-', ...1. UtKtI ........t ........115 EN,I_I
II - IIU..t.. "..-, ... ....... ... a lif.t'8I' """'" 'I ..,."..,
" - IItlllt,. ......' ,'d. lit. ..,...,. .......,."..,. . 8it c." ,'d ...,."..,1-'
( - ..,...16.' ,a..'". 2..-04 . M U.. .1 t. tile IItIh.. ..
, - ......,..ta 'al.
I/a - lit .,.lie..l.
. - c.d.....ie potl8C' flCt. ....i8M ,,. ..i..t IItlf hllit, CrillfiaCUS £PI,19I01.
-------
TABLE 5
POTEllJIAl IIOtt-CAliCI1I06E8IIC RISK FROII UI6ESTlOIOf COIITMIIATED 6ROU1DltAJER AT TH£ AUBURII ROAD lAlllflll:
10 ACTIDII Al TERM 11 VE
COIITAftlNAIlTs Of
COII:ERIt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I HlIIL : COlIC. BEfORE.: COlIC. AFTER I STA.ldtAlIDI : EST. ElPOSUR£ :
: ILTt8lflVE &lIEIEDIA1I0M.1 1R£IIIIATlOll bl I CRITERIA c/: DOSE dl
HAZARD
INllEI el
I
t-'
~
I
2-But.none
"etbylene Chloride
TetritblorOlthene
Toluene
Trins-I,2-Dichloroetbene
TricblorOlthene
Vinyl Chloride I
BisI2-etbylbe.yl)phth.l.te I
It-Nitrosadip.enyl'line I
PCh I
Arsenic I
C.dliul I
leid
lID kti.
-------------.-.-------------.- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12000
300
8500
6500~
330000
1600
82~
330~
3.J
0.86
130~
36~
231J
n/.
n/.
n/.
n/.
n/.
a/.
n/.
n/.
n/.
..I.
n/.
n/.
.,.
: 24.57 tHAI
IIA I
: 19.43 (RRfdl :
: 57.14 IRftClit :
: 2.0 (RRellt I
: 0.14 (ftCllt :
: 0.03 IftCllt :
600 (ADII
IIA
NA
: 1.43 (lICLI
: 0.29 (ftCli
: 1.43 IftCli
.1 - IIliaul cancentr.tiOl ~f cont'lia.nt detected in aRsite .,115 elpressed in ug/l
bl - thearetic.1 caacentr.tiOls e.pressed in ug/l
cl - ApplicAble st.adifd/criteri. lu,/ll cOIyerted to d.ily iat.kelug/k,/d.,1
t - proposed RIn or IICl niue, Fe.e,,1 Register, !lav. 13, 1985
dl - ...iaul CODe. detected Dnsite (u,/ll convlrted to d.il, int.krlug/kg/d.,)
el - b.z.,d ind.. . e.posur. dO'11 Applic.ble stiDd.r. or criteria
~ - Appro.il.te v.lue
.1. - lot iP,lic.ble
ItA - lot .v.il.ble
All - .cceptAbI. d.il, int.kr(US EPA,19841
RRfd - Risk R~ftrrnce dose(US EPA,Sept. 19851
-,
342.86
8.57
242.86
185.71
9428.6
45.71
2.34
9.43
0.086
0.025
3.71
1.03
6.60
13.95
IIA
12.5
3.25
4714.3
326.5
78
0.016
IIA
IIA
2.59
3.55
4.62
-------
Overburden and bedrock monitoring wells onsite, ~long Auhurn Road,
show significant levels of contaminination present. The levels of
contamination found in these monitoring wells are indicative of
levels of contamination to which the residents on Auburn Road, across
the street from the Site, may potentially become exposed. The
cumulative cancer risk from life time exposure to the concen-
tration of compounds detected in the onsite bedrock monitoring
wells is 1.3 x 10-2.
ENFORCEMENT
Three potentially responsible parties (PRPs) have been identified
for the Auburn Road Site: Mr. Thomopoulus, Derry Sand and Gravel
Inc., and the Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire. Notice Letters
were sent on March 12, 1986 to Mr. Thomopoulus and on June 30,
1986 to the other two PRPs.
Negotiations between EPA and the Town of Londonderry for
implementation of this operable unit are underway and the
likelihood of reaching an agreement with Londonderry is favorahle.
Although levels of contamination in the Whispering Pines supply'
wells have dropped considerably, based on the high levels
detected over the winter of 1986, 'an increase in contamination
could again occur during the winter of IQ87. Therefore, an ex-
peditious completion of a water line extension is recommended.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Section 300.68 (d) of the NCP states that a Remedial Investigationl
Feasibility study ("RI/FS") shall be undertaken to determine the
nature and extent of the threat presented hy the release of
hazardous substances and to evaluate proposed remedies. The RI
provides site characterization data that serve as the hasis for
development of the FS. In the FS, alternative remedial actions
are developed and evaluated in terms of cost, engineering
implementation and constructability, the extent to which each
alternative provides protection to puhlic health and the
environme~t, and environmental impacts during or remaining
after implementation.
In accordance with EPA "Guidance on Feasibility Studie~ TInder CERCLA"
the following technologies were developed in the Focused Feasibility
Study:
o No Action with Monitoring
o Wellhead Water Treatment
o New Supply Wells and Distribution System
o Extension of an Existing Water System
o Blending of Clean and Contaminated Water
o Bottled Water
Supplies
-------
The technology of blending clean wate~ with contaminated water
from the Whispering Pines supply wells to reduce the level of
contamination to within an acceptable range was eliminated from
consideration because this was considered the same a~ installing
totally new supply wells without hlending, an alternative which
would be evaluated. Providing bottled water for an extended
period was also eliminated from consideration as it would not
provide protection from dermal adsorption and inhalation
of contamination and was determined impracticable as a long
term solution.
