Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD COVER SHEET

Name of Site: Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

EPA ID No.: NHN000105928 

Contact Persons

Site Investigation: Weston Solutions, Inc. (WESTON)/ (978) 552-2100 

Superfund Technical Assessment and 

Response Team III (START)

3 Riverside Drive

Andover, MA 01810 

(Mr. Gerald Hornok, Ms. Carolyn Imbres, and Mr. John F. Kelly)

Documentation Record: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (617) 918-1436 

(EPA) Region I

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 

Boston, MA 02109-3912 

(Ms. Nancy Smith)

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored

The surface water migration, soil exposure, and air migration pathways were not scored as part of this 

Hazard Ranking System (HRS) documentation record as the scoring of the ground water migration

pathway is sufficient to qualify the site for the National Priorities List (NPL).

Surface Water Migration Pathway (not scored)

Two HRS watersheds have been identified for the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility [64, pp. 1-

15]. A release to the overland/flood component of the surface water migration pathway for the two 

watersheds has been documented; however, the impacts to downstream targets have not been adequately 

characterized [20, pp. 4; 34, pp. 1-6; 35, pp. 1-7; 36, pp. 1-4; 47, pp. 1-3; 49, pp. 1-4; 50, pp. 1-2; 57, p. 

12; 100, pp. 1-7; 101, pp. 1-2]. Therefore, the Surface Water Migration Pathway is not presented in the 

HRS documentation record. 

Soil Exposure Pathway (not scored)

Sampling has documented the presence of soil contamination at the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 

facility [121, pp. 31, 41, 185, 189; 131, pp. 23, 26, 29, 32, 34, 55-56; 132, pp. 7, 132, 161]. There is no resident 

population at the facility, and no nearby population is known to be affected by contaminated soil. Due to 

the lack of residential and nearby targets, and since much of the affected facility areas are paved, this

pathway does not contribute significantly to the overall site score. Therefore, this pathway is not 

presented in the HRS documentation record. 

Air Migration Pathway (not scored) 

No release of hazardous substances to the ambient air from sources is known to have occurred, and no 

impacts to nearby residential populations or sensitive environments have been documented. The 

evaluation of the air migration pathway would not impact the listing decision. Therefore, this pathway is 

not presented in the HRS documentation record.
Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 1 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Site: Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Date Prepared: May 2013 

EPA Region: I 

Street Address of Site*: Off Route 11 between Paulson Road to the NW and Meetinghouse Hill Road to 

the SE

City, County, State, Zip Code: Farmington, Strafford County, New Hampshire (NH), 03835 

General Location in the State: Southeastern NH

Topographic Map: U.S. Geological Survey, Baxter Lake Quadrangle, New Hampshire-Strafford Co., 

7.5-minute series Topographical Map. 1987 provisional edition [8].

Latitude**: 43o 22' 19.2" North

Longitude**: 71o 03' 31.5" West 

Scores

Air Pathway NS

Ground Water Pathway 100.00 

Soil Exposure Pathway NS

Surface Water Pathway NS

HRS SITE SCORE 50.00 

NS = Not Scored

* The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation record 

identify the general area the site is located. They represent one or more locations EPA considers to be part 

of the site based on the screening information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA lists 

national priorities among the known “releases or threatened releases” of hazardous substances; thus, the 

focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as where a hazardous 

substance has been “deposited, stored, disposed or placed, or otherwise come to be located.” Generally, 

HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial determination that a 

certain area may need to be addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary 

description of facility boundaries at the time of scoring will be refined as more information is developed 

as to where the contamination has come to be located.

** The geographic coordinates of the site were measured from the approximate location of the former 

tetrachloroethylene (PCE) solvent storage tank [8; 10]. See HRS Figure 1 for the location of the latitude 

and longitude measurement point. 
Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 2 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE

S S2

1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) 

(from Table 3-1, line 13) 100.00 10,000

2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component

(from Table 4-1, line 30) NS NS

2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component

(from Table 4-25, line 28) NS NS

2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw)

Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score. NS NS

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss)

(from Table 5-1, line 22) NS NS

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa)

(from Table 6-1, line 12) NS NS

5. Total of Sgw

2 + Ssw2 + Ss2 + Sa2 10,000

6. HRS Site Score

Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root 50.00 

NS = Not Scored
Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 3 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

HRS Table 3-1 – Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet

Factor Categories and Factors

Maximum

Value

Value

Assigned

Likelihood of Release to an Aquifer:

1. Observed Release 550 550

2. Potential to Release:

 2a. Containment 10 NS

 2b. Net Precipitation 10 NS

 2c. Depth to Aquifer 5 NS

 2d. Travel Time 35 NS

 2e. Potential to Release [lines 2a x (2b + 2c + 2d)] 500 NS

3. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 2e) 550 550

Waste Characteristics:

4. Toxicity/Mobility (a) 10,000

5. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 100

6. Waste Characteristics 100 32

Targets:

7. Nearest Well 50 50

8. Population:

 8a. Level I Concentrations (b) 7,500

 8b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0

 8c. Potential Contamination (b) NS

 8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) (b) 7,500

9. Resources 5 NS

10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 NS

11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) (b) 7,550

Ground Water Migration Score For An Aquifer:

12. Aquifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11)/82,500] (c) 100 100.00

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score:

13. Pathway Score (Sgw), 

(highest value from line 12 for all aquifers evaluated, subject to a 

maximum of 100)c 100 100.00

(a) Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.

