U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE RECEIVE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE OFFICE OF OCEANOGRAPHY AND MARINE ASSESSMENT OCEAN ASSESSMENTS DIVISION HaZ7 lorPH'S Hazardous Material Response Branch 7600 Sand Point Way N.E. - Bin C15700 USEPA Seattle, Washington 98115 REGION I CONTRACTS March 20, 1990

Dennis P. Gagne Waste Management Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 SDMS DocID 278997 JFK Federal Building Boston, MA 02203-2211

Dear Mr. Gagne: Enclosed please find NOAA's Preliminary Natural Resource Survey (PNRS), for the Dover Municipal Landfill site (Site Id: 23) in Dover, . NOAA has provided information in this report concerning its position relative to a covenant not to sue for natural resource damages. This position is based on information available at the time of the survey. NOAA's position may change depending on the availability of new information. Information on NOAA's position concerning potential natural resource damages shall remain confidential. This information is clearly marked and is contained in the section named, "SUMMARY REPORT." The summary report shall be protected under the principles of deliberative process, attorney-client, and work product. The Department of Justice or NOAA will represent NOAA's position in negotiations with responsible parties. Information contained in the section named, "FINDINGS OF FACT" is considered part of the public record. I look forward to our continuing cooperation on Superfund site investigations. -...^•sv-ord" s Center

Sincerely

Robert Pavia, Ph.D

Enclosure: cc: NOAA/OAD - Ken Finkelstein NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION PRELIMINARY NATURAL RESOURCE SURVEY

Dover Municipal Landfill Dover, New Hampshire Cerclis NHD 980520191 Site ID: 23 March 20, 1990

FINDINGS OF FACT

SITE EXPOSURE POTENTIAL Site Description The Dover Municipal Landfill, located 6.5 km northwest of Dover, New Hampshire, accepted domestic and industrial wastes from 1961 to 1979 (Figure 1). Materials that were either burned and/or disposed in the landfill include municipal trash, leather tanning wastes, liquid wastes from metallurgical, metal plating and rubber manufacturing firms, organic industrial solvents, and sludges from the Dover wastewater treatment plant. Solids were periodically covered with silty sand. Liquids were emptied into the landfill or buried in drums. Sludges were buried and covered with silty sand (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers 1987). The landfill was closed in 1980, after inorganic and organic contaminants were detected in groundwater and surface waters in the site area. The site was listed on the NPL in 1983, primarily because of its proximity to two municipal water supply sources. Remedial investigations began in 1984 and were completed in 1987 (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers 1987). The draft Field Elements Study was submitted in January, 1990 (HMM Associates 1990). Major remedial actions taken at the site since the discovery of groundwater contamination include closure of the landfill, covering the refuse with silty sand and the construction of a drainage ditch around the perimeter of the landfill. The purpose of the ditch was to channel surface runoff into the Cocheco River and away from the Bellamy Reservoir, which supplies drinking water to seven municipal wells (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers 1987). Another possible contaminant source in the site vicinity is the Minichiello Brothers, Inc. scrap metal yard, located 350 m north of the landfill (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers 1987). Physical Description The Dover Landfill site occupies 22 hectares. Large wetland areas, dominated by cattails, pickerel weed, pond lilies, and some submergent vegetation, extend north and south of the landfill, while residential properties border the site to the east (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers 1987; Ingham 1990) (Figure 2). The landfill is covered with weeds, grasses, and trees, and due to filling and covering, is elevated slightly above the surrounding wetlands. Elevation ranges from 45 m above mean sea level in the northeast comer of the site to 50 m above mean sea level at the west margin of the site. The area surrounding the site ranges in elevation from 45 - 47 m above mean sea level, and slopes gently toward the Dover Municipal NEW Landfil HAMPSHIR

Prepared for NOM, January 1990. from theKittery, Maine-New Hampshire quadrangle, 1985.

