Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/035
September 1991
PB92-963218
National
Priorities
List Sites:
MARYLAND
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
The National Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large (1991),
may be ordered as PB92-963253.
The complete set of the overview documents, plus the 49 state reports may be ordered
as PB92-963253.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction:
A Brief Overview 1
Super fund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the State Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the State of Maryland 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 51
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 67
-------
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 arid inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about actual or potential threats of
hazardous substance releases. All reported
sites or spills are recorded in the Superfund
inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
What happens If there is an Imminent
danger?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
reported, the EPA determines whether there is
an emergency requiring an immediate cleanup
action. If there is, they act as quickly as
possible to remove or stabilize the imminent
threat. These short-term emergency actions
range from building a fence around the con-
taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
rarily relocating residents until the danger is
addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
dents while their local drinking water supply is
being cleaned up or physically removing
wastes for safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at
any time an imminent threat or emergency
warrants them. For example, if leaking barrels
are found when cleanup crews start digging in
the ground or if samples of contaminated soils
or air show that there may be a threat of fire or
explosion, an immediate action is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
If there Isn't an Imminent danger, how
does the EPA determine what, If any,
cleanup actions should be taken?
Even after any imminent dangers are taken
care of, in most cases, contamination may
remain at the site. For example, residents may
have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contami-
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up. The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so any long-term threats
need to be evaluated. In either case, a more
comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious, but not
imminent, danger and whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-
mation not only from their own files, but also
from local records and U.S. Geological Survey
maps. This information is used to identify the
site and to perform a preliminary assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the
questions:
• Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
SUPERFUND
• How are they contained?
• How might contaminants spread?
• How close is the nearest well, home, or
natural resource area such as a wetland
or animal sanctuary?
• What may be harmed — the land,
water, air, people, plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that
they do not threaten public health or the envi-
ronment. But even in these cases, the sites
remain listed in the Superfund inventory for
record-keeping purposes and future reference.
Currently, there are more than 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.
If the preliminary assessment
shows a serious threat may exist,
what's the next step?
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional
information to evaluate its hazard potential.
During this site inspection, they look for
evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking
drums and dead or discolored vegetation.
They may take some samples of soil, well
water, river water, and air. Inspectors analyze
the ways hazardous materials could be pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access to
the site.
How does the EPA use the results of
the site Inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
The HRS is the scoring system the EPA uses to
assess the relative threat from a release or a
potential release of hazardous substances from
a site to surrounding groundwater, surface
water, air, and soil. A site score is based on
the likelihood that a hazardous substance will
be released from the site, the toxicity and
amount of hazardous substances at the site, and
the people and sensitive environments poten-
tially affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and envi-
ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on the
NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can
have a long-term cleanup paid for from
Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
fund. Superfund can, and does, pay for emer-
gency actions performed at any site, whether
or not it's on the NPL.
Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious
problems among uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites in the U.S. In addition, a
site will be proposed to the NPL if the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
issues a health advisory recommending that
people be moved away from the site. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in
which sites will be cleaned up. The order is
influenced by the relative priority of the site's
health and environmental threats compared to
other sites, and such factors as State priorities,
engineering capabilities, and available tech-
-------
SUPERFUND.
nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.
A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.
How do people find out whether the
EPA considers a site a national
priority for cleanup under the
Superfund Program?
All NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
After a site is added to the NPL, what
are the steps to cleanup?
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent, long-term cleanup.
Since every site presents a unique set of chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:
1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
detail the extent of the site contamination
2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
possible cleanup remedies
3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
which remedy to use
4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy
5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy
This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity study (RI/FS) that determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and identify
and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These
studies may be conducted by the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private
parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, the remedial investigation
is much more detailed and comprehensive than
the initial site inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described
as a carefully designed field study. It includes
extensive sampling and laboratory analyses to
generate more precise data on the types and
quantities of wastes present at the site, the type
of soil and water drainage patterns, and specific
human health and environmental risks.
The result of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
SUPERFUND
a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose
of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called & feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered effective. Often, special pilot studies are
conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to
clean up a site. Therefore, the combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study can
take between 10 and 30 months to complete,
depending on the size and complexity of the
problem.
Does the public have a say in the
final cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made.
The results of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, which also point out the
recommended cleanup choice, are published in
a report for public review and comment. The
EPA or the State encourages the public to
review the information and take an active role
in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets and
announcements in local papers let the commu-
nity know where they can get copies of the
study and other reference documents concern-
ing the site. Local information repositories,
such as libraries or other public buildings, are
established in cities and towns near each NPL
site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
to review all relevant information and the
proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
tion repositories for each NPL site described in
this volume are given in Appendix B.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
is published. These comments can be written
or given verbally at public meetings that the
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
ing written answers to specific community
comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
summary" is part of the EPA's write-up of the
final remedy decision, called the Record of
Decision, or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains
the cleanup remedy chosen and the reason it
-------
SUPERFUND.
was selected. Since sites frequently are large
and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD may
be necessary for each contaminated resource or
area of the site. This may be necessary when
contaminants have spread into the soil, water,
and air and affect such sensitive areas as
wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned
up in stages. This often means that a number
of remedies, using different cleanup technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.
If every cleanup action needs to be
tailored to a site, does the design
ofthe remedy need to be tailored,
too?
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried
out, it must be designed in detail to meet
specific site needs. This stage of the cleanup is
called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected rem-
edy will be engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may
appear to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to two years to
complete. This blueprint for site cleanup
includes not only the details on every aspect of
the construction work, but a description of the
types of hazardous wastes expected at the site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
how long does it take to actually
clean up the site, and how much
does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site
cleanup, called the remedial action, are as
varied as the remedies themselves. In a few
cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or
dredging contaminated river bottoms can take
several years of complex engineering work
before contamination is reduced to safe levels.
Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site.
Once the cleanup action is
completed, is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected
10
-------
SUPERFUND
remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
until public comments are taken into consid-
eration that a site actually can be deleted from
the NPL. All sites deleted from the NPL and
sites with completed construction are included
in the progress report found later in this book.
Can a site be taken off the NPL if
no cleanup has taken place?
Yes. But only if further site investigation
reveals that there are no threats present at the
site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
sary. In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
action" remedy and may move to delete the
site when monitoring confirms that the site
does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
the NPL if new information concerning site
cleanup or threats show that the site does not
warrant Superfund activities.
A site may be removed if a revised HRS
scoring, based on updated information, results
in. a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
A site also may be removed from the NPL by
transferring it to other appropriate Federal
cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
cleanup actions.
Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
serves Superfund monies for the Nation's most
pressing hazardous waste problems where no
other cleanup authority is applicable.
Can the EPA make parties
responsible for the contamination
pay?