(b) Maximum value not applicable.

(c) Do not round to nearest integer. 
Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 4 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 

ACRONYM/ABBREVIATION LIST

> Greater than

1,1,1-TCA 1,1,1-Trichloroethane

1,1-DCA 1,1-Dichloroethane

1,1-DCE 1,1-Dichloroethene or 1,1-Dichloroethylene

1,2-DCA 1,2-Dichloroethane

1,2-DCE 1,1-Dichloroethene or 1,2-Dichloroethylene

AGQS New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Ambient Groundwater 

Quality Standards

Apr. April

AS/SVE Air Sparge and Soil Vapor Extraction

AST Aboveground Storage Tank

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

bgs Below Ground Surface

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System

cis-1,2-DCE cis-1,2-Dichloroethene or cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene

CLU-IN Contaminated Site Cleanup Information

Co. County

COC Chain-of-Custody

Collins & Aikman Collins & Aikman Automotive Interiors, Inc.

CVOC Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds

DCE Dichloroethene or Dichloroethylene

DNAPL Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid

DRC Davidson Rubber Company

EAI Eastern Analytical Inc.

EP Extraction Procedure

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ft/ft feet per foot

ft2 square feet

GEI GEI Consultants, Inc. (formerly known as Geotechnical Engineers, Inc.)

GMP Groundwater Management Permit

GMZ Groundwater Management Zone

GP2 Gravel Pack Number 2 Drinking Water Supply Well

GPS Global Positioning System

H&A Haley & Aldrich

HRG Hager-Richter Geoscience

HRS Hazard Ranking System

HWQ Hazardous Waste Quantity

ID Identification

Jul. July

Kimball Chase Kimball Chase Company, Inc.

MA Massachusetts

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MEK Methyl Ethyl Ketone 

mg/Kg milligrams Per Kilogram

mg/L milligrams Per Liter 
Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 5 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

ACRONYM/ABBREVIATION LIST (CONCLUDED)

MIBK Methyl Isobutyl Ketone

μg/L micrograms Per Liter

μg/Kg micrograms Per Kilogram

MOM3a Management of Migration component

N No

NA Not Available

NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum

NH New Hampshire

NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

NHWSPCC New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission

No. Number

Nov. November

NPL National Priorities List

NS Not scored

NYR Not Yet Regulated

p. page

pp. pages

Pace Pace Incorporated

PCE Tetrachloroethene or Tetrachloroethylene or Perchloroethylene

ppm parts per million

PRP Potentially Responsible Party

PVC Polyvinyl chloride

RAI Resource Analysts, Inc.

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System

RI Remedial Investigation

SCDM Superfund Chemical Data Matrix

Sept. September

SGP Sarah Greenfield Property

SHA Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc.

START Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III

TCE Trichloroethene or Trichloroethylene

TDL Target Distance Limit

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

trans-1,2-DCE trans-1,2-Dichloroethene or trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene

USGS United States Geological Survey

UST Underground Storage Tank

VC Vinyl Chloride

VLF Very Low Frequency

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

WESTON Weston Solutions, Inc.

Y Yes

yd3 cubic yard
 

 

 

 

&%

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 

Property Boundary 

1 Mile Radius 

from site sources 

Pokamoonshine Brook 

Cocheco River 

GP2 Well 

Source No. 1 

Route 11 

Route 153 

Source No. 3 

Source No. 2 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Site 

I

0 0.5 1

Miles 

0 0.5 1

Kilometers 

HRS Figure 1 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 

Off Route 11 between Paulson Road 

to the NW and Meetinghouse Hill Road 

to the SE 

Farmington, New Hampshire 

Location Map 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 

NHN000105928 

12-04-0009 

B. Mace 

26 September 2012 

EPA Region I 

Superfund Technical Assessment and 

Response Team (START) III 

Contract No. EP-W-05-042 

TDD Number: 

Created by: 

Created on: 

Modified by: 

Modified on: 

Topos: MicroPath/USGS 

Quadrangle Name(s): Farmington, Baxtor Lake, NH 

All other data: 11; 37, p. 11; 121, p. 41; 129, p. 8; 210 

Data Sources: 