The remaining technologies were then assembled into remedial
alternatives, in accordance with Section 300.6R(f) of the NCP,
to meet, as appropriate, one or more of the following criteria:
o Treatment or disposal at an off-site facility, as
appropriate;
o Attain applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal
public health and environmental requirements;
o As appropriate, exceed applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal public health and environmental
requirements;
o As appropriate, not attain applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal public health and environmental
requirements but will reduce the likelihood of present
or future threat from the hazardous substances and that
provide significant protection to public health and
welfare and the environment. This must include an
alternative that closely approaches the level of
protection provided by the applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements;
r'
.~ i
o No action.
The following is a summary of these alternatives and Tahle 0
sets forth how they meet the Section 300.68(f) criteria.
o No Action with Monitoring
~
Under this alternative additional remedial activities
would not be performed. The monitoring program which is
presently in place would continue so that possible adverse
health impacts that could arise would be identified and
addressed. The monitoring program would consist of
biweekly sampling of the Whispering pines ~upply wells,
monthly sampling of private residential wells along
Auburn Road and quarterly sampling of selected onsite
bedrock and overburden monitoring wel~. ~
-------
o Extension of an Existing Water Line
This alternative would consist of installing approxi-
mately 9,000 linear feet of water line along Auhurn Road
from the intersection of Auburn Road and Route 2R, north
to the existing distribution system for the Whispering
pines Mobile Home village. This alternative would provide
water to 17 homes along Auhurn Road north of Old Derry
Road and approximately 260 mobile home units in the
Whispering pines Mobile Home Village. The new water
line would be an extension of the current water service
provided by the Manchester Water Works (MWW). Recause
of the uncertainty of wher.e bedrock contamination could
migrate to, monitoring of residential wells along Auburn
Road would continue so that if bedrock contamination
began migrating toward Hillcrest Lane, Shady Lane or
Longwood Avenue it could he identified. The water line
could then be extended to serve these areas.
.
o New Wellfield with Distribution System
This alternative would consist of installing four new
gravel pack overburden wells, a pump house with storage
tank and a distribution system to serve 17 residences
along Auburn Road and approximately 260 units in the
Whispering pines Mobile Home Village. Included with
this alternative would be a hydrologic investigation to
determine if the aquifer can provide sufficient yield.
For the purposes of this evaluation the new wells were
assumed to be locatable on the south west corner of the
landfill site. The distribution system would consist of
approximately 6,000 linear feet of 12 inch diameter
pipe. As with Alternate 2- Extension of a Water Line,
continued monitoring of bedrock wells along Auhurn
Road would continue. Additional quarterly monitoring
of the new supply wells would also be performed in
compliance with New Hampshire Drinking Water require-
ments.
o Wellhead Treatment
This alternative would consist of providing treatment of
the groundwater at the Whispering Pines supply wells,
plus installation of a distribution system to serve 17
homes along Auburn Road. The treatment process itself
would consist of chemical precipitation for removal of
inorganic compounds followed by air stripping for removal
of the volatile organic compounds. Activited carbon
adsorption units, following air stripping, would be used
to remove residual contaminants and insur.e drinking water
quality. For this alternative the distribution system
would consist of approximately 4,200 linear feet of 12
inch diameter pipe. Extensive monitoring of the influent
and effluent contaminant levels would be required to insure
-------
;
proper performance of the treatment process. As with the
previously discussed alternatives, monitoring of hedrock
wells along Auburn Road wouln continue.
Alternatives for treatment or disposal at an off-site facility
were not developed because the site conditions no not make
this criteria possible or appropriate. An alternative that did
not meet applicable or relevant and appropriate pederal puhlic
health and environmental requirements but that will provide
adequate protection was not developed because all apprbpriate and
possible technologies met or exceeded these requirements.
These alternatives were screened on the' basis of costs, acceptable
engineering practices and effectivesness (i.e. adequate protection
of public health and welfare and the environment) in accordance
with Section 300.68 (g) of the NCP. All of these alternatives
passed this initial screening.
In accordance with Section 300.68(h) of the NCP, a more detailed
evaluation was then performed for each of the above four alternatives,
that included:
o A detailed cost estimation including operation and
maintenance cost, and distribution of costs over time.
o An evaluation in terms of engineering implementation,
reliability and constructahility;
o An assessment of the extent to which each alternative is
expected to effectively prevent, mitigate, or minimize
threats to and provide adequate protection of public health
and welfare and the environment. This includes an evaluation
of the extent to which each alternative attains or exceeds
applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal public health
and environmental requirements; and
o An analysis of any adverse environmental impacts.
Table 7 summarizes the results of the initial screening and the
more detailed evaluation in general terms of cost, technical,
and environmental and public health issues. The third criteria
listed above is discussed below in more detail in the section
entitled APPLICABLE or RELEVANT and APPROPRIATE PURLIC HEALTH
and ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
The residents along Auburn Road, adjacent to the site, and the resinents
and owner of the Whispering pines Mobile Home Village have been
actively involved in discussion about conditions and response actions
at this Site. The residents primary concern has always been ahout
protection of public health, principally protection against exposure
through ingestion of contaminated groundwater. Other concerns have
been protection from direct contact with exposed barrels onsite,
-------
TA8LE 6
AUBURN ROAD ~EMEDIAL AL TERN~S
FOR ALTERNATE WATER SUPPL Y
No Action
Does Not
Meet
ARAs* (l)
Meets ARA Federal Exceeds ARA Federal
Public Health and Public Health and
Env. Requirements Env. Requirements
Treatment or
Disposal at
Offsite Facility
Alternatives
I: No-Action with surface water X Ni\
and groundwater monitoring
I 2: Water line X X NA
f-'
\..0
I 3: New wellfield and distribution X (May) X (May) N/\
system, with monitoring
4: Wellhead Treatment, with X (May) X (May) N/\
monitoring
(J)
But will reduce the likelihood of present or future threat from the hazardous
substances and that provide significant protection to public health and welfare
and the environment.
. ARA: Applicable or relevant and appropriate
NA:
-------
Alternative
1.
No Action
2.
Water Line
Extension
Present W:'>rth Cost*
$2,Q46,000
$2,372,000
Technical Evaluation
.Can be implerented
using existing
monitoring wells.