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters
should pay," after a site is placed on the NPL,
the EPA makes a thorough effort to identify
and find those responsible for causing con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
EPA is willing to negotiate with these private
parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it
has the authority under the Superfund law to
legally force those potentially responsible for
site hazards to take specific cleanup actions.
All work performed by these parties is closely
guided and monitored by the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for actions
financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the EPA may decide to use Superfund
monies to make sure a site is cleaned up
without unnecessary delay. For example, if a
site presents an imminent threat to public
health and the environment or if conditions at a
site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for
causing site contamination are liable under the
law (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.
11
-------
THE VOLUME
The site fact sheets presented in this
book are comprehensive summaries
that cover a broad range of information.
The fact sheets describe hazardous
waste sites on the NPL and their locations, as
well as the conditions leading to their listing
("Site Description"). The summaries list the
types of contaminants that have been discov-
ered and related threats to public and ecologi-
cal health ("Threats and Contaminants").
"Cleanup Approach" presents an overview of
the cleanup activities completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets conclude with a brief
synopsis of how much progress has been made
in protecting public health and the environ-
ment. The summaries also pinpoint other
actions, such as legal efforts to involve pollut-
ers responsible for site contamination and
community concerns.
The fact sheets are arranged in alphabetical
order by site name. Because site cleanup is a
dynamic and gradual process, all site informa-
tion is accurate as of the date shown on the
bottom of each page. Progress always is being
made at NPL sites, and the EPA periodically
will update the site fact sheets to reflect recent
actions and will publish updated State vol-
umes. The following two pages show a ge-
neric fact sheet and briefly describe the infor-
mation under each section.
HOW CAN YOU USE THIS STATE
BOOK?
You can use this book to keep informed about
the sites that concern you, particularly ones
close to home. The EPA is committed to
involving the public in the decision making
process associated with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Agency solicits input from area
residents in communities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely to be affected
not only by hazardous site conditions, but also
by the remedies that combat them. Site clean-
How to Use
the State
Book
ups take many forms and can affect communi-
ties in different ways. Local traffic may be
rerouted, residents may be relocated, tempo-
rary water supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a site can help
citizens sift through alternatives and make
decisions. To make good choices, you must
know what the threats are and how the EPA
intends to clean up the site. You must under-
stand the cleanup alternatives being proposed
for site cleanup and how residents may be
affected by each one. You also need to have
some idea of how your community intends to
use the site in the future, and you need to
know what the community can realistically
expect once the cleanup is complete.
The EPA wants to develop cleanup methods
that meet community needs, but the Agency
only can take local concerns into account if it
understands what they are. Information must
travel both ways in order for cleanups to be
effective and satisfactory. Please take this
opportunity to learn more, become involved,
and assure that hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your community's
concerns.
13
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Dates when the site was
Proposed, made Final, and
Deleted from the NPL.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA IDt ABCOOOOOOO
""-Stt^Descrlption
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Nwnm:
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?
Fbmb
fhreats and Contaminants
IB
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
Maryland
The Chesapeake Bay State of Maryland is located within EPA Region 3, comprised of five mid-
atlantic states and the District of Columbia. Maryland is the 42nd largest state in the nation,
covering 10,460 square miles stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Alleghany Mountains.
Currently ranked 19th in U.S. populations, Maryland's population grew by 13 % between 1980
and 1990, and has approximately 4,782,000 residents, according to the 1990 Census. Manufac-
turing is one of the principal state industries, with electric and electronic equipment, food and
related products, and chemicals as the chief manufactured goods. Other principal state industries
include tourism and agricultural crops of corn, soybeans, and tobacco.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Maryland?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
10
_2
12
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional District 1 5 sites
Congressional District 3 2 sites
Congressional District 4 3 sites
Congressional District 6,7 1 site
What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
in the State of Maryland?
# of sites
3
3
2
2
1
1
type of sites
Municipal & Industrial Landfills
Disposal Facilities
Federal Facilities
Lumber & Wood Treatment
Chemical & Allied Products
Construction
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
10--
8-
jt+
'(A
2*4-
2 --
GW Soil SW Sed
Contamination Area
Air
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals
(inorganics).
Soil: Heavy metals (inorganics), vola-
tile organic compounds (VOCs), creo-
sote (organics), plastics, and polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), creosote
(organics), pesticides, and plastics.
Air: Heavy metals (inorganics) and
acids.
* Appear at 20% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?*
6
Sites
with I
Studies
Underway
1
Site
with
Remedy
Selected
1
Site
with
Remedy
Design
2
Sites
with
Cleanup
Ongoing
Sites
with
Construction
Complete
2
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 9 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
((=>) 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
-------
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of Maryland
Page
23
27
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
Site Name
ABERDEEN (EDGEWOOD AREA)
County
HARFORD/
BALTIMORE
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Design Ongoing Complete Deleted
ABERDEEN (MICHAELSVELLE)
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY LANDFILL
BUSH VALLEY LANDFILL
CHEMICAL METALS INDUSTRIES
KANE & LOMBARD STREET DRUMS
LIMESTONE ROAD
MID-ATLANTIC WOOD PRESERVERS
MIDDLETOWN ROAD DUMP SITE
SAND. GRAVEL & STONE SITE
SOUTHERN MARYLAND WOOD TREAT STMARY'S
WOODLAWN CO. LANDFILL CECIL
HARFORD
ANNE ARUNDEL Final
HARFORD
BALTIMORE
BALTIMORE
ALLEGHANY
ANNEARUNDEL
ANNE ARUNDEL Deleted
CECIL
NPL
Final
Final
Final
Final
feleted
Final
Final
Final
dieted
Final
Final
Final
Date
02/21/90
10/04/89
02/11/91
03/31/89
12/30/82
06/01/86
09/01/83
06/01/86
04/18/88
09/01/83
06/01/86
07/01/87
Response
O
O
O
o
c>
O
O
o
c>
Studies
0
o
O
O
c>
O
0
0
c>
O
c>
O
Select
O
O
c>
i=>
O
O
O
o
10
o
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 3
21
April! 991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Maryland, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmen-
tal progress. Should you have questions, please call the EPA's Region 3
Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania or one of the other offices listed below:
EPA Region 3 Superfund Community Relations Office (215) 597-9905
EPA Region 3 Superfund Office (215) 597-8132
EPA Superfund Hotline . (800) 424-9346
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center (202) 260-2080
Maryland Superfund Office (301)225-6953
April 1991 22
-------
ABERDEEN
PROVING
(EDGEWOO
MARYLAND
EPA ID#MD2210020036
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Harford and Baltimore
Counties
Other Names:
USA Aberdeen Proving Ground
US Coast Guard - Upper Chesapeake Range
USA Edgewood Arsenal
US Coast Guard - Poole Island Range
Site Description
The Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) occupies 79,000 acres of land and water near the head of
the Chesapeake Bay. The APG consists of two areas that are listed separately on the NPL: the
Edgewood area and the Michaelsville area. The Edgewood area is 13,000 acres and includes
Gunpowder Neck, Pooles Island, Carroll Island, and Graces Quarters. The Edgewood area is
separated from the Michaelsville area by the Bush River. The Edgewood area was used for the
development and testing of chemical agent munitions. From 1917 to the present, the Edgewood
area conducted chemical research programs, manufactured chemical agents, and tested, stored,
and disposed of toxic materials. The Edgewood area has large areas of land and water and
numerous buildings that are contaminated or suspected of contamination. Virtually all the land
areas of the site reportedly are contaminated or potentially contaminated. Substances disposed of
in the area include significant quantities of napalm, white phosphorus, and chemical agents. On-
site surface waters include rivers, streams, and wetlands. There are 38,600 people living within
3 miles of the site. On-site residences house military personnel and military dependents. Four
Edgewood-area standby water supply wells in the Canal Creek area previously served
approximately 3,000 people. The Long Bar Harbor well field of the County Department of
Public Works and the well field used by the Joppatowne Sanitary Subdistrict serve 35,000 people
within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/01/85
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
Preliminary on-site groundwater sampling has identified various metals,
phosphorus, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including chloroform and
benzene. Preliminary on-site soil contamination sampling has identified various
VOCs, metals, and unexploded ordnance in surface and subsurface soil.