C. Imbres 

25 March 2013 

HRS Documentation Record 

 May 2013 
MW105S

W19A

W18

W17

W16

W15

W14

B704

W19

B702

W13

W12

W11

W10

W9

W8

W7

P102

P101

W6

W5

W3

W2

W1

W22 W21

W20

W24

W25

W23

VII

Warehouse

Main Site Building

Former Sarah Greenfield Property

MW403

MW404

MW402

MW401

MW605

MW405

B101

B103

MW1001

MW406

SW205A

MW601DR

MW601SR

MW701 MW701SR

MW703

SW202A

SW502

MW801

SW501

MW906

MW903

MW904

SW201

MW604

MW602

MW603

MW902S

MW902D

MW303R

MW303

MW302

MW302R

MW1002

MW3

MW

MW305

Commercial Compost

Facility

Town Of Farmington Property

Groundwater Treatment

Plant Inside Warehouse

Route 11

SW503

SW101

II

VI

V

IV

VIII

X-C

X-B

X-A

Storage Building

MW105R

I-B, C

I-A

III-B

III-A

SH-1R

SH-2R

SH-3R

SH-4R

SH-5R

SH-6R

SH-7R

SH-8R

SH-1

SH-2

SH-3

X

X

X

X

X

X

Outfall 1a

Outfall 2

Outfall 3

Outfall 4

Bedrock Supply Well

A'

A

MW701DR

IX

B-1

B-2

VZ-1

VZ-2 B-3

B-4

VZ-3

S-1

S-2

S-3

SS-2

SS-1

SS-3

B-5

B-7

B-6 Approximate Limit of

Test Pit Excavation

W4

MW905

File:V:\2799.00\dwg\Bedrock Well figures\ELP-Bedrock-Contours.dwg Plot Date: 4-1-09 

100' 50' 0 100' 200'

I Former Solvent Storage TanksII Blockhouse/Former Paint Spill AIII Former PCE Degreasing PitsIV Former Waste Oil Ust

V Former No. 6 Fuel Oil USTsVI Former "Dowtherm" USTVII Northwest Septic System LeachVIII Northeast Septic System Leach

IX Former Infiltration Basins

X Former Waste Storage/Drum H

Potential Contaminant Sou

	

			 
!

HRS Source No. 2Percolating LagoonSystem(approximatelocation of lagoonsportion)

HRS Source No. 3Northwest Septic SystemTank (approximate location)

HRS Source No. 1PCE Tank(approximate location)

HRS Figure 2 - Extracted Figure 1 from Sanborn, Head &Associates, Inc. 2009. Summary Report, Additional Investigationsand Remedial Alternatives Evaluation, Former Collins & AikmanPlant Site, Farmington, New Hampshire, NHDES Site No.198705014. April. Figure narrative legend pertains to originalSanborn, Head and Associates, Inc. Figure 1, not HRS Figure 2.(HRS Reference 121, p. 41)
	




			 !"

HRS Figure 3 - Extracted Figure 2 from Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2007.2006 Groundwater Management Permit Annual Report, Collins &Aikman Farmington Plant, Farmington, New Hampshire, NHDESSite No. 198705014. 30 January.(HRS Reference 133, p. 46)NOTES: Information pertains to original Haley and Aldrich, Inc.Figure 2, not HRS Figure 3.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

&% 

&% 

A @

A @

A @

A @

A @

A @

A @

A @

A @

HRS Figure 4 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

Off Route 11 between Paulson Road 

to the NW and Meetinghouse Hill

Road to the SE 

Farmington, New Hampshire 

Approximate Monitoring Well

and Public Supply Well

Location Map GP3

(Town Well 3) 

Cocheco River 

SW201 

SW104 

MW305 

Warehouse 

HRS Source No. 3

Northwest Septic System Tank 

MW605 

SW205 

SW501 

Manufacturing

Building 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Property HRS Source No. 1

PCE Tank 

MW302 

SH-8R 

MW303 

Pokamoonshine Brook 

GP2 

Route 153 

Cardinal Landfill 

Route 11 

Farmington Landfill 

HRS Source No. 2

Percolating Lagoon System 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 125 

Feet 

I 

LEGEND 

Imagery: Bing Maps Aerials

All other data: 116; 121; 133 

12-04-0009 

G. Hornok 

16 October 2012 

C. Imbres 

25 March 2013 

Data Sources: 

EPA Region I

Superfund Technical Assessment and 

Response Team (START) III

Contract No. EP-W-05-042 

TDD Number: 

Created by: 

Created on: 

Modified by: 

Modified on: 

A @ Monitoring Wells 

&% Public Supply Wells

Approximate Source Areas

Property Boundary 

Note: The location of ground water 

monitoring and public supply wells is 

approximate based on maps presented 

in file references. 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

NHN000105928 

HRS Documentation Record 

 May 2013 
HRS Figure 5

12-04-0009

G. Hornok

13 February 2013

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

Off Route 11 between Paulson Road 

to the NW and Meetinghouse Hill 

Road to the SE

Farmington, New Hampshire

4 Mile Target Distance Limit

EPA Region I 

Superfund Technical Assessment and 

Response Team (START) III

Contract No. EP-W-05-042

TDD Number:

Created by:

Created on:

Modified by:

Modified on:

Topos: 2011 National Geographic Society

All other data: 11; 121, p. 41; 210

Data Sources:

I

0123 0.5

Miles

0123 0.5

Kilometers

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

NHN000105928

HRS Documentation Record

 May 2013

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

Site Sources

Cocheco River

4 Mile Target Distance Limit

from Site Sources

C. Imbres

25 March 2013
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 11 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013 

[1] U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. Hazard Ranking System; Final 

Rule, 40 CFR Part 300, Appendix A. The complete Hazard Ranking System; Final Rule is

available from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/index.htm#HRS%20 Rule. 14 

December. Excerpt, 140 pages. 

[2] U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Superfund Chemical Data 

Matrix (SCDM). Available from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/

tools/scdm.htm. 31 March. Excerpt, 77 pages. 

[3] Reference Number Reserved.

[4] Kueper, B.H. and Davies, K.L. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Assessment 

and Delineation of DNAPL Source Zones at Hazardous Waste Sites. Available from 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm? dirEntryId=214252. 20 pages. 

[5] Bitzas, S. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2013. P roject Note, Re.: Summary of previous ground water investigations. 31 

January. 9 pages. 

[6] New Hampshire Custodial Trust. Davidson Drive #56, Deed Book 3585/ Page 525. Printed 

on 30 September 2009. 6 pages. 

[7] John E. O’Donnell & Associates. 1978. Town of Farmington, New Hampshire, Property 

Map R–31. Obtained by START personnel on 30 September 2009. 2 pages. 

[8] USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1987 provisional edition. Baxter Lake Quadrangle, New 

Hampshire-Strafford Co., (7.5Minuute Series Topographic). 1 page. 

[9] USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1987 pr ovisional edition. Farmington, New Hampshire 

Quadrangle (7.5 Minute Series Topographic). 1 page.

[10] Mace, B. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2012. Project Note, Re.: Latitude/Longitude Calculations. 26 September. 1 page. 

[11] EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Search Superfund Site Information, Collins 

& Aikman Plant (Former). Available from 

http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm. Internet accessed on 15 October 

2012. 2 pages. 

[12] Imbres, C. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2012. Project Note, Re.: Local Bedrock Geologic Data. 23 October. 63 pages. 

[13] Bitzas, S. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2012. P roject Note, Re.: Background Ground Water Sample Summary. 11 October. 

244 pages.
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 12 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[14] Bitzas, S. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2012. P roject Note, Re.: Ground water Sample Summary Tables. 10 O ctober. 14 

pages.

[15] Kelly, J. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 

2012. Project Note, Re.: Geologic Cross Section Interpretation. 19 October. 44 pages.

[16] Kelly, J. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 

2012. Project Note, Re.: Contaminant Plume Flow Direction Review/Interpretation. 12 

October. 76 pages.

[17] Kelly, J. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III). 

2012. Project Note, Re.: Ground Water Flow Direction Interpretation. 12 October. 54 

pages. 

[18-19] Reference Number Reserved.

[20] Cochrane, J. B. 1974. Waste Water Treatment Study, Davidson Rubber Company. 15 May. 

78 pages. 

[21] Reference Number Reserved. 

[22] McCormack, J. (Davidson Rubber Company, Inc.). New Hampshire Industrial Waste 

Survey, Davidson Rubber Company, Inc. 3 pages. 

[23] Sliwinski, F. J. 1980. U.S. EPA Hazardous Waste Permit Application, EPA ID # 

FNHD045011616. 19 November. 8 pages. 

[24] Reference Number Reserved.

[25] Davidson Rubber Division Industrial Park Plant. 1985 (revised). EPA Hazardous Waste 

Compliance Program. 16 January. 100 pages. 

[26] NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). RCRA Inspection 

Checklist, Davidson Rubber Division/ Ex-Cell-O Corporation. 8 October 1981. 10 pages. 

[27] New Hampshire Department of Health and Welfare Division of Public Health Services. 

1981. Letter addressed to Davidson Rubber Division, Ex-Cell-O Corporation, regarding 

Regulatory Order Under New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Management Act. 9 December. 

3 pages. 
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 13 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[28] Reference Number Reserved.

[29] Unknown Author. 1982. Trip Report, Davidson Rubber Company, Inc. 16 August. 3 pages. 

[30-32] Reference Numbers Reserved. 

[33] New Hampshire Bureau of Hazardous Waste Management of Public Health Services. 1983. 

Inter-Department Communication, Davidson Rubber, Farmington. 27 May. 2 pages. 

[34] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1983. Subject: 

Davidson Rubber Farmington, Organics/Priority Pollutants Analysis. 26 September. 6 

pages. 

[35] Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1983. R e: Water and Soil Sampling Results, Farmington, 

N.H. 17 October. 7 pages. 