.Proper sampling and
analytical procedures
needed to yield re-
liable results.
.lDng turnaround tire
between sampling and
results.
.Manchester Water
Vbrks must apply for
a franchise exten-
sion to serve
residents of Auhurn
Road and Whispering
Pines.
.Manchester Water
Vbrks has the equip-
rent and expertise
to properly maintain
a water line.
.Installation would
occur wi thi n Town
righ t-of-way.
. No unusual constru-
tion techniques
required.
TABLE 7
Environmental Evaluation
.Will have no effect
on wetlands or flood-
plains.
.One minor stream
crossing would he
required resulting
in a temporary
disruption.
.No other wetland or
flood plain impacts
are expected.
Puhlic Health Evaluation
.Residents of Whisper.ing
pines Mohile Home VillAge
would continue to he
exposed to contamination.
Potentia I dsk level coul1
reAch 7. 2xllr'2.
.Residents along Auhurn
Road could potentially he
ex~)Sed to high levels of
contamination.
.Provides a safe, reliahle
source of potahle water.
. EI imi nates human eyposure
to contaminaterl qrounrlwater.
.8stimaterl risk fran
Trihalomethanes (THM's)
resulting from chlorina-
tion is 5xlO-S
*The swn of HDney which if invested nON at a given interest rate would provide exactly the funds neerled to construct,
oper3te and maintain an alternative for a specific period of time.
-------
Alternative
2.
Water- line
Extension
(cont. )
3.
New ~lls with
Distribution
System
Present Worth Cost*
$2,481,000
TABLE
Technical Evaluation
.Distrihution pipe
size is 24 inch
diameter for compa-
tahility with
Manchester Water
Works system.
.No additional
sampling and
analysis required
by Manchester Water
Works.
. Bedrock wells along
Auburn Road would
continue to be
sampled and analyzed.
.System could be
easily expanded to
serve other areas.
.Hydrological study
to site new wells
would be needed.
.If wells could not
be installed on site,
costs could increase
further due to in-
creased land costs
and longer distribu-
tion system.
.Iron removal may be
necessary which
would increase capital
and O&M costs.
.A new water district
WJuld have to be
formed.
cont. -
Environmental Evaluation
,.
.Siting of new pump house
and storage tank WJul
-------
Alternative
3.
New ~lls and
Distribution
System (cont.)
4.
~ 11 Head
Tt:"ea anent
with Distri-
bution.
Present Worth Cost*
$4,31R,000
TABLE
7
Technical Evaluation
.Distribution pipe
size could be reduced
to 12 inch.
.Would not have the
expandabilityof
Alt. 2.
.New water district
would be responsible
for sarnpl i ng and
analyzing raw water
in addition to
routine maintenance
of equipnent and
distribution system.
. Bedrock we Ils along
Auburn would continue
to be sampled and
analyzed.
.Requires at least one
full time operator.
.Can be located close
to residents.
.Shortest length of
distribution system
needed.
.A new water district
would have to be
formed.
.Would require at
least two full time
operators.
-')~-
cont.-
Environmental Evaluation
.Siting of treatment
facility would not he
within a wetland or
floodplain.
.One minor stream
crossir\] during
installation of the
distribution system
would be necessary
resulting in
temporary disruption.
Public Health Evaluation
.WOuld reduce the extent
of human exposure to
contaninants to within
a target risk range of
-------
Alternative
4.
W? 11 Head
Tr-eatment
with Distd-
bution
(cant. )
Present Worth Cost*
TABLE
Technical Evaluation
.Not easily expanded.
.Requires rrore
extensive monitoring
of influent and
effluent.
.Would require chemical
-deliveries for the
treatment process.
.Bedrock wells along
Auburn Road would
continue to be
rron i tored.
-23-
7
cont.-
Environmental Evaluation
.Any effluent, sludge
disposal or air emmissions
will be in compliance
with applicable Federal
requirerrents.
-------
protection from air contamination and the impact this site has had
on property values and marketability of homes in the area. There
have also been concerns voiced that EPA is spending too much time
and money studying the site rather than cleaning it up.
At a recent public meeting to discuss the alternatives evaluated
in the Focused Feasibility Study, the general consensus was for
EPA to approve Alternate 2 - Water Line 8xtension, and begin
construction as soon as possible.
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRON-
MENTAL STANDARDS
Alternate I - No Action
Alternate I involves monitoring of existing wells and requires no
construction. Therefore, the Occupational Safety and Health Act,
which regulates protection of construction and operational personnel,
is not applicable. As no construction is to take place there will
be no impact to wetlands or floodplains in the area.
The Clean Air Act regulates discharges to the air while the Clean
Water Act regulates discharges to surface waters. Since neither of
these discharges will occur under the No Action Alternative, the
requirements of these regulations are not applicable. The Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates the disposal of
hazardous wastes and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates
disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). The No Action Alter-
native would not involve any disposal, therefore, these regulations
are also not applicable.
Although the levels of contamination detected in the Whispering pines
water supply wells currently meet the Safe Drinking Water Act require-
ments as well as the New Hampshire drinking water requirements, if the
levels of contaminants detected onsite migrate to the supply wells,
as expected, these requirements would not be met. See Table 5, above.
Alternate 2 - Supply Line
Construction of a water line would not result in discharges to air or
surface waters nor would disposal of hazardous wastes or PCBs be
involved. Therefore the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA and
TSCA are not applicable to this alternative. The contruction
contractor, however, would be required to comply with all applicable
OSHA requirements.
Construction of a water line along Auburn Road would involve one
stream crossing. Protection of the wetland associated with the stream
crossing would be taken into account during design. Impacts to these
wetlands are considered temporary, occuring only during construction.
The design would require that the wetlands be returned to their original
conditions. There would be no impact to any flood plain.
-------
The quality of water supplied through the new supply line would be
regulated by the State of New Hampshire and is required to comply
with State drinking water standards and the Federal Safe Drinking
Water Act.