Preliminary on-site surface water sampling has identified various metals,
phosphorus, and VOCs. People who accidentally ingest or come in direct contact
with contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments may be at risk.
The wetlands area is a designated habitat for bald eagles.
23
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in 12 stages: initial actions and 11 long-term remedial phases focusing
on cleanup of the entire site, grouped here according to type of activity.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: As an initial action, the Army conducted an environmental monitoring
program in 1977 and 1978 at the Edgewood area. Evidence was found of substantial
groundwater and surface water contamination. Contamination at the Edgewood area has
been identified in separate study areas, which will be addressed in future cleanup actions. In 1991, a
leaking underground storage tank was removed from the Nike site. Other removal efforts are being
planned.
O-Field, J-Field, and Canal Creek: Investigations have begun at these areas to
determine the nature and extent of contamination present. The O-Field and J-Field study
areas both require separate source control and groundwater cleanup phases. Large
quantities of munitions were disposed of in varying methods at these areas. A landfill, several
disposal pits, and burn areas and a former munitions production plant are among the targets for
cleanup in these areas. White phosphorus, mustard gas, lewesite, and other chemical agents have
been identified as the principal contaminants of these areas. The investigations taking place at these
areas are scheduled to be completed at various times during 1991,1992, and 1993.
Carroll Island, Graces Quarters, Nike Site, and Bush River: Investigations are
underway at these areas to determine the nature and extent of contamination. These areas
were principally use for testing chemical and biological agents, as well as for chemical
warfare training. The Bush River area has been used mainly for chemical storage, but also contains
a facility that has been used for radioactive waste material handling. It is believed that many of the
chemicals tested or stored in these areas have contaminated the surrounding environment.
Investigations at these areas are scheduled to be completed in 1993.
Westwood Area: The Westwood area covers approximately 523 acres and was used as
a bomb drop-test area. There is an active solid waste landfill on site, which is licensed to
receive only rubble and asbestos wastes. A spill of radioactive material occurred at the
Westwood Area and reportedly was cleaned up. An investigation is underway to define the extent of
contamination at this site.
Other Edgewood Areas: This investigation includes all areas not covered by specific
study areas. Other study areas may be added as deemed necessary by this investigation,
which is planned for completion in 1993.
Site Facts: The Aberdeen Proving Ground 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.
Anril iqqi 24 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
Apr"1991 (EDGEWOOD AREA)
-------
Environmental Progress
The EPA and the Army have isolated various areas of contamination at the Aberdeen Proving
Ground (Edgewood Area) site and have completed the work plans for cleanup of these areas.
Once these studies are reviewed and the final cleanup alternatives are selected, the Army will
begin the work to clean up the site contamination areas.
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
(EDGEWOOD AREA)
25
April 1991
-------
ABERDEEN I /* ..... ^H /
-------
The site is being addressed in seven stages: initial actions and six long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of Michaelsville Landfill Source Control, and Groundwater, the Phillips
Field Disposal Area, the White Phosphorous Munition Burial Site, the Fire Training Area, and
other Michaelsville Areas.
; The Army has begun excavating pesticide-contaminated soil at the
golf course and sampling is underway. Abandoned underground storage tanks also are
being removed. Soil sampling around the tanks will be conducted to determine if
additional excavation and soil removal are required.
IMlodhiseOgwDIl® LgKradfflO S©MG°(g(i ©oxratfroD sirodl ©BwmKdlwate': The Michaelsville
Landfill operated as a sanitary landfill from 1970 until 1980 and received household
garbage and refuse from die installation. In addition, there are reports of pesticides,
waste oils, paints, solvents, and other materials having been dumped illegally in this landfill.
The landfill originally was excavated to depths below the water table, but was later excavated to
a higher depth. Two separate investigations are underway to determine the nature and extent of
groundwater and source contamination. Upon completion of these investigations, scheduled for
1993, appropriate cleanup technologies will be selected and cleanup will begin.
[PHDoipi Fo©W OSs|p©§®D ^o"©®: The Phillips Field Disposal Area consists of the
active Phillips Field Landfill, Disposal Areas 1-4, and two grease pits. The active
Phillips Field landfill is a constructions debris landfill located on top of an older
landfill. Disposal Areas 1-4 consist of small landfills, borrow pits, and burn pits. Oil wastes
suspected to include solvents and transformer oil were dumped in the grease pits until they
closed in 1980. An investigation currently is underway to determine the nature and extent of
contamination in this area and the most appropriate ways to cleanup this contamination. The
investigation is scheduled for completion in 1993.
G¥i)(LQ!n)DftD©[ra OStLoroaO Site This 15-acre site is reported to have
munitions buried in soil and under water. The investigation is underway to determine
the contaminants of concern and is scheduled for completion in 1991.
\F®DI An investigation currently is underway to determine the nature
and extent of contamination at the Fire Training Area. This investigation is scheduled
for completion in 1992.
©ttlheir tVilodha©i§Miil]D© Air©S)§: This investigation includes all areas not included in
specific study areas. Identified areas include, but are not limited to, the Kirk
Incinerator, the Shell Washout Facility, settling tanks, Disposal Areas 5-11, and the
Melt Load Facility. This investigation is scheduled to begin in 1991.
The EPA and the Army entered into an Interagency Agreement in March 1990.
Under this agreement, the Army will conduct investigations and cleanup activities at the site.
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Michaelsville Landfill) 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.
April 1991 28 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
(MICHAELSVILLE LANDFILL)
-------
Environmental Progress
The EPA and the Army have excavated soil in one area of contamination and sampled it. Underground
storage tanks are being removed, and the Army has isolated various areas of contamination at the
Michaelsville site. Further investigations leading to the final selection process for cleaning up the
various areas currently are being conducted.