[36] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1983. Inter-Department 

Communication, Davidson Rubber Company, Farmington – Site Visit and Sample 

Collection on September 26, 1983. 1 December. 4 pages. 

[37] Orr and Reno P.A. 1984. L etter addressed to the New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services, Water Supply and Pollution Control Division, regarding sample 

results collected from Farmington on April 20, 1984. 25 May. 15 pages. 

 

[38] Reference Number Reserved.

[39] Orr and Reno P.A. 1984. Letter addressed to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Waste 

Management Division, Re: Davidson Rubber Company – Farmington Plant Information 

Request Pursuant to Section 3007 of RCRA and Section 104 of CERCLA. 15 August. 22 

pages.

[40-41] Reference Numbers Reserved.

[42] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1990. Letter Addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: Preliminary Remedial Recommendations, Davidson Instrument 

Panel/Textron Plant Site and Sarah Greenfield Property. 25 June. 10 pages. 

[43] Davidson Rubber Company. 1984. C losure Plan Proposal for Surface Impoundment 

System. 18 December. 68 pages.

[44] Geotechnical Engineers Inc. 1985. L etter addressed to Orr and Reno, P.A., Subject: 

Volatile Organic Analyses, Lagoon Soil Samples, Davidson Rubber Company. 17 January. 

17 pages. 

[45] Orr and Reno P.A. 1985. Letter addressed to the Water Supply and Pollution Control 

Commission, Re: Davidson Rubber, Amended Surface Impoundment Closure Plan. 30 

May. 12 pages.
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 14 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[46] Reference Number Reserved.

[47] Environmental Engineers, Inc. 1973. Letter addressed to Davidson Rubber Company, Inc., 

Re: Industrial Wastes. 16 July. 10 pages. 

[48] Reference Number Reserved.

[49] Davidson Rubber Company Incorporated. 1974. L etter addressed to EPA Enforcement 

Division, Subject: Monitoring Results, Permit #NH 0000036, out fall serial # 001. 27 

September. 4 pages. 

[50] Davidson Rubber Company Incorporated. 1975. L etter addressed to EPA Enforcement 

Division, Subject: Monitoring Results, Permit #NH 0000036, outfall serial # 001. 5 June. 2 

pages. 

[51] Reference Number Reserved.

[52] D. L. Maher Co. 1989. Groundwater Exploration Study, Cemetery Site, Farmington Water 

Department. April. 55 pages. 

[53] Reference Number Reserved.

[54] Davidson Rubber Division. 1986. L etter addressed to the Office of Waste Management, 

Division of Public Health Services, Re: Davidson Rubber Company – Surface 

Impoundment Closure. 6 May. 3 pages. 

[55] Reference Number Reserved.

[56] Davidson Rubber Company Incorporated. 1986. Letter addressed to Waste Management of 

the Division of Public Health Services, regarding the lagoon closure activity. 22 July. 17 

pages. 

[57] Davidson Rubber Company Incorporated. 1986. R emedial Investigation of the Davidson 

Rubber Co., Farmington Plant. 8 August. 65 pages. 

[58] Davidson Instrument Panel, Textron. 1988. Interoffice correspondence, Subject: GP2 

Lawsuit Defense. 11 November. 2 pages. 

[59] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1989. S oil Gas Study - Davidson Instrument Panel Plant. 6 

November. 46 pages. 
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 15 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[60] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1991. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: Deliverable No. 2, Source Control Alternative Evaluation, Focused 

Feasibility Study, Davidson Instrument Panel/Textron Plant. 12 September. 16 pages. 

[61] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1994. L etter addressed to New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services, Subject: Presence of Petroleum Products in Soil and Ground 

Water, Davidson Interiors/TEXTRON Site. 17 August. 15 pages. 

[62] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2004. Site Investigation Report, No. 6 Fuel Oil Release. 30 July. 96 

pages. 

[63] Stark, E. M. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 2012. Record of 

Interview with Gary Rollins, Former Plant Site Employee. 21 August. 4 pages.

[64] Mace, Bonnie (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response 

Team III). 2012. Project Note, Re: Surface Water Pathway Calculations for the Collins & 

Aikman Plant (Former) Property. 2 October. 15 pages. 

[65-66] Reference Numbers Reserved.

[67] Benton, T. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2010. Letter addressed to Smith, N. (EPA), Subject: Trip Report, Collins & Aikman 

Plant (Former), TDD No. 09-07-0008. 30 April. 29 pages. 

[68] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1984. Letter addressed 

to Brooks, K., Subject: Well Water Samples – October 16, 1984. 5 November. 1 Page. 

[69] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1985. Letter addressed 

to Moody, J. and Scruton, D., Subject: Well Water Quality Analyses – December 19, 1984. 