Alternate 3 - Well Field and Distribution System
As with Alternate 2, construction of new wells with a distribution
system would not result in discharges to the air or surface waters
nor would it involve disposal of hazardous wastes or PCBs. Therefore
the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA and TSCA are not applicable.
OSHA requirements would however be applicable during construction.
As with Alternate 2, a stream crossing of a brook leading from
the Whispering pines Pond would be necessary during installation
of the distribution system. All necessary precautions would be
included in the design specifications for protection of any wetland
impacted during construction of the stream crossing and the wetlands
will be returned to their original conditions. Siting of any
necessary structures would be outside of wetland or floodplains
therefore, no floodplains would be impacted.
As discussed in a previous section, a hydrogeologic investigation
would be required to locate a suitable source of water. Included
with this investigation would be an analysis of the groundwater
quality to insure it meets the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and
all State drinking water requirements.
Alternate 4 - Wellhead Treatment and Distribution System
Operation of a wellhead treatment facility would require a discharge
to the air either directly from the air stripper or from an after
burner or incinerator if one is used to incinerate the VOCs removed
from the groundwater by the air stripper. Design of the air stripper
and/or incinerator would have to insure that air quality requirements
under the Clean Air Act could be met.
The treated water from the air stripper would be discharged either
back to the groundwater onsite or to a surface water such as the
cohas Brook. If the discharge is to the Cohas Brook then discharge
limits required under the Clean Water Act would have to be complied
with.
A preliminary stage of the wellhead treatment process involves removal
of inorganics (metals) by chemical precipitation. This process
produces a sludge which must be disposed. Tests on this sludge
would have to be performed to determine if it contained any hazardous
waste as defined under RCRA or TSCA. If hazardous wastes or PC8s
were detected, then disposal of the sludge would have to comply with
the requirements of RCRA and/or TSCA.
-------
As with Alternates 2 and 3, the purpose of wellhead treat~ent is to
supply the residents of Whispering Pines and along Auhurn Road with a
safe reliable source of water. To do this, the wellhead treatment
process would be designed to insure that the water quality meets
state drinking water requirements and the Safe Drinking Water Act
requirements.
As with Alternates 2 and 3, all construction as well as operation
activities for this alternative would comply with applicahle OSHA
requirements. Installation of a distribution system would also
require one stream crossing. Design specifications would incorporate
measures to mitigate impacts to wetlands disturbed during the stream
crossing and require that the wetlands be returned to their original
conditions. Sufficient area exists in the vicinity of the Whispering
Pines supply wells to enable the treatment facility to be constructed
outside of floodplains or wetlands.
Due to the uncertainties that will exist until completion of
treatability studies and pilot plant studies, compliance with
certain Federal requirements cannot be definitly determined at
this time.
Table 8 presents a comparative summary of each alternative's ability
to meet or exceed the applicable or relevant and ~ppropriate public
health and environmental standards.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
Section 300.68(i) of the National Contingency Plan states that
the appropriate extent of remedy shall be determined by the
lead agency's selection of a cost-effective remedial alternative
that effectively mitigates and minimizes threats to and provides
adequate protection of public health and welfare and environment.
EPA has determined the cost effective alternative for providing
an alternate source of water to the residents of the Whispering
pines Mobile Home Village and along Auburn Road adjacent to the
landfill site to be Alternate 2 - Extension of a Water Line. Of
the four alternatives evaluated, Alternate 1 - No Action, was
eliminated from consideration because it provided no protection
of human health from potential exposure to levels of contamination
detected onsite in both the bedrock and overburden aquifers.
Alternate 4 - Wellhead Treatment and Distribution Syste~, was
not chosen because of its high cost. This alternative is also
highly dependent on proper operation of a complex treatment
facility making this alternative less reliable than either
Alternate 2 or 3.
As shown in Table 4, both Alternate 2 - Extension of a Water
Line and Alternate 3 - Installation of New Wells and Distrihution
System, would meet all app1icahle or relevant and appropriate
federal puhlic health and environmental standards. There are several
-------
TABLE:
8
Applicable or Relevant and Approprinte
Federal and Public Health and Environmental Standards
Al t. I
l'h-Action
';.
Clean Air- Act
NA
Clean Water- Act
NA
Safe Dr-inking water Act
meets (cur-rently)
may not (future)
Al t. 2
Supply Line
NA
NA
rreets
Alt. :3
V€llfield and
Distribution System
NA
NA
rreets
RCRA NA NA NA
TSCA NA NA NA
OSHA NA rree ts meets
Wetlands/Floodplains NA rooets* meets*
NH Regulations NA rreets meets
NA: Not applicable
*Proper- design and construction of a stream crossing would be r-equired
to mitigate adverse impacts.
-27-
<>
Al t. 4
wellhead Treatment ann
nistrihution System
may fleet
my meet
may meet
may meet
may meet
rree ts
meets*
meets
t-j
»-
JJ
r
-------
reasons why Alte~nate 2 was chosen ~athe~ than Alternate). ~irst,
the p~esent worth cost for Alternate 2 is lower than Alternate 3
(Table R). Moreover, the present worth cost fo~ Alternate 3 was
based on the assumption that an adequate source of water with ac-
ceptable water quality could be locateo in the southern portion of
the landfill site. If the hydrologic study oetermines that the new
wells cannot be located onsite, another location woulo have to he
found. This would also increase the cost of the hyorologic stu~y
and could result in increased land costs and increase~ distrihution
system costs if the wells were located further away from Auhurn
Road. Second, as discussed previously, a water oistrict woulrl
have to be formed before Alternate 3 could be implementerl. A
time estimate of two to 12 months for establishing a water
district has been used, but the process coulo conceivahly
extend beyond 12 months. This in turn would mean a delay of
18 months or longer before water is actually provioed to the
residents of Auburn Road and Whispering Pines.
In contrast, Alternate 2 has many advantages over Alternate 3.
Extension of a new water line (Alt. 2), coulrl be accomplished
in 6 to 8 months. Alternate 2 also provides greater expansion
capabilities should the water line have to be extenoed to
other areas not initially served if the contaminants begin to
migrate. Finally, Alternate 2 would provide a more reliahle
source of water to the area. The Manchester Water Works is
already equipped to deal with the day-to-day operation and
maintenance of a large distribution system as well as the
continued monitoring of its water quality.