ApriM991
29
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
{MICHAELSVILLE LANDFILL)
-------
ANNE ARUND
COUNTY LANDFI
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980705057
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Anne Arundel County
Glen Burnie
Other Names:
Smucks Dump
Glen Bumie Landfill
Site Description
The Anne Arundel Landfill site is a ISO-acre parcel, in the suburban Baltimore town of Glen
Burnie, that was used by the County of Anne Arundel as a municipal solid waste landfill for
domestic waste, until it was closed in 1982. Beginning in 1945, 80 acres of the site were used as
a gravel and sand excavation operation owned by a private individual. During and following the
excavation of borrow soils, the site was used as an "uncontrolled dump," with open burning. In
1968, the site was reported as having two large surface water ponds, into which the residues from
the burning were placed. By 1969, most of the 80 acres was used for dumping. Anne Arundel
County took over the site and began operations in 1970. In the late 1970s, the State began to
investigate the possible presence of hazardous substances at the site. Monitoring wells installed
in 1980 showed that groundwater was contaminated. The Patapsco Aquifer, which lies under the
site, is the most productive water source in the county and is an important source of water for
public and private wells. An estimated 93,000 people live within 3 miles of the site, which is in
a mixed industrial, commercial, and residential area. Approximately 3,000 people live within a
mile of the site, and less than 100 live within 1,000 feet.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
County, State, and Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/16/88
Final Date: 02/11/91
Threats and Contaminants
Sampling by the EPA of 11 groundwater monitoring wells in 1983 confirmed that
the groundwater was contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
cyanide, and heavy metals including lead. The EPA also found the sediments of
Furnace Creek to be contaminated with lead and cyanide. Contaminants in the
groundwater may pose a threat to people in the area because the underlying
Patapsco Aquifer is a water supply source for municipal and domestic wells. This
water system is interconnected to Baltimore's water supply. Contamination found
in sediments may pose a threat to the ecosystem of the stream that borders the
site.
31
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a single long-term remedial phase
directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: Gas venting pipes have been inserted to prevent methane buildup.
Entire Site: The State is monitoring drinking water sources to test for the intrusion
of contamination. Planning is underway for an investigation of the site and a
feasibility study of possible remedies in preparation for the cleanup. Once these
studies are completed, the EPA will make a final remedy selection.
Environmental Progress
The installation of gas venting pipes to eliminate the danger of explosion from methane buildup
has reduced the potential for the Anne Arundel Landfill site to pose an immediate threat to the
surrounding public or the environment while the site is awaiting further cleanup activities.
April 1991 32 ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY LANDFILL
-------
BUSH VALL
LANDFILL
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980504195
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Harford County
Abingdon
Other Names:
Harris Landfill
Site Description
Before 1977, the 29-acre Bush Valley Landfill site allegedly was used for the open burning of trash.
The property, which was privately owned, was used as a landfill for municipal wastes from 1975 to
1982. During this period, the landfill had a State permit to accept municipal wastes. Between 1979
and 1984, the State issued orders to the owner to neutralize leachates and build drainage ditches and
containment berms as part of the landfill's operating procedures and closure plans. The owner of
the facility never complied fully with the orders. During a site inspection in 1984, the EPA
observed erosion and leachate seeping from slopes at the landfill. The landfill did not contain
diversion ditches or leachate collection systems and was only partially covered. The Ferryman
Water Treatment Plant supplies approximately 35,000 people from eight municipal wells. Three of
the eight wells are within 3 miles of the site. A few private wells are nearby, the closest of which is
a shallow well 500 feet away.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/16/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
An on-site groundwater monitoring well contained volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including vinyl chloride from former waste disposal practices. Also, the EPA observed
soil leachate seeping from slopes of the landfill. Potential risks exist if contaminated
groundwater is used as a drinking water supply or if people come in direct contact with
contamination. Runoff from the landfill goes to two basins on the site; one of these
basins runs into Bynum Run, which is near the site. A wetland that adjoins the site could
become contaminated, threatening the wildlife in the area.
33
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This 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 State began a study to determine the nature and extent of
contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup. After the completion of this
investigation, expected in 1992, the EPA will select the most appropriate remedy to clean
up the site.
Environmental Progress
After listing this site on the NPL, the EPA performed a preliminary investigation and determined
that conditions at the Bush Valley site do not pose an immediate threat to nearby residents or the
surrounding environment while the investigations are underway and cleanup activities are being
planned.
April 1991
34
BUSH VALLEY LANDFILL
-------
CHEMICAL METALS
INDUSTRIES
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980555478
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Baltimore County
Baltimore
Other Names:
CMI
Site Description
The Chemical Metals Industries site is divided into two areas: a former gas station that operated
on one area and was also used as a dump yard for chemicals, and a laboratory and manufacturing
center that contained chemical processing equipment designed for recrystallization of solid
materials from liquid solutions. Gwynn's Falls, a tributary to the Patapsco River, is located near
the site. There are approximately 10,000 people living within 3 miles of the site. The site is
located in a mixed residential and industrial area, with 20 homes located between the two site
areas.
Site Responsibility: This site was addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Deletion Date: 12/30/82
Threats and Contaminants
Specific contaminants detected in the air, soil, and surface water include cyanides,
ammonia compounds, acids, caustics, and heavy metal salts. Health threats at the
site included direct contact with contaminated air, surface water, and soils;
breathing contaminated air, and drinking contaminated surface water or
accidentally ingesting contaminated soils. Danger of fire and explosion from
volatized chemicals on the site posed an additional threat to nearby residents.
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
contamination at the entire site.
35
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: All materials posing an immediate threat were identified, removed, and
disposed of in 1982. Drums and scrap debris were removed from the site and liquid
organic waste was removed. Liquid inorganic wastes were treated to make them
acceptable for discharge to the city sewer system. The underground storage tank at the former
gas station was filled with concrete slurry. A clay cap and topsoil were applied and compacted
over the site. Sand blasters removed chemical contamination from the walls of the former gas
station. The interior of the laboratory and manufacturing area were cleaned and decontaminated.
The site was fenced and police and fire personnel were made available to ensure site security.
As a result of the cleanup activities and subsequent sampling to ensure the effectiveness of the
remedy, the EPA, in cooperation with the State of Maryland, determined that the site no longer
posed a threat to the public. The site was deleted from the NPL in 1982.
Site Facts: The Chemical Metals Industries site was placed on the Interim Priorities List in
October 1981. All cleanup actions were completed before the first proposed NPL was
established.
Environmental Progress
By performing all cleanup actions described above, the EPA has eliminated or contained
contamination sources at the site. In conjunction with the State, the EPA has determined that the
Chemical Metals Industries site has been cleaned to established standards and is no longer a
threat to the public or the environment.