24 January. 3 pages. 

[70] Geotechnical Engineers Inc. 1985. Letter addressed to Williams, H. (Davidson R ubber 

Division), Subject: Analyses Results from Residential Well Supplies Phase III 

Hydrogeologic Investigation, Cardinal Landfill. 28 February. 17 pages. 

[71] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1985. Letter addressed 

to Brooks, K., Subject: Well Water Quality Collected July 7, 1985. 28 August. 2 pages. 

[72] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1985. Letter addressed 

to Cardinal, E., Subject: Well Water Quality Sample Collected July 9, 1985. 28 August. 2 

pages. 

[73] New Hampshire Department of Health and Welfare. 1985. Letter addressed to Brooks, K., 

regarding review of drinking water supply results. 25 September. 2 pages. 
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 16 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[74] Kimball Chase Company, Inc. 1985. Letter addressed to New Hampshire Water Supply & 

Pollution Control Commission, Re: Route 153 Watermain Extension, Farmington, NH. 2 

May. 1 Page.

[75] Sprague, D. (Farmington Sewer Dept.) 1985. Letter addressed to Carlson, W. (New 

Hampshire Water Supply & Pollution Control Commission), Re: Contaminated Well at K. 

Cardinals. 27 June. 1 page. 

[76] NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). Textron’s Cardinal 

Landfill, Watson Corner Road, Farmington, New Hampshire, DES Site # 198401083. Site 

Chronology and Info Sheet. 26 pages. 

[77] Envirogen, Inc. 1999. A s-Built Report Air Sparge and Soil Vapor Extraction System at 

Textron Automotive Company, Farmington, New Hampshire. 29 November. 64 pages. 

[78] Reference Number Reserved.

[79] START (Weston Solutions, Inc., Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2010. Final Site Inspection Report and Revised Site Inspection Worksheets for Collins 

& Aikman Plant (Former), TDD No. 09-07-0008. 8 July. 54 pages. 

[80] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2006. W ork Plan for Remedial Action Plan Revisions, Collins & 

Aikman Farmington Plant. 27 January. 32 pages. 

[81] Davidson Rubber Division (Ex-Cell-O Corporation). 1984. Letter addressed to Young, S. 

A. B. (Orr and Reno, P.A.), Subject: Test Results – Waste Water Drums. 1 November. 10 

pages.

[82] Reference Number Reserved.

[83] Imbres, C. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2012. Project Note, Re: Summary of 2012 Site Reconnaissance; and Lagoon, Septic 

Tank, and Other Laboratory Analytical Results Documentation Compiled from Facility File 

Review. 10 October. 56 pages. 

[84] Scesny, C. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2012. P roject Note, Re: Various Laboratory Analytical Results Documentation 

Compiled from Facility File Review. 11 October. 1,027 pages. Original quality poor- best 

reproduction available.

[85] ChemCycle Corporation. 1988. Letter addressed to Lucey, B. (New Hampshire Department 

of Environmental Services, Water Supply Engineering Services), Subject: Contamination 

from Davidson/Textron’s Gravel Pack, and proposed actions. 17 May. 2 pages.

[86] S.A. Alsup. 1987. Seismic Refraction Investigations, Sara Greenfield Property. 19 October. 

12 Pages. Original quality poor- best reproduction available.
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 17 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[87] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1993. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, July 1993 S ampling Round, 

Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 21 October. 33 pages. 

[88] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1993. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: Annual Report, Thirdly Ground Water Sampling and Surface Water, 

June 1992 Through March 1993 Sampling Rounds, Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield 

Property. 9 June. 47 pages. 

[89] GEI Consultant, Inc. 1992. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: Thirdly Ground Water Sampling and Surface Water Sampling, June 

1992 Sampling Round, Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 28 A ugust. 43 

pages.

[90] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1992. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: Annual Report, Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, July 1991 Through 

February 1992 Sampling Rounds, Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 28 July. 

69 pages. 

[91] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1991. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: Deliverable No. 1, F ocused Feasibility Study, Davidson Instrument 

Panel/Textron Plant. 8 July. 19 pages. 

[92] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1991. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: Annual Report, Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, May 1990 Through 

February 1991 Sampling Rounds, Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 24 

August. 50 pages. 

[93] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1990. Letter addressed to Thomas, J. (Davidson Instrument 

Panel/Textron), Subject: Quarterly Sampling and Annual Summary Report, October 1988 

to October 1989, Davidson Instrument Panel/ Textron Plant Site. 16 January. 27 pages. 

[94] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1989. Data Report, Hydrogeologic Study, Sarah Greenfield Property. 

26 May. 48 pages. 

[95] ChemCycle Corporation. 1988. S ummary Report, Environmental Investigations. 

November. 150 pages. Original quality poor- best reproduction available.

[96] Chas. T. Main, Inc. 1986. Groundwater Treatment Pilot Feasibility Study. 14 February. 72 

pages. 