OPERATION and MAINTENANCE
Operation and maintenance of this operable unit shall consist
of servicing each residential water connection and monthly
sampling of bedrock wells along Auburn Road. These costs are
estimated to be approximately $57,000 per year and are considered
part of the approved action and eligihle for Trust Fund monies
for a period not to exceed one year.
SCHEDULE
Signing of the Record of Decision
09/2fi/Rn
Signing of an Administrative Consent Order
between EPA and the Town of Londonderry for
design and construction of the water line
10/15/R6
Complete Design
lO/3l/Rfi
03/15/87
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
09/15/87
-------
FUTURE ACTIONS
The recommended alternative will not adrlress the contamination
source areas or the residual groundwater contamination at the
site. Alternatives to address possible source control and
additional management of migration remerlial alternatives will
be presented in a forthcoming Feasihility Study. A Record of
Decision will be prepared for approval of future remedial
actions.
-------
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
RESPONSIVENESS SOMKAR.Y
ADBUIUi ROAD LARDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
LONDONDERRY, NEW HAMPSHIRE
INTRODUCTION
This community relations responsiveness summary for the Auburn Road
Landfill site documents for the public record concerns and issues raised
during remedial planning, comments raised during the comment period on the
feasibility study, and the responses of EPA to these concerns.
The responsiveness summary is divided into the following sections:
Section I.
Overview. This section discusses EPA's preferred alternative
for remedial action, and the public reaction to this
alternative.
Section II.
Background on Community Involvement and Concerns. This section
provides a brief history of community interest and concerns.
raised during remedial planning activities at the Auburn Road
Landfill Site.
Section III.
Summary of Major Comments Received During the Public Comment
Period and the EPA Responses to the Comments. Both written and
oral comments are categorized by relevant topics. EPA
responses to these major comments are also provided.
Section IV.
Remaining Concerns. This section describes remaining community
concerns that EPA should be aware of in conducting the remedial
design and remedial action at the Auburn Road Landfill Site.
In addition to the above sections, Attachment A, included as part of
this responsiveness summary, identifies the community relations activities
conducted by the EPA during remedial response activities at the Auburn Road
Landfill Site.
OVBIVIBW
The focused feasibility study (FFS) was designed to evaluate remedial
actions at the Auburn Road Landfill Site which would provide an alternate
water supply to 17 residences along Auburn Road and to the Whispering Pines
Mobile Home Park. The increasing levels of contaminants detected in
drinking water near the site warrant an alternate water source. A number of
barrels were removed from the site in the spring of 1986, altering the
source of contamination, and necessitating additional field investigations.
Rather than waiting for additional field studies to be completed for the
comprehensive feasibility study (FS) of the site, EPA requested that a FFS
be prepared focusing on an alternate water supply.
Almost all the comments received during the public comment period from
residents and local officials strongly supported extending the water line
from the Manchester Water Works. This would provide municipal water to the
Whispering Pines Mobile Home Park and 17 residences along Auburn Road. In
-------
general, residents viewed the water line extension as the only alternative
that would guarantee them a safe, clean drinking water supply.
BACKGROUND ON C<»HJNITY
INVOLVEMElfr AND CONCERBS
Community interest in the Auburn Road Landfill Site dates back to 1979
when area residents began to complain of health problems. Complaints from
nearby residents of respiratory problems and skin rashes were reported from
1979 to 1982. Public attention regarding the site began to swell as concern
grew over what chemicals had been buried at the site. Residents along
Auburn Road unified and formed a neighborhood group of approximately 20
citizens who attempted to put pressure on State and local officials to take
action at the site. In the summer of 1981, EPA became involved with the
site for the first time. While a number of different concerns were
expressed by residents during the remedial planning activities at the site,
a majority of these concerns were related to the ground-water contamination
problem at the site.
These concerns and how EPA and the State addressed these concerns are
described below.
1.
Residents along Auburn Road who were concerned about health effects
from groundwater contamination at the site undertook a health
survey between March 1981 and June 1981.
State Response: Review of the results by the State Health Depart-
ment indicated that there was not an excessive number of illnesses
when the figures were compared to the national average.
2.
During the remedial investigation (RI) residents expressed concern
and confusion over the levels of contaminants in their water and
what was considered safe or unsafe.
EPA Response: EPA notified residents by mail of all well sampling
results. In addition, following completion of the RI, EPA offi-
cials held a public meeting and issued a fact sheet which summar-
ized the results of the RI and indicated potential health effects
associated with contaminants found at the site.
3.
Citizens and local officials expressed a great deal of concern over
the immediate need for a safe drinking water supply for residents
in the Whispering Pines Mobile Home Park and along Auburn Road.
EPA Response: EPA conducted a focused feasibility study to address
the means to provide an alternative water supply.
S1IIIWlY 01' PUBLIC COJIMUTS HCBlVED
DOKDfG PUBLIC ~1IT PElUOD
AIID AGElICY HSPOIiSBS
Comments raised during the Auburn Road Landfill Site public comment
period are summarized below. The comment period was held from July 24 to
August 14, 1986 to receive comments on the focused feasibility study. The
-------
comments received during the comment period are categorized by relevant
topics.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE PREFERENCES
All of the commentors on the focused feasibility study report expressed
a preference for the water line extension alternative. These preferences
are as follows:
1.
The New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
recommended Alternative 2, extension of the water line. The com-
mission suggested that the water line extension is the most expe-
dient remedy available for providing a safe, long-term drinking
water supply. In addition, the Division of Public Health Services
(DPHS) suggested that if the new water line alternative is chosen,
continued monitoring should be performed on residences within the
study area who are not connected. The DPHS stated that this moni-
toring will provide quantitative da~a to confirm the RI conclusion
that eliminating the use of Auburn Road wells and Whispering Pine
supply wells will decrease the possibility of other wells becoming.
contaminated.