April 1991 36 CHEMICAL METALS INDUSTRIES
-------
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980923783
KANE&
ix iwffltxvjw'H
nmiiv/ic I^K^X}^A
Orangeville Subdivision in Baltimore
STREET DRUMS' l/1 Baltimore County
Site Description
The 8 1/3-acrc Kane and Lombard Street Drums site operated as part of an open dump between 1962
and 1984 and accepted demolition, municipal, and industrial wastes. The site and some of the
adjacent properties have a long history of excavation and filling. Approximately 1,200 drums
containing hazardous materials have been removed from the site. There are approximately 37,000
people within 3 miles of the site. Residential developments and a large medical complex are found
about 1/3 mile from the site, and a large park area is about 3/4 mile from the site. A high school and
its recreation areas border the property. The site lies along the edge of an industrial and commercial
strip that borders a railroad and highway network. Herring Run and Back River, downgradient of
the site, are an arm of the Chesapeake Bay and are used for fishing, crabbing, and recreational
purposes.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
IV
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
vinyl chloride and benzene and heavy metals including cadmium and mercury from
former waste disposal practices. Cadmium also has been detected in off-site
groundwater. Specific contaminants detected in soils include VOCs, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatics (PNAs), and phthalates. Off-site soil is
contaminated with arsenic, beryllium, lead, PNAs, and phthalates. Health threats include
exposure to contaminated soil and air through ingestion, inhalation, and direct contact. If
bioaccumulation of contaminants is confirmed, people who use Herring Run and Back
River for fishing, crabbing, and recreation also may be at risk.
37 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on source control and cleanup of contaminated groundwater.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1984, the EPA removed approximately 1,150 drums from the
site. The majority of full drums contained flammable solids. An additional drum
containing PCBs was removed and stored, pending shipment to a disposal facility. The
site was covered with 12,000 cubic yards of topsoil, and surface contours were reshaped to prevent
surface water from mixing with contaminants and moving off site. The EPA also installed a fence
for security purposes.
Source Control: In 1987, the final selection of cleanup technologies to address
contamination was made. It included construction of a slurry wall around the waste
disposal areas, construction of a multi-layer soil cap, construction of a drainage system,
and continued groundwater monitoring. The EPA prepared the technical specifications and design
for the selected cleanup technologies and currently is performing the cleanup at the site. Final
cleanup activities are expected to be completed in 1992.
Groundwater: The State is conducting a second investigation to determine the nature
and extent of groundwater contamination underlying the site. This investigation will
identify alternatives for cleanup and is scheduled to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1983, the State of Maryland issued an order to the potentially responsible parties to
conduct cleanup activities. The parties appealed the order, and the State requested the EPA's
assistance to clean up the site.
Environmental Progress
Removal of wastes, fencing, and the construction of caps have reduced the potential for exposure to
contamination at the Kane and Lombard Street Drums site. Ongoing cleanup activities are designed
to isolate the remaining contamination thereby eliminating threats to public health and the
environment.
April! 991 38 KANE & LOMBARD STREET DRUMS
-------
LIMESTON
ROAD
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980691588
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Allegheny County
2 1/2 miles southeast of Cumberland
Other Names:
Cumberland Cement & Supply
Diggs Sanitation
Site Description
The 210-acre Limestone Road site consists of two parcels of land: the former Diggs Sanitation
Company and the Cumberland Cement and Supply Company. The site includes large areas of
landfilled and dumped commercial, residential, and demolition refuse on both properties.
Approximately 110 tons of chromium-containing sludge also were disposed of on the properties.
Beginning in the mid-1970s, various contractors were allowed to dump clean fill (housing
demolition wastes) on the property to provide a larger and more level working surface. Allegations
were made that 11 tons of hazardous waste have been disposed of on the Diggs property as an
extension of previous filling and grading operations. There are approximately 425 people living
within a mile of the site. The site is bordered by several residences and the Cumberland City Dump.
There is one residence on the Diggs property, and 18 residences are within 1/2 mile downgradient of
the site. The residences are supplied with groundwater from private wells.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Inorganic chemicals and heavy metals including zinc and lead were detected in on-site
soils during test pit sampling. The surface water is contaminated with chromium,
cadmium, and zinc. Possible health threats include direct contact with or accidental
ingestion of contaminated soil or surface water. There also is a possibility that
groundwater may become contaminated through runoff from the soil or surface water.
39
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the entire site
and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA has selected the following remedies for cleanup of the site
contamination: (1) reshaping site surface contours to manage water infiltration and runoff;
(2) capping contaminated soil on all properties; (3) fencing both properties; (4) continued
monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and sediment; (5) completing a historical review of
pertinent geological information; (6) chemically analyzing shale to determine its composition; (7) re-
evaluating and establishing background data control points for groundwater, and (8) frequent
groundwater sampling, as well as increasing stream and residential sampling. In addition, the EPA
remedy requires evaluating the effects of natural conditions on the overall water quality of the area.
The potentially responsible parties will prepare the technical specifications and design the selected
cleanup technologies when a design work plan is approved. Cleanup activities will begin once the
design phase is completed.
Groundwater: Work plans are under review for a supplemental study of groundwater
contamination and cleanup alternatives. When approved, the study will last approximately
18 months.
Site Facts: In 1988, the potentially responsible parties entered into a Consent Decree with the EPA
to conduct cleanup activities at the site. The State subsequently filed a motion to intervene,
requesting that it be made a party to the Consent Decree on equal terms with the EPA. The issue
related to the State's role was settled among the parties, and the decree was amended and signed by
the parties, the State, and the EPA. The Decree was entered in court in 1990.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Limestone Road site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations
and found that the site does not currently pose an immediate threat to public health or the
environment while further investigations are underway and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 40 LIMESTONE ROAD
-------
MID-ATLANT
WOOD
PRESERVERS, IN
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD064882889
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Anne Arundel County
Harmans
Other Names:
Mid-Atlantic Harmans Wood
Treatment Factory
Site Description
The Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc. site is an active wood-treating facility that stands on a
3-acre parcel in Harmans. It consists of two impoundments that straddle Shipley Avenue near its
intersection with Dorsey Road. Both are enclosed by chain-link fencing. The operation employs
a two-part chromated copper arsenate (CCA) process. In the first part, workers pressure-treat
lumber in an enclosed processing plant; in the second, the wood is allowed to drip and dry. From
1976 until 1981, operators allowed the contaminated drippings to fall directly onto the ground.
Surface water from the site drains toward Stoney Run Creek, while the groundwater moves in a
northwesterly direction. The surface soils are contaminated with wood-treating metals. The
pollution was determined to have come from the overflow of a CCA storage tank and from
lumber drippings, and the owner undertook cleanup activities in 1980. The area surrounding the
site is industrial, commercial, and residential. The closest residence is within 200 feet of the site.