we/-,,

Watson Dam

Bellamy Reservoir

\ Bellamy Dam

Figure 1. The Dover Landfill located in Dover, New Hampshire. Figure 2. The Dover Landfill site (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers, 1987). Cocheco River. A north to south ridge channels runoff to the east and west of the site (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers 1987). A drainage ditch constructed around the perimeter of the landfill collects surface water from the landfill and drains via a culvert into the Cocheco River, located 180 m east of the site. Surface waters in the area include the Cocheco River, the wetlands north and south of the site, and the Bellamy Reservoir. The Cocheco River is a freshwater stream, 30 m wide, with an estimated annual flow in the vicinity of the site of 7 m3/second, and with minimum flow estimated at 0.2 rrP/second. The Cocheco River enters the 11 km downstream of the site, and the latter flows to the Atlantic Ocean 27 km downstream of the site. Two dams are located on the Cocheco River, the Watson Dam, 2.5 km downstream of the site, and the Dover Dam 4 km further downstream. A natural falls, 7.5 m high, is located five km below the site. On the Cocheco River, migrating fish are able to pass over the Dover Dam via a fish ladder, but are blocked by the falls. A new hydroelectric dam is being planned at the falls. At this time, preliminary plans do not include a fish passage, although one may be required as part of the application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Leunge 1990). The Bellamy Reservoir, located 600 m south of the site, is formed by a dam on the . The Bellamy River flows into the Piscataqua River 15 km downstream of the Bellamy Reservoir (Leunge 1990). The Cocheco and Bellamy Rivers are under tidal influence until the base of the Dover Dam and Bellamy Reservoir Dam, respectively. Groundwater beneath the site flows away from the landfill, ultimately discharging into the Cocheco River and the Bellamy Reservoir. Although the percentages of groundwater flowing toward the Cocheco River and Bellamy Reservoir have not been determined, a groundwater divide extends from the wetlands south to the landfill, channeling groundwater from approximately one quarter of the western portion of the site toward and parallel to the Bellamy Reservoir, some of this groundwater flow moves south and then southeast, back to the Cocheco River. The groundwater from the eastern three quarters of the site flows toward the Cocheco River. Groundwater flowing northeast, east and south interacts with surface water by discharging into the drainage ditches flowing into the Cocheco River. Groundwater is recharged by wetlands north of the site. Rates of groundwater movement are 9 -15 cm/day to the Bellamy reservoir, and 60 - 100 cm/day to the Cocheco River (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers 1987). Pathways for potential contamination include surface water runoff and groundwater migration into the Cocheco River and the Bellamy Reservoir. Aerial photographs of the site taken in 1985 indicated discolored liquids and sediments in drainage ditches surrounding the landfill (Engle 1985). During recent site visits on September 19,1989 and January 12,1990 a stream of deep orange leachate was observed discharging from the landfill to the Cocheco River.

PNRS: Dover Landfill Habitats and Species Description The habitats of concern to NOAA include the Cocheco and Piscataqua Rivers, the surrounding wetlands and the Bellamy Reservoir. Though physical barriers limit the use of the Cocheco River and the Bellamy Reservoir by most anadromous species, American eel and Atlantic salmon juveniles (which are stocked by the state of New Hampshire) are found in these areas. The commercially important alewife and rainbow smelt occur 5 km below the site. In addition, many species of freshwater fish live in the rivers and the reservoir. No threatened or endangered species have been found in the Cocheco River, Bellamy Reservoir, or Bellamy River. Great Bay, located 20 km downstream of the Bellamy Reservoir, is a planned National Estuarine Reserve (Fawcett 1990). Cocheco River system Anadromous species that use the Piscataqua River and the lower Cocheco River below the Dover Dam for spawning, nursery, and migration are shown in Table 1 (Gundlach 1983). Table 1. Species and habitats found in the lower Cocheco River and Piscataqua River below the natural falls 5 km downstream of the site (Figure 1; Gundlach 1983).

Species Habitat Common name Scientific name spawning nursery adult forage ANADROMOUS/ CATADROMOUS Fish Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis Alewife Alosa psoudoharengus American shad Alosa sapidissma American eel Anguilla rostrata Striped bass Morone saxatilis Atlantic salmon Salmo salar

ESTUARINE Fish White perch Morone americana Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax

Invertebrates American oyster Crassostrea virginica Soft shell clam My a arenaria Blue mussels Mytilus edulis

Anadromous fish that have been observed in the Dover Dam fish ladder include Atlantic salmon, alewives, blueback herring, American shad, and lampreys. The catadromous American eel, noted for its ability to navigate low level barriers, is common above both dams on the Cocheco River (Fawcett 1990). Resident freshwater fish found in tributaries of the Cocheco River upstream of the site include common shiner, common white sucker, eastern chain pickerel, yellow perch, brown bullhead, sunfish, brook, brown and rainbow trout, and large mouth bass (Grout 1990). Fisheries Atlantic salmon (120,000 fry) were stocked in the Cocheco River upstream of the site in the spring of 1989 by the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game. Juveniles are expected to start migrating downstream in the spring of 1991. Adult salmon are not expected to return to upstream tributaries due to the impassable dams, but will provide opportunities for sport fishing downstream (Rogers 1990).