EPA Response:
EPA concurs with the recommendation of the New Hampshire Division
of Public Health Services that continued monitoring should be per-
formed on residences within the study area which will not be con-
nected to the proposed water line. The cost for monitoring of
residential bedrock wells has been accounted for in an amendment to
the Focused Feasibility Study that has been made available to the
public.
2.
An attorney representing the owners and residents of the Whispering
Pines Mobile Home Park strongly supported the extension of the
water line from the Manchester Water Works. He suggested that it
is the only alternative which assures residents of a clean safe
drinking water supply. He added that another advantage to the
water line extension alternative is that the Manchester Water Works
has already undertaken preliminary design and engineering studies
and has submitted an application to have its franchise extended to
the Auburn Road area. In addition, the extension would require no
monitoring of groundwater, no treatment and no additional manage-
ment and maintenance costs.
EPA Response:
The Record of Decision concludes that extension of a water line is
the most cost-effective alternative for providing a safe, reliable,
long term source of water to the 17 residences along Auburn Road,
north of Old Derry Road and the Whispering Pines Mobile Home
Village.
3.
Over 200 residents from the Whispering Pines Mobile Home Park
signed a petition supporting the water line extension alternative.
-------
o
The residents expressed concern that one year is too long to wait
for clean water and they want EPA to act as soon as possible to
install the waterline. They feel that since the RI confirmed that
the Whispering Pines supply wells are contaminated, the EPA should
consider this an emergency situation and install the water line
immediately.
EPA Response:
EPA concurs that construction of the waterline should be initiated
as soon as possible. A period of one year to design and construct
a 9000 ft. water line with all appurtenance is not considered
unreasonable particularly in an area where winter conditions can
severely impact construction. Actual construction of the water
line was estimated to take a maximum of 6 months. The remaining 6
months was estimated for design (3 months) and winter shutdown
(3 months). These estimates are subject to adjustment dependent
upon actual design length, severity of cold weather and construc-
tion conditions encountered. Until the water line is installed,
EPA will continue to monitor the residential supply wells along
Auburn Road and the Whispering Pines supply wells and provide an
alternate temporary source of water if necessary.
4.
All of the individual residents who submitted comments expressed
strong support for extending the water line. Several residents
stated that it was a mental and physical stress not knowing what
kind of water they were using for cooking or bathing. Many resi-
dents stated that EPA should act immediately to install the water-
line. Several residents suggested that people have invested their
life's savings into homes, not knowing the water situation, and
would suffer unduly should this problem be allowed to persist.
Other residents stated that it was EPA's duty to take immediate
action to protect residents from the hazards of toxic waste. In
general, residents agreed that Alternative 2 is the best option in
terms of protecting public health, quick results, and lowest long-
term costs.
EPA Response:
The levels of contaminants detected thus far in the Whispering
Pines supply wells have been determined not to present an immediate
health threat to those exposed through ingestion, inhalation or
dermal contact. EPA agrees however, that long term exposure (70
years) to levels currently detected in the supply wells is not
acceptable. In addition, EPA believes that an imminent and su~-
stantial endangerment may exist if levels detected onsite migrate
to such supply wells. To that end, EPA proposes that a water line
be installed as soon as possible.
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS/CONCERNS
REGARDING REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
1.
The attorney representing Whispering Pines Mobile Home Park
expressed concern over Alternative 3, finding a new well field.
He
-------
stated that finding a new, clean well field would require excessive
hydrogeologic studies and still the new well field might not be
safe. He added that Alternative 3 would be time consuming, would
require acquisition of land or property rights and still might
require an expensive treatment process. Several residents also
expressed concern that the new well field option would be very time
consuming and would not guarantee them safe drinking water.
EPA Response:
EPA concurs that locating a new well field would require a hydro-
geologic study to insure that the new source of water is safe and
of sufficient quantity to meet the needs of the area. If new wells
could not be located onsite then an extended period of time would
be needed to locate an acceptable area. The aquisition of property
has now been incorporated into a revised cost analysis for Alter-
nate 3. The revised capital cost for new wells is now estimated at
$1,454,200 which includes $124,600 for the purchase of 7 acres of
land.
2.
The New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission.
suggested that the cost of Alternative 3 has been underestimated
since the FFS Report does not consider the cost of the land area
needed for the facility and to provide a protective buffer zone.
In addition, the commission stated that the costs optimistically
assumed that a suitable site could be found in close proximity to
the residences that would be serviced. Other factors the commis-
sion cites are time constraints that could prevent Alternative 3
from coming on line for several years and the fact that Alternative
3 does not guarantee a clean, permanent water source.
EPA Response:
EPA has re-evaluated the cost of Alternate 3 and agrees that the
Focused Feasibility Study did not account for the purchase of prop-
erty. This has now been corrected (see response to Technical Ques-
tion 1). As indicated in the Focused Feasibility Study, the time
required to fully implement Alternate 3 is dependent upon the time
necessary to locate an acceptable source of groundwater and estab-
lish a water district. EPA agrees that delays in either implement-
ing requirement could exceed the 12 month implementation period
specified in the Focused Feasibility Study.
3.
The attorney representing the Whispering Pines Mobile Home Park
expressed concern that Alternatives 1 (no action) and 4 (treatment)
would not assure that human exposure to the contaminated ground-
water is eliminated. Several residents stated that "no action"
makes no sense because people are already having reactions to the
water and toxic levels could easily rise. In addition, residents
suggested that options 1, 3, and 4 could be much more expensive if
they prove to be ineffective in improving the drinking water.
-------
EPA Response:
EPA concurs that Alternative 1 would not provide adequate protec-
tion of human health and that Alternative 4 may not be as protec-
tive as Alternative 2. In addition, Alternative 3 or 4 could be
more expensive if either was selected and proven to be ineffective.
4.
The New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
expressed concern that Alternatives 1 and 4 are too costly, too
time consumptive and do not assure that human exposure to the con-
taminated groundwater will be minimized.