Stoney Run Creek flows north through a wetland area approximately 600 feet west of the site,
extending 4 miles before discharging to the Patapsco River near Elkridge. Stoney Run is
restricted to secondary recreational use.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater beneath and downgradient of the site was contaminated with arsenic
and chromium from a spill of CCA solution, but recent sampling shows little
remaining effect from that release. Heavy metals including arsenic and chromium
from former process wastes have been detected in elevated concentrations in the soils
on the site. People are at risk from direct contact, accidental ingestion, or inhaling
contaminated residues in the soils. The wetlands and stream areas near the site also
are subject to contamination from the surface water runoff from the site.
41
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Under orders from the State, the owner developed plans to remedy
the groundwater contamination in 1980. Operational changes included leaving the drying
wood on the concrete drainage pad longer before moving it to the storage lot and
modifying the drainage pad so that it collects all waste drippings for reuse. All wastes captured by
the drip pad are recirculated within the process system, and sludges are shipped off site for disposal.
The owner also removed 26 cubic yards of contaminated soil from beneath the chemical storage tank
overflow pipe and disposed of it at an EPA-approved facility.
Entire Site: A study of groundwater and soil contamination at the site was completed in
1990 and was financed by the owner. This investigation explored the nature and extent of
contaminatino and recommended strategies for final cleanup. In 1990, remedies were
selected for site cleanup, including excavation, stabilization and off site disposal of arsenic-
contaminated soils, capping aresenic-contaminated soils in areas where the concentrations are not
high enough to warrant removing the soils, construction of an enlarged roof drip pad, environmental
monitoring and deed restrictions. Design activities are expected to be conducted by the potentially
responsible parties, beginning in 1992.
Environmental Progress
The owner's actions to limit the spread of groundwater contamination and the removal of
contaminated soil from the site have reduced the potential of the further spread of contamination at
the Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc. site while the final cleanup approach is being designed and
implemented.
April 1991 42 MID-ATLANTIC WOOD PRESERVERS, INC.
-------
MIDDLETOW
ROAD DUMP
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980705099
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Anne Arundel County
Off Maryland Route 50, near Annapolis
Other Names:
Dale Dickerson Dump
Site Description
The Middletown Dump, situated on approximately 2 1/2 acres, is a privately owned dump off
Route 50 near Annapolis. The facility, now inactive, took in rubble and construction debris for
several decades without proper State permits. In 1981, it was discovered that about 40 drums
and four dumpster loads of suspected hazardous substances were on the site. The owner was
forced to initiate cleanup when a drum-crushing accident spread contaminants over a half acre.
That year, the State shut down the dump because of its violations of State water pollution and
hazardous waste laws. Approximately 5,000 people live within 1 mile of the site; 2,500 people
within 3 miles are served by groundwater in both public and private wells. A stream flowing off
the site enters Whitehawk Creek, which is used for recreation.
Site Responsibility:
This site was addressed through Federal
actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Deletion Date: 04/18/88
Threats and Contaminants
Soil was contaminated with heavy metals such as lead, aluminum, chromium,
zinc, cyanide, barium, and cadmium. Access to the site was unrestricted, making
the risk of direct contact with contaminated areas possible.
Cleanup Approach
The site was addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on cleanup of the entire site.
43
ApriM991
-------
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1983, the EPA conducted an emergency cleanup to eliminate
immediate threats from contamination. EPA workers performed the following: (1)
removed contaminated soil and 5-gallon pails of marine paint; (2) sampled the soil to
confirm that contaminant removal had been adequate; (3) installed six groundwater monitoring wells
around the site perimeter, (4) sampled and tested drums; and (5) moved 1 million tires elsewhere on
the site to expedite subsurface investigation. More drums were discovered under the tires. The EPA
removed 68 drums, 70 contaminated tires, and 610 tons of contaminated soil.
Entire Site: The EPA and the State conducted an intensive investigation of site
conditions during and after the emergency removal. The study evaluated water, soil, and
sediment quality in the vicinity of the site. It revealed that as a result of the previous EPA
cleanup actions, the hazardous wastes were gone, and that no threat to human health remained. The
site contains only uncontaminated trash and tires. Declaring that no further cleanup action was
warranted, the EPA, with agreement from the State, deleted the site from the NPL in April 1988.
Environmental Progress
The EPA, through emergency removal of hazardous wastes and evaluations of the extent of
contamination at the Middletown Dump, successfully cleaned up the site. After further studies, the
EPA, with concurrence by the State, determined that the site no longer posed a threat to the
surrounding community or the environment, and delisted the site from the NPL in 1988.
April 1991
44
MIDDLETOWN ROAD DUMP
-------
SAND, GRA\
AND STONE
MARYLAND
EPAID#MDD980705164
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Cecil County
3 miles west of Elkton
Other Names:
Elkton Quarry
Maryland Sand and Gravel
Site Description
From 1969 to 1974, 3 acres of the Sand, Gravel and Stone site, which is on a 200-acre parcel,
were used for the disposal of bulk wastes such as processing wastewater, sludges, and still
bottoms, and over 1,000 drums of various waste material. The operator dug pits and disposed of
approximately 700,000 gallons of waste into them, including drums and sludges. In 1982, the
EPA detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the groundwater at the site, although water
samples from nearby homes were not contaminated. Approximately 570 people live within a
1-mile radius of the site; 8,000 are within 3 miles. The nearest home is 1,800 feet downgradient
from the site. Upgradient homes are not at risk. Elk Nest State Forest is within 3 miles, as is the
Elk River estuary and wetlands. Mill Creek, a headwater located on the site, is a spawning area.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The shallow groundwater has been shown to contain heavy metals including
cadmium and chromium, VOCs including benzene and toluene from former waste
disposal practices, and semi-volatile organic compounds. The deep groundwater
is contaminated with lead. Heavy metals, pesticides, and VOCs have been
detected in sediments and surface water. Soil is contaminated with VOCs.
Accidental ingestion of shallow on-site groundwater can be a potential health risk.
Trespassers are at risk by coming into direct contact with, inhaling, or
accidentally ingesting contaminated soils. Site access is restricted by a fence
around the perimeter of the facility. Fish samples taken from downstream show
no sign of being contaminated.
45
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: immediate actions and three long-term remedial
phases focusing on drum and shallow aquifer cleanup, cleanup of the deep aquifers, and soil
cleanup.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Under State order, the owner removed 200,000 gallons of
liquid waste from the site in 1974. In 1985, a temporary fence was constructed around
the site to limit access.
Drums and Shallow Aquifer: In 1983, the EPA began an investigation into the
nature and extent of contamination. The study resulted in recommendations to remove
buried materials to an approved facility and to pump and treat shallow groundwater
and leachate. Fencing was proposed to limit access and was completed in 1989. Pumping and
treatment of shallow groundwater are underway and are expected to be completed in 1991.