[97] BCI Geonetics, Inc. 1985. S ummary Report of Findings – Farmington, NH, Davidson 

Rubber Company and Cardinal Landfill, Hazardous Waste Files. 21 March. 26 pages. 

[98] Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. 2000. S eismic Refraction Survey, Textron Automotive 

Company Inc. June. 24 pages. 
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 18 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[99] Reference Number Reserved.

 

[100] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1983. Letter addressed 

to Teaque, K., Subject: Farmington Water Works – Davidson Rubber. 24 August. 7 pages. 

[101] New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1983. Letter addressed 

to Williams, H. (Davidson Rubber Division), regarding water samples collected on August 

24, and Notice of Violation. 13 October. 3 pages. 

[102] Davidson Rubber Division. 1983. Memo addressed to Veale, E. and Ferrari, Subject: 

Farmington Brook Contamination. 25 October. 1 Page. 

[103] Farmington Water/Waste Department. 1983. L etter addressed to Davidson Rubber 

Division, regarding the contamination at well #2. 9 November. 2 pages. 

[104] Davidson Rubber Division. 1984. M emo addressed to Littlefield, R. S., Subject: Potable 

Water Supply Appropriation Request. 25 January. 4 pages. 

[105] GeoTechnical Engineers Inc. 1984. Letter addressed Williams, H. (Davidson Rubber 

Company), Subject: Proposed Drinking Water Supply Well. 9 February. 3 pages. 

[106] Davidson Rubber Division. Memo addressed to Sliwinski, F. J. and Williams, H., Subject: 

Farmington Water Issue. 23 February. 2 pages. 

[107] Davidson Rubber Company Incorporated. 1984. Request for Quote Worksheet, to provide 

and install a complete water system. 9 May. 3 pages. 

[108] Davidson Rubber Division. 1984. Memo addressed to Littlefield, R., Subject: Water Well 

Installation, Project #3258. 10 May. 2 pages. 

[109] Water Industries, Inc. 1984. Letter addressed to Greenlaw, H. (Davidson Rubber 

Company), regarding well water pumping system proposal. 6 June. 3 pages. 

[110] Davidson Rubber. 1984. Well Completion Reports, Davidson Rubber Farmington Plant. 6 

July. 2 pages. 

[111] Ex-Cell-O Corporation. 1985. Letter addressed to Carlton, R. (Water Industries, Inc.), 

regarding review of the water well system. 16 October. 4 pages. 

[112] Stark, E. M. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 2010. Record of 

Telephone Conversation between Stark, E. M. and Sprague, D., regarding Farmington 

Former C&A/Davidson/Textron, Ground Water Wells. 9 February. 1 Page. 

[113] Stark, E. M. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 2010. Email to 

Benton, T. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III), Subject: Farmington Plant Information, documents attached: DES Well installation 

database, Hynes Memo & Newsclipping, and Dale Sprage DES Telecom.4 March. 4 pages. 
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 19 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[114] Benton, T. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2010. Phone Conversation Record with Sprague, D. (Farmington Water Department), 

Subject: Historical use of Gravel Pack Well 2 (Farmington Water System). TDD No. 09-

07-0008. 8 March. 1 Page. 

[115] Stark, E. M. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 2010. Transmittal 

to the Site File, number of employees that worked at the Davidson Plant in 1983. 17 March. 

1 Page.

[116] Environmental Engineers, Inc. Report Submitted to Town of Farmington Board of 

Selectmen, Re: Study and Report on Water Supply Distribution System and Storage 

Facilities. 112 pages. Original quality poor- best reproduction available. 

[117] Kimball Chase Company, Inc. 1985. Davidson Rubber, Farmington Division: Wastewater 

Evaluation and Disposal Plan. October. 29 pages. 

[118] Reference Number Reserved. 

[119] Town of Farmington Board of Selectmen. 1990. Agreement Regarding Final Settlement of 

Claims Regarding the Sarah Greenfield Property. 31 December. 7 pages. 

[120] Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc. 2008. S ummary Report – Site Review and Proposed 

Additional Investigations, Collins & Aikman/Former Textron Plant Site. January. 33 pages. 

[121] Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc. 2009. Summary Report – Additional Investigations and 

Remedial Alternatives Evaluation, Former Collins and Aikman Plant Site. 1 A pril. 292 

pages. 

[122] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1992. Focused Feasibility Study, Davidson Instrument Panel/Textron 

Plant, Volume I. 24 June. 100 pages. 

[123] USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1992. Geohydrology and Water Quality of Stratified-Drift 

Aquifers in the Bellamy, Cocheco, and Salmon Falls River Basins, Southeastern New 

Hampshire. 114 pages. 

[124] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2006. R eport on P hase I Investigations in Support of Revised 

Remedial Action Plan, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant. 6 October. 134 pages. 

[125] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2000. Report on Investigation of Bedrock Topography, Textron 

Farmington Plant. December. 94 pages. 

[126] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2001. Report on Year 2000 Groundwater Management Permit 

Annual Report, Textron Manufacturing Facility. February. 135 pages. 