EPA Response:
EPA concurs with the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Con-
trol Commission in that Alternatives 1 and 4 are costlier, more
time consuming and not as protective of human health as
Alternative 2.
HEALTH EFFECTS/RISKS
1.
Several residents expressed concern over the potential health
effects from continued use of the contaminated water during design
and construction of the remedial alternative. One resident recom-
mended supplying clean water in the form of bottled water to resi-
dents in the interim. This resident stated that bottled water was
necessary because of the possible health effects from drinking the
contaminated water.
EPA Response:
As presented in the Focused Feasibility Study, the health risk
associated with exposure to the highest levels of contaminants
detected so far in the water supply wells for the Whispering Pines
Mobile Home Village is 9.13 x 10-6. Independent evaluations by
the EPA, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia and
the New Hampshire Division of Public Health conclude that exposure
to this current level of contamination does not constitute an
immediate health threat. EPA will continue monitoring the
Whispering Pines supply wells on a regular basis. If contaminant
levels begin to approach unacceptable concentrations, steps will be
taken to provide residents with some alternate source of water,
such as bottled water, until completion of the water line
extension.
2.
A resident expressed concern about drinking water that has not been
tested for just under two weeks. This resident suggested that EPA
can not guarantee that some adverse health effect mayor may not
occur from drinking the water.
EPA Response:
The testing program for the Whispering Pines supply wells should
identify rises in contaminants levels long before they become an
-------
immediate health threat because contaminant movement through the
overburden aquifer and fluctuation of contaminant levels of these
wells is gradual.
3.
A resident questioned what further health problems could arise from
the site other than those related to the contaminated groundwater.
EPA Response:
Future health problems, other than those related to the contami-
nated groundwater, will be addressed in a future Feasibility
Study. Exposures as result of future cleanup efforts will be eval-
uated for each cleanup alternative addressed in the future Feasi-
bility Study. Discussion of the future cleanup alternatives and
associated impacts will be held in a public meeting forum for the
cleanup Feasibility Study, and the public will have the opportunity
to comment on the feasibility study alternatives.
4.
The DPHS reviewed the carcinogenic potency factors used in the FFS
Report and suggested that certain factors being used are outdated..
The DPHS stated that 1,2-dichloroethane, trichloroethylene and
tetrachlorethylene carcinogenic potency factors have been revised
by the EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group and can be located in a
recently published Health Assessment Document. The DPHS suggested
that using the updated values would lead to increased estimated
cancer risk.
EPA Response:
The carcinogenic potency factors for these three compounds were
obtained from Health Effects Assessment documents (U.S. EPA,
1985). These numbers are being constantly updated. The most
recent document published by the EPA Carcinogenic Assessment Group
(Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene,
September 1985) contains an updated listing of the potency fac-
tors. The potency factors used in the FFS compare to those found
in this list as follows:
FFS
Carcinogenic Potency
September 1985 Listing
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
6.90 x 10-2
1.90 x 10-2
3.98 x 10-2
9.1 x 10-2
1.1 x 10-2
5.1 x 10-2
If the values from the September 1985 listing were used, the esti-
mated cancer risk for 1,2-dichloroethane would increase by approxi-
mately a factor of 1.3, for trichloroethylene the estimated risk
would decrease by a factor of 0.6 and for tetrachloroethylene the
estimated risk would increase by a factor of approximately 1.3.
Since the net change would be considerably less than an order of
magnitude, the carcinogenic potency factors used in the FFS should
be adequate to provide an estimate of the cancer risk.
-------
~
5.
The DPHS questioned what standard/criteria was used for trichloro-
fluoromethane.
EPA Response:
The standard/criteria for trichlorofluoromethane of 349 ug/kg/day
is a verified Reference Dose (RfD) for Oral Exposure which was pre-
pared by the ADI Work Group of the Risk Assessment Forum on 1/9/86
and published by U.S. EPA ECAO, Cincinnati, January, 1986.
6.
The DPHS suggested that when presenting "acceptable levels" in the
discussion of non-carcinogenic effects, the rationale for selecting
one acceptable level rather than another should be stated.
EPA Response:
In order to provide internal consistency and to ensure that the
most applicable standard was used fQr a particular exposure route,
a route-specific hierarchy was developed for the relevant stand-
ards/criteria/guidelines. The first standard/criterion/guideline
on the list was used preferentially. If that particular value did
not exist for a particular compound, the next value on the list was
used, and so on.
For oral exposure to contaminants, the following values were used
(in order of preference):
1.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). These are the only availa-
ble proposed enforceable standards and are specific to inges-
tion of drinking water.
2.
Recommended Maximum Contaminant Levels (RMCLs). (For noncar-
cinogens only). Proposed RMCLs are the first step in setting
MCLs; they are nonenforceable health goals, based on health
effects only, and are specific to ingestion of drinking water.
3.
Health Advisories (HAs) - Lifetime. Recommendations of Office
of Drinking Water. Specific to ingestion of ground water,
therefore the most applicable guideline.
4.
Risk Reference Dose (RRfd). The Risk Reference Dose is an
estimate of lifetime daily exposure to the human population
which is not anticipated to result in any adverse non-
carcinogenic effects. RRfds are non-enforceable health goals
rather than regulatory standards.
5.
Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). The Acceptable Daily Intake is
an estimate of an exposure level which would not be expected to
cause adverse effects when exposure occurs for a significant
portion of a lifespan. ADIs are non-enforceable health goals
rather than regulatory standards (U.S. EPA Environmental Cri-
teria and Assessment Office, September, 1984).
-------
7.
Regarding the discussion of the no-action alternative, the DPHS
suggested that the restrictions to prevent accidental exposure to
contaminated surface and groundwater should be discussed in the
public health evaluation, since human health is being evaluated.
EPA Response:
The no-action alternative should serve as a baseline against which
other alternatives are compared. By definition, therefore,
restrictive actions to prevent accidental exposure should not be
discussed, as this would no longer serve to fulfill the CERCLA
requirement that the FS examine and present to the EPA an alterna-
tive in the "No Action" category. It should be stressed that this
discussion was meant to evaluate the present and future potential
risk to public health in the absence of any restrictions or reme-
dial action.