Drum removal activities were completed in early 1991. Additional groundwater treatment is
expected in 1992.
Deep Aquifers: In 1986, the potentially responsible parties began an intensive study
to determine the nature and extent of deep aquifer contamination and to identify
alternatives for cleanup. The EPA selected on-site and off-site groundwater
monitoring and on- and/or off-site point-of-use treatment for the contaminated groundwater, as
necessary, as the appropriate cleanup options. The parties are expected to proceed with design
and cleanup activities in 1991.
On-site Soils: An intensive study of on-site soil contamination is slated for 1991.
This investigation will determine the nature and extent of the problem and will identify
the best approaches for cleanup.
Site Facts: In 1985, a steering committee of potentially responsible parties volunteered to
perform investigations, signing a Consent Order in 1986. Forty-one potentially responsible
parties and the EPA signed a Consent Decree in November 1987, in which the parties agreed to
conduct cleanup actions and to pay a portion of the EPA's past and future oversight costs.
Environmental Progress
The immediate construction of a fence around the site to limit public access, the removal of
liquid wastes, and the excavation and removal of buried drums have eliminated the potential for
direct contact with hazardous materials at the Sand, Gravel and Stone site while further studies
and final remedy selection are taking place.
April 1991 46 SAND, GRAVEL AND STONE
-------
SOUTHERN
MARYLAND
WOOD TREATIN
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980704852
EPA REGION 3
ONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Saint Mary's County
Hollywood
Site Description
Four acres of the 25-acre Southern Maryland Wood Treating (SMWT) site, located about 50 miles
southeast of Washington, D.C., were used to treat wood from 1965 to 1978. The facility treated
wood with coal tar, creosote, and pentachlorophenol (POP) and is now inactive. Operators disposed
of process wastes in six unlined lagoons and filled a seventh with contaminated water and sludge. In
1982, under an order from the Maryland Department of Health, the potentially responsible parties
attempted to clean up the site by spraying lagoon liquids and landfarming lagoon sludges in two
areas on site. Sludges were mixed with wood chips and manure and spread over a 3-acre section of
the site. This attempt was not successful, and now the top 3 feet of soil in this area are heavily
contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Soil under the former lagoon area
also is heavily contaminated from seepage from the lagoons. Surface soil in other areas of the site
was contaminated by drippings from treated wood. The site is surrounded by residential and
agricultural areas. About 40 homes are located within 1/2 mile of the site, and 150 homes are within
a mile of the site. Approximately 260 people living within 3 miles of the site depend on wells for
drinking water.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
z\
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PAHs, PCP,
and creosote by-products from the wood-treatment operations. The main threat to public
health is long-term exposure to carcinogens found in PAHs in the site's subsurface and
surface soils.
47
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1980, the parties potentially responsible for contamination of
the site excavated and treated part of the contaminated soil on the site, under orders from
the State. In 1982, the six lagoons were completely emptied, backfilled, and graded.
Wastewater was used to spray a wooded area behind the site, while excavated sludge was placed in a
sludge treatment area to the east of the site. The seventh pond was partially excavated. The EPA
and the State conducted additional emergency measures to stabilize the site. By 1986,
approximately 1,400 cubic yards of contaminated soil were excavated from the northwestern bank of
the freshwater pond. The soils then were placed onto a synthetic liner east of the former lagoon area
and capped with a synthetic cover. A decontamination pad was used to clean the heavy excavation
equipment.
Entire Site: The cleanup remedies selected for this site in 1988 include: (1) excavating
and incinerating contaminated soils and sediments on site; (2) installing a barrier to
control groundwater migration through the pond and process area; (3) pumping and
treating contaminated groundwater and surface water; (4) backfilling, regrading, and replanting the
site where necessary; and (5) monitoring groundwater, surface water, sediment, and organisms. A
UV oxidation, or carbon adsorption, method may be used in the cleanup process. A final technology
selection will be determined during the pre-design studies. The cleanup processes will be completed
in different phases; the first phase is to install a barrier wall around the pond and process area and
then constructing a permanent decontamination area. The design of this phase was finished in 1989.
Construction was completed in 1991. The next phase will accomplish the remainder of the cleanup
process. The pre-design work of the remedy is underway for this phase.
Site Facts: In 1980, a Consent Decree was signed between the State and SMWT Corporation, one
of the potentially responsible parties, to conduct immediate cleanup actions at the site.
Environmental Progress
Excavating, treating, fencing, and capping contaminated soils at the Southern Maryland Wood
Treating site have prevented the further spread of contaminants and have reduced the risk to the
public while the site awaits the completion of the permanent cleanup remedies selected.
April 1991 48 SOUTHERN MARYLAND WOOD TREATING
-------
WOODLAW
LANDFILL
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980504344
Site Description
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Cecil County
Woodlawn
Other Names:
dlawn Transfer Station
Cecil County owned and operated the 37-acre Woodlawn County Landfill from 1965 to 1979, when
it was closed under a State order. Before becoming a landfill, the property was a privately owned
sand and gravel quarry. Operators filled two large quarry pits with agricultural, municipal, and
industrial wastes. According to State records, the only documented hazardous waste disposal at the
site was polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sludge from the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. This sludge
initially was disposed of throughout the site, but in 1977, two designated disposal cells were put into
use. However, EPA and State analyses showed contamination of on-site groundwater as well as
stream sediments 200 feet from the site. When the EPA sampled home wells in 1988, all were free
of contamination. An estimated 5,700 people draw drinking water from public and private wells
within 3 miles of the site. The nearest private well is within 400 feet of the landfill. All
homeowners adjacent to the site use private wells as their sole source of water. However, recent
sampling has not shown them to be contaminated. The contaminated stream enters Basin Run, a
State-designated trout stream, about 2 miles from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including
vinyl chloride, benzene, and toluene and with pthalates and lead. VOCs and lead are
found in stream sediments. Possible health threats include accidentally ingesting or
coming in direct contact with contaminated groundwater or stream sediments.
Economically valuable trout streams located in the vicinity may be threatened by site
contamination.
49
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
capped the PVC sludge in 1981 to keep rainwater from spreading the pollution, and they
installed monitoring wells. The State samples on-site monitoring wells twice a year.
Entire Site: The potentially responsible parties agreed to undertake an intensive study of
soil and groundwater contamination at the site and to recommend the best approaches for
cleanup. Prior to the beginning of the investigation, 19 monitoring wells were installed by
Cecil County and the State. The investigation began in 1988 and is scheduled for completion in
1992, after which the EPA will select the most appropriate remedies to clean up the site.
Site Facts: The EPA signed a Consent Order in 1988 with the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company
and Cecil County to conduct a site investigation.
Environmental Progress
Capping the PVC sludge has eliminated the possibility of rainwater spreading the contaminants from
the Woodlawn County Landfill while investigations continue and cleanup activities are being
planned.