PNRS: Dover Landfill The Cocheco River below the Dover Dam has a commercial alewife fishery used for lobster bait, and a recreational rainbow smelt fishery in the winter, and is expected to support a recreational Atlantic salmon fishery beginning in the mid-1990s (Grout 1990). Bellamy River system Though anadromous fish are blocked from migrating into the Bellamy reservoir by the Bellamy dam, American eel are present, as well as several species of freshwater fish (Fawcett 1990). Resident freshwater species include large-mouth bass, eastern chain pickerel, yellow perch, brown bullhead, common white sucker, common sunfish, golden shiner, and the introduced black crappie (Grout 1990). The Bellamy Reservoir is a popular area for recreational warm-water fishing. Species that are found in the Cocheco River also occur in the lower Bellamy River below the dam (Table 1).

CHEMICAL HAZARDS Chemical Contaminants and Concentrations The major contaminants detected in groundwater, surface water, soils and sediments from the Dover Landfill site are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Of most concern to NOAA are the trace elements arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury and zinc. Remedial investigations were conducted in two phases during November 1984 to December 1986. The area sampled extends beyond the site boundary and includes wetlands north and south of the landfill, the Bellamy Reservoir south of the site, and the Cocheco River east and northeast of the site. Samples were collected from 20 groundwater wells, 10 surface water and sediment stations, and 21 subsurface soil stations (groundwater wells and selected test pits dug in and around the landfill). Groundwater and soil samples from in and around the landfill were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOC), semi-volatile organic compounds, inorganic substances, PCBs and pesticides. Surface waters and sediments from ten locations were analyzed for VOC compounds. Two surface water samples and four sediment samples were analyzed for metals and semi- volatile organic compounds (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers 1987). The Field Elements Study (HMM Associates 1990) was designed to identify the extent of contaminant migration and further evaluate the impact of the landfill on surrounding surface waters and sediments. Sediment sampling included three sediment samples from the drainage canal surrounding the landfill, one sediment sample from each of the wetlands 60 m north and south of the drainage canal, one sediment sample at the confluence of the drainage culvert and the Cocheco River, five sediment samples from the Cocheco River, collected upstream and downstream of the confluence of the drainage culvert, and four sediment samples from the northern bank of the Bellamy reservoir. Surface water sampling included two surface water samples from the drainage culvert entering the Cocheco River, surface water from the Cocheco River at four locations, upstream and downstream of the drainage culvert, and four surface water samples from along the northern bank of the Bellamy Reservoir. Surface waters were analyzed for volatile organic compounds only. Sediments were analyzed for semi-volatile organic compounds, PCBs, pesticides, and metals.

PNRS: Dover Landfill Major Contaminants Present at Site Inorganic Substances Trace elements are persistent environmental contaminants that tend to sorb to particulates and sediments, arc toxic at relatively low concentrations, and can bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms (Clement Associates 1985). Concentrations of trace elements in groundwater exceeded AWQC in several cases. The maximum concentration of lead detected in groundwater was 66 times higher than the chronic ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) value for the protection of aquatic life. Chromium, copper, and mercury maxima in groundwater were over 30 times higher than their respective chronic AWQC values (Table 2). Elevated levels of contaminants in groundwater could affect the surface waters into which they are migrating (the wetlands, Cocheco River, and Bellamy Reservoir). The greatest number and highest concentrations of metals were from groundwater sampled northwest of the landfill. Low to not detectable levels of inorganic substances were detected in the two surface water samples that were analyzed for inorganic contaminants, one collected from the Cocheco River where the drainage culvert discharges and one from the north bank of the Bellamy Reservoir. Chromium and mercury exceeded chronic AWQC values in the Bellamy Reservoir, although it is not clear that these contaminants are site related based on the present location of the projected groundwater plume. The detection limits used in the analyses for chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and silver were higher than their chronic AWQC values. Therefore, it is possible that some AWQC criteria were exceeded, but were not detected (Table 2). Samples from wetlands north and south of the site were not analyzed for inorganic substances.

Table 2. Concentrations (^g/1) of major contaminants detected in groundwater and surface water from the Dover Landfill Site (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers 1987) compared with freshwater ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) (U.S. EPA 1986).