8.
The DPHS questioned what concentration levels and what semi-
volatile compounds were detected in the Whispering Pines supply
wells close to the Auburn Road Landfill Site. In addition, the.
DPHS wanted to know why these semi-volatile compounds were not
included in the evaluation of potential health risks in the FFS
Report.
EPA Response:
Semi-volatile compounds were not included in the evaluation of cur-
rent potential health risks because they have not been detected in
the Whispering Pines supply wells to date. However, the semi-
volatile contaminants of concern that were detected in onsite moni-
toring wells a~ the Auburn Road Landfill site were used to evaluate
potential worst-case exposure conditions (see pp. 4-15 through 4-19
in the FFS).
9.
The DPHS stated that the cumulative estimated cancer risk after
well-head treatment is not an acceptable risk. The DPHS suggested
that this estimated cancer risk (5.8 x 10-3) should be included
in Table ES-l.
BfA Response:
BPA concurs with the New Hampshire Division of Public Health Serv-
ices in that the risk factor of 5.8 x 10-3 for Well Head Treat-
ment does not fall within the EPA target risk range of 10-4 to
10-7. Omission of this risk factor from Table ES-l was an o~er-
site, however it was adequately covered in Section 4 of the Focused
Feasibility Study.
DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION PHASE
1.
A resident questioned whether there were any problems that might
occur during design and construction that could inhibit extending
the water line.
-------
;:,
EPA Response:
The amount of rock excavation during construction could delay com-
pletion of the water line extension. This delay can be minimized
through proper design and quantity estimations. The six month time
period estimated for construction accounts for a quantity of rock
excavation and should be sufficient.
2.
A resident questioned whether the residents would have an opportun-
ity to review the design study before construction begins.
EPA Response:
The community relations plan for the Auburn Road Landfill Site will
be updated to provide for public input during the design and con-
struction phases.
3.
A resident questioned whether EPA will continue to monitor and test
residents wells during construction.
EPA Response:
Monitoring of the Whispering Pines water supply wells and the resi-
dential wells along Auburn Road will continue throughout construc-
tion. Residential wells along Auburn Road will no longer be needed
once the new water line is activated. but will still be used for
periodic sampling of the bedrock aquifer.
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
L
A few residents
resident wanted
released of any
required to pay
questioned who will finance the water line. One
to know whether the town of Londonderry would be
present and future liabilities if it is allowed or
for the water line.
EPA Response:
The new water line will be financed either by Federal Superfund
monies that will subsequently be recovered from responsible parties
or by a Responsible Party under an administrative order by EPA.
The Town of Londonderry has expressed an interest in financing the
proposed water line extension. Any release from liabilities would
be addressed in the administrative order.
2.
A resident questioned whether the town of Londonderry might charge
or tax residents for the cost of the water line extension.
EPA Response:
If the Town of Londonderry were to finance the construction of the
proposed water line. the Town administrators would decide how funds
would be raised.
-------
3.
A resident questioned whether EPA is actively pursuing the poten-
tially responsible parties (PRPs) and whether the PRPs will be
financially responsible. In addition, the resident wanted to know
why EPA has not released the names of other PRPs.
EPA Response:
EPA is in the process of identifying Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) for the Auburn Road Landfill Site. EPA has released
the names of the following PRPs that have been notified:
( 1)
(2)
(3)
Town of Londonderry, N.H.
Mr. George Thomopoulus
Derry Sand & Gravel, Inc.
Under CERCLA any PRP may be liable for some or all costs incurred
in undertaking response actions at the site.
4.
A few residents stated that finances should not be an obstacle when
protecting public health. They encouraged EPA to take strong legal
action against the PRPs involved. .
EPA Response:
EPA concurs with taking strong legal actions against PRPs and will
pursue all appropriate administrative and legal actions necessary
to protect public health.
UKAIR'ING PUBLIC COHCBlUfS
Issues and concerns that EPA was unable to address during remedial
planning activities include the following:
o
If the water lin~ alternative is chosen, who will pay for it? EPA
was unable to address this question since negotiations are still
ongoing and because Superfund has yet to be reauthorized.
-------
I>
"
()
APPENDIX A
C<»OOJKITY RBLATIONS
ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED AT. AUBURN ROAD LANDFILL SITE
o
EPA and State officials held a public meeting to discuss conditions at
the site (October 1981).
o
Information repositories were established at the Leach Library and the
Londonderry Town Hall (May 1984).
o
EPA held a public meeting to discuss plans for the RIfFS. In addition,
EPA issued a fact sheet summarizing cleanup plans (June 1984).
o
EPA conducted on-site discussions with local officials and interested
residents and prepared a community relations plan (May 1985).
o
Press releases were issued announcing the RIfFS work plan
progress and plans at the site (May 1985), plans for drum
1986), results of the RI (April 1986), and results of the
(July 1986).
(June 1984),
removal (March
FFS
o
EPA held an informational public meeting to explain progress and plans at
the site May 1985.
o
EPA issued several progress and plans fact sheets during the RIfFS.
a
EPA held a public meeting at the Londonderry High School to describe the
results of the RI and to respond to citizen's questions (April 30,
1986). Approximately 200 local citizens, officials and media attended
the meeting. A fact sheet describing the RI was distributed and a public
meeting summary was prepared.
o
Focused feasibility study was released for public review and comment
(July 1986).
o
EPA held a public meeting at the Londonderry Junior High School to
announce the results of the FFS and to respond to citizen's questions
(July 30, 1986). Approximately 50 local citizens, officials and medial
attended the meeting. A fact sheet describing the cleanup options was
distributed. In addition EPA presented the results of the endangerment
assessment which assessed the potential risks to public health from con-
taminants at the site.
o
EPA held a public hearing at the Londonderry Junior High School to record
comments from the public (August 6, 1986). A transcript of this hearing
is available at the Leach Library and the Londonderry Town Hall.
o
The public comment period on the FFS lasted from July 24 until August 14,
------- |