April 1991 50 WOODLAWN COUNTY LANDFILL
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
51
-------
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.
53
-------
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 Disulflde: 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
54
-------
GLOSSARY
extent and nature of toxic releases. Character-
ization provides the basis for acquiring the
necessary technical information to develop,
screen, analyze, and select appropriate
cleanup techniques.
Chemical Fixation: The use of chemicals to
bind contaminants, thereby reducing the
potential for leaching or other movement.
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecti-
cide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This
salt is used extensively as a wood preservative
in pressure-treating operations. It is highly
toxic and water-soluble, making it a relatively
mobile contaminant in the environment.
Cleanup: Actions taken to eliminate a
release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance. The term "cleanup" sometimes is
used interchangeably with the terms remedial
action, removal action, response action, or
corrective action.
Closure: The process by which a landfill
stops accepting wastes and is shut down,
under Federal guidelines that ensure the
protection of the public and the environment.
Comment Period: A specific interval during
which the public can review and comment on
various documents and EPA actions related to
site cleanup. For example, a comment period
is provided when the EPA proposes to add
sites to the NPL. There is minimum 3-week
comment period for community members to
review and comment on the remedy proposed
to clean up a site.
Community Relations: The EPA effort to
establish and maintain two-way communica-
tion with the public. Goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related ac-
tions, assuring public input into decision-
making processes related to affected commu-
nities, and making certain that the Agency is
aware of, and responsive to, public concerns.
Specific community relations activities are
required in relation to Superfund cleanup
actions [see Comment Period].
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA): Congress enacted the
CERCLA, known as Superfund, in 1980 to
respond directly to hazardous waste problems
that may pose a threat to the public health and
the environment. The EPA administers the
Superfund program.
Confluence: The place where two bodies of
water, such as streams or rivers, come to-
gether.
Consent Decree: A legal document, ap-
proved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between the EPA and the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the
potentially responsible parties are required to
perform and/or the costs incurred by the
government that the parties will reimburse, as
well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforce-
ment options that the government may exer-
cise in the event of non-compliance by poten-
tially responsible parties. If a settlement
between the EPA and a potentially respon-
sible party includes cleanup actions, it must
be in the form of a Consent Decree. A Con-
sent Decree is subject to a public comment
period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order
on Consent].
Containment: The process of enclosing or
containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in a pond or a lagoon, to pre-
vent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
55
-------
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.
56
-------
GLOSSARY
Endangerment Assessment: A study con-
ducted to determine the risks posed to public
health or the environment by contamination at
NPL sites. The EPA or the State conducts the
study when a legal action is to be taken to
direct the potentially responsible parties to
clean up a site or pay for the cleanup. An
endangerment assessment supplements an
investigation of the site hazards.
Enforcement: EPA, State, or local legal
actions taken against parties to facilitate
settlements; to compel compliance with laws,
rules, regulations, or agreements; and/or to
obtain penalties or criminal sanctions for
violations. Enforcement procedures may
vary, depending on the specific requirements
of different environmental laws and related
regulatory requirements. Under CERCLA,
for example, the EPA will seek to require
potentially responsible parties to clean up a
Superfund site or pay for the cleanup [see
Cost Recovery].
Erosion: The wearing away of land surface
by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally
from weather or surface runoff, but can be
intensified by such land-related practices as
farming, residential or industrial develop-
ment, road building, or timber-cutting. Ero-
sion may spread surface contamination to off-
site locations.
Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh
water from rivers and salt water from
nearshore ocean waters are mixed. These
areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt
marshes, and lagoons. These water ecosys-
tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and
wildlife.
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out.
Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway; together,
they are commonly referred to as the RI/FS
[see Remedial Investigation].
Filtration: A treatment process for removing
solid (particulate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove particles that contain
contaminants.
Flood Plain: An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods. Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that
results from the combustion of flue gases. It
can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides,
water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which
is used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party,
consisting of a written proposal demonstrating
a potentially responsible party's qualifications
57
-------
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,
58
-------
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 «t selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in
59
-------
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.
60
-------
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.
61
-------
i amid Tread: 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.
s: 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.
i: [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].
rge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the
earth to reach an aquifer.
): 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 WeMs: Wells used to withdraw
contaminants or contaminated groundwater.
y. The process of minimizing waste
generation by recovering usable products that
might otherwise become waste.
Remraednal Acttiom (MA): The actual construc-
tion or implementation phase of a Superfund
site cleanup following the remedial design
[see Cleanup],
A phase of site cleanup,
where engineers design the technical specifi-
cations for cleanup remedies and technolo-
gies.
n: 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].
Remedaal Project! Mamager (RPM): The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
ing cleanup actions at a site.
D: 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].
AclDOim: Short-term immediate
actions taken to address releases of hazardous
substances [see Cleanup].
1: 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 ComservattDom amd 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
62
-------
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
63
-------
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
64
-------
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.
65
-------
APPENDIX B
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in Maryland
67
-------
en
o
Information Repositories for NPL Sites in the State of Maryland
Repositories are established for all NPL sites so that the public can obtain additional information related to site activities. Some sites have more than one repository
location, however, the primary site repository is listed below. All public access information pertaining to the site will be on file at these repositories. The quantity
and nature of the documentation found in the repositories depends on the extent of activity and cleanup progress for each site and may include some or all of the
following: community relations plans, announcements for public meetings, minutes from public meetings, fact sheets detailing activities at sites, documents relating
to the selection of cleanup remedies, press releases, locations of other public information centers, and any other documents pertaining to site activities.
Site Name
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (EDGEWOOD)
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (MICHAELSVILLE)
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY LANDFILL
BUSH VALLEY LANDFILL
CHEMICAL METALS INDUSTRIES
KANE & LOMBARD STREETS DRUMS
LIMESTONE ROAD
MID-ATLANTIC WOOD PRESERVERS
MIDDLETOWN ROAD DUMP SITE
SAND. GRAVEL & STONE SITE
SOUTHERN MARYLAND WOOD TREATMENT
WOODLAWN CO. LANDFILL
She Repository
Harford County Public Library, Aberdeen Branch. 21 Franklin Street, Aberdeen. MD 21001
Harford County Public Library, Aberdeen Branch, 21 Franklin Street, Aberdeen, MD 21001
Not Established
Not Established
Deleted from the NPL
Highland Multi-Purpose Center, 3411 Bank Street, Baltimore, MD 21224
Allegany County Library, 31 Washington Street, Cumberland. MD 21502
Provinces Branch Library, Severn Square Shopping Center, 2624 Annapolis Road, Severn, MD 21144
Deleted from the NPL
Cecil County Public Library, Elkton Branch, 301 Newark Avenue. Elkton, MD 21921
SL Mary's County Memorial Library, Route 1, Leonardtown, MD 20650
Cecil County Public Library, Elkton Branch. 301 Newark Avenue, Elkton, MD 21921
------- |