Groundwater Surface Water a AWQC Cocheco Bellamy Contaminant minimum maximum River Reservoir acute chronic Arsenic <10 1,100 5 5 360 190 Cadmium <1 3 <1 <1 3.9+ 1.1 + Chromium <25 340 <25 28 16 11 Copper <10 370 <25 <25 18+ 12+ Lead <5 210 <5 <5 82+ 3.2+ Mercury <0.2 0.4 <0.2 0.76 2.4 0.012 Silver <10 <10 <10 <10 4.1 + 0.12 Zinc 40 2,400 <10 <10 120+ 110+ < Less than detection + Hardness dependent criteria; based on 1 00 mg/lCaC0 3 a Only two surface water samples were analyzed for inorganic substances

Maximum concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury in subsurface soils exceeded average U.S. background concentrations in soils, with mercury exhibiting the greatest increase (Table 3). The highest soil concentrations of mercury and cadmium were detected east of the site, including 3.4 mg/kg of mercury in soils collected adjacent to the Cocheco River (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers 1987).

PNRS: Dover Landfill The highest concentrations of several metals were detected in sediments from the drainage ditch leading to the Cocheco River (Table 3). These included: arsenic (210 mg/kg), chromium (15 mg/kg), silver, and zinc (17.5 mg/kg). Elevated levels of cadmium (12 and 13 mg/kg) were detected in sediments from the Cocheco River and the wetland south of the landfill. The highest concentrations of lead (64mg/kg) were detected in sediments from the Cocheco River. The Field Elements Study detected no semi-volatile organic compounds, PCBs, or pesticides in sediment samples. No criteria are presently available to evaluate the hazard of sediment contamination that are comparable to the ambient water quality criteria. One approach currently applicable to trace elements that is under consideration by the EPA Science Advisory Board is the Apparent Effects Threshold (AET). The AET approach, which was developed in Puget Sound, Washington, uses field data (chemical concentrations in sediment) and at least one biological indicator of injury (sediment bioassays, altered benthic infauna abundance) to determine the concentration of a given contaminant above which statistically significant biological effects would be expected (PTI1988). Although AET values have only been derived for Puget Sound and there are limitations in applying those values to other areas, they can provide some guidance in identifying contaminant concentrations of concern. Since the AET values presented in Table 3 were developed in a marine environment, and the Dover Landfill site is freshwater, these values must be interpreted cautiously. The actual toxicities of contaminants in sediments may vary, depending on salinity, water hardness, PH and other factors. Because there are no AETs for freshwater, die Puget Sound AETs are currently our only means of evaluating sediment contamination. Arsenic and cadmium, which exceeded their AET values (Table 3), were the only contaminants present in sediments at potentially toxic levels.

Table 3. Maximum concentrations (mg/kg) of major contaminants detected in soils and sediments from the Dover Landfill Site (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers 1987; HMM Associates 1990) compared with average background concentrations in soils (U.S. EPA 1983) and marine AET values (PTI 1988).

On-site Soils Average Sediments AET Values Soils (marine) wetlands drainage Cocheco wetlands Contaminant min max north ditch River south bw high

Arsenic <0.6 14 5 <0.25 210 99 2.9 57 700 Cadmium <0.5 1 .0 0.06 1.1 3.2 12 13 5.1 9.6 Chromium 4.3 27 100 5.5 15 13.9 3.7 260 270 Copper 3.2 12.5 30 9.7 9.3 3.5 7.6 390 1300 Lead <5 23 10 61 35 64 38 450 660 Mercury <0.02 4.8 0.03 0.3 0.02 0.3 0.09 0.41 2.1 Silver <0.5 1.49 0.05 <0.5 2.3 <0.5 <0.5 N/D N/D Zinc 15 45 50 16 48 32 15 410 1600

N/D Not determined < Less than detection limit

PNRS: Dover Landfill Organic compounds A total of 27 volatile organic compounds (VOC) were detected in the site area in various media sampled, including groundwater, surface water, sediments and soils. The highest concentrations and frequencies were detected in groundwater sampled downgradient, south and east of the site within 120 m of the landfill, and in surface water collected from the drainage ditch surrounding the landfill (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers 1987). Maximum concentrations of the primary VOCs detected in surface water were acetone (80 Jig/1), methyl ethyl ketone (49 (J.g/1)), dichloromethane (145 p.g/1), and isobutyl ketone (26 (ig/1) (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers 1987). VOCs are not persistent in the environment, have low toxicity to aquatic resources, and thus present a low hazard to aquatic resources. Semi-volatile organic compounds were detected less frequently and at lower concentrations than the VOCs. The most frequently observed semi-volatile organic compounds were diethylphthalate (maximum of 24 p.g/1 in groundwater, not detected in surface water, sediment or soils), and bis(2-ethylhexylphthalate) (maximum of 52 |ig/l in groundwater, not detected in surface water or sediment; 1.1 mg/kg in soils). Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), though not common throughout the site, were detected in soils northwest of the landfill. The maximum level of the PAH pyrene was 2.6 mg/kg (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers 1987). No PCBs or pesticides were detected in any of the media sampled. (The detection limits used ranged from 0.1 - 0.5 |ig/l for groundwater, 10 - 100 mg/kg for soils, and 4-20 mg/kg for sediments) (Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers 1987). Effects on Habitats and Species Limited information is available to evaluate the effects of contaminants on aquatic resources, since biota were not sampled. The data available do indicate contaminants are migrating into the Cocheco River, Bellamy Reservoir, and surrounding wetlands; however, the detection limits used for several contaminants exceeded chronic AWQC values and were too high to determine whether these contaminants are present at concentrations likely to threaten aquatic resources in the Cocheco River. Comparing maximum contaminant in surface water with the applicable AWQC indicates that under the right conditions, some of the contaminants may exceed levels that could be toxic to aquatic organisms. Trace elements are known to be toxic to aquatic life. For sensitive species, comparatively low concentrations of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, or zinc can adversely affect reproduction, growth, behavior, and metabolism. Rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus gairdneri), which is related to Atlantic salmon, have shown reduced growth at concentrations as low as 0.2 ^ig/1 cadmium, 21 [ig/1 chromium, 17 |ig/l copper, and 0.11 \ig/\ mercury (U.S. EPA 1980; U.S. EPA 1984a; U.S. EPA 1984b; U.S. EPA 1984c). Juvenile Atlantic salmon could potentially be affected by contaminant releases from the Dover landfill into the Cocheco River. Trace elements are also known to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms to levels much higher than ambient water and can be passed through the food chain (Clement 1985).

PNRS: Dover Landfill REFERENCES Clement Associates. 1985. Chemical, Physical, and Biological Properties of Compounds present at Hazardous Waste Sites. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Engle, S. 1985. Site Analysis, Dover Landfill. Boston, MA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1. Fawcett, B. Fisheries Biologist, New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game, Marine Division, Durham, New Hampshire, personal communication, January 2, 1990. Goldberg-Zoino and Wehran Engineers. 1987. Draft Remedial Investigation Dover Municipal Landfill. Boston, MA: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Waste Management Division. Grout, D. Marine Biologist, New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game, Marine Division, Durham, New Hampshire, personal communication, January 3,1990. Gundlach, E.C.S. 1983. Sensitivity of Coastal Environments and Wildlife to Spilled Oil, Southern Maine and New Hampshire Atlas. Seattle, Washington: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. HMM Associates, 1989. Work Plan for Dover Municipal Landfill Field Elements Study, Dover New Hampshire. Boston, MA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1. HMM Associates, 1990. Draft Field Elements Study for the Municipal Landfill, Dover, New Hampshire. Boston, MA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1. Ingham, B. Ecologist, New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Durham, New Hampshire, personal communication, January 4, 1990. Leunge, J. Water Resources Engineer, New Hampshire Water Resources Division, Concord NH, personal communication, January 3, 1990. PTI. 1988. The briefing report to the Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board: The Apparent Effects Threshold approach. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency. Rogers, C. Biological Aide, New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game, Marine/Anadromous Fish Division, Durham, New Hampshire, personal communication, January 3, 1990. U.S. EPA. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Mercury. 440/5-80-053. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. U.S. EPA. 1983. Hazardous Waste Land Treatment. SW-874. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. U.S. EPA. 1984a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium. 440/5-84-032. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards Criteria and Standards Division.

PNRS: Dover Landfill U.S. EPA. 1984b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chromium. 440/5-84-029. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards Criteria and Standards Division. U.S. EPA. 1984c. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper. 440/5-84-031. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. U.S. EPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. 440/5-86-001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division.

PNRS: Dover Landfill