[127] Geotechnical Engineers Inc. 1984. Interim Report Summary of Field and Laboratory Data 

for Hydrogeologic Study – Davidson Rubber Company Farmington Plant. 10 December. 

124 pages. 
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 20 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[128] Davidson Interiors. 1994. Application for Groundwater Management Permit. 6 June. 266 

pages.

[129] ChemCycle Corporation. 1988. Report on Pump Test Gravel Pack 2 Well. September. 85 

pages. 

[130] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1989. Hydrogeologic Study, Sarah Greenfield Property. 19 October. 

95 pages. 

[131] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1990. Source Characterization Study - Davidson Instrument Panel 

Plant. 29 May. 62 pages. 

[132] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1994. Report, Pre-Design Program, Davidson Plant. 10 January. 605 

pages. Original quality poor-best reproduction possible.

[133] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2007. 2006 Groundwater Management Permit Annual Report, 

Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant. 30 January. 212 pages. 

[134] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1994. Letter Addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: 1993 – 1994 Annual Report, Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, July 

1993 through July 1994 Sampling Rounds, Davidson Plant and Sara Greenfield Property. 

17 November. 104 pages. 

[135] Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc. 2011. Monitoring Well Inventory and Groundwater 

Sampling, Former Collins & Aikman Plant Site. December. 177 pages. 

[136] Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc. 2008. Interim Report of Findings, Soil-Gas and 

Groundwater Sampling, Former Collins & Aikman Plant Site. May. 301 pages. 

[137] Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc. 2010. S ummary Letter Report, SH-8R Additional 

Investigations, Former Collins & Aikman Plant Site. March. 66 pages. 

[138] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1994. Letter addressed to Rydel, P. (New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services, Water Supply & Pollution Control Division), Subject: Installation 

of Ground Water Monitoring Wells for Ground Water Management Zone Monitoring, 

Davidson Plant. 13 December. 3 pages. 

[139] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1995. G round Water Monitoring Results, April 1995 Sampling, 

Davidson Plant Site. July. 42 pages. 

[140] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1996. Ground Water Management Zone Permit, 1995 Annual Report. 

22 March. 121 pages. 

[141] Orr and Reno P.A. 1984. Letter addressed to Donahue, M. P. (New Hampshire Water 

Supply and Pollution Control Commission) regarding results received from the town well 

testing completed on February 16. 2 April. 5 pages. 
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 21 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[142] Reference Number Reserved. 

[143] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry. 1997. Toxicological Profile for Tetrachloroethylene. September. Excerpt, 318 

pages.

[144] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1996. L etter addressed to Thomas, J. (Textron Automotive 

Company), Subject: Operation and Maintenance Activities Status Summary, Textron Plant 

Ground Water Remediation. 27 November. 25 pages. 

[145] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1998. Ground Water Management Zone Permit, 1997 Annual Report, 

Textron Automotive Company. 26 February. 135 pages. 

[146] Rath, Young, and Pignatelli P.A. 1998. Letter addressed to Rydel, P. (New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services), RE: Textron Automotive Company, July 1998 

Thirdly Groundwater Monitoring Results. 9 October. 60 pages. 

[147] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry. 1997. T oxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene. September. Excerpt, 335 

pages.

[148] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2005. 2004 Groundwater Management Permit Annual Report, 

Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant. 31 January. 173 pages. 

[149] Bitzas, S. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2012. P roject Note, Re: Groundwater Analytical Data Packages. 11 O ctober. 222 

pages. 

[150] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1990. Letter addressed to Thomas, J. (Davidson Instrument 

Panel/Textron), Subject: Analytical Results for October 1989 S ampling Round, Sarah 

Greenfield Property. 11 January. 37 pages. 

[151] Rath, Young, Pignatelli and Oyer, P.A. 1991. Letter addressed to Carlson, W. (New 

Hampshire Department of Environmental Services), Re: Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, 

July 1991 Sampling Round, Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 26 September. 

32 pages. 

[152] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1991. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli &

Oyer P.A.), Subject: Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, October 1991 Sampling Round, 

Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 18 December. 48 pages. 

[153] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1993. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, November 1992 Sampling Round, 

Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 13 January. 32 pages. 
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 22 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[154] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1994. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, March 1994 Sampling Round, 

Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 19 May. 62 pages. 

[155] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1995. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: Thirdly Ground Water Sampling, November 1994 Sampling Round, 

Davidson Plant and Sarah Greenfield Property. 7 February. 72 pages. 

[156] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1996. Ground Water Monitoring Results, November 1995 Sampling, 

Textron Plant Site. March. 73 pages. 

[157] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1997. Ground Water Management Zone Permit 1996 Annual Report, 

Textron Automotive Company. 30 April. 253 pages. 

[158] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1997. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: April 1997 Thirdly Ground Water Monitoring Results, Ground Water 

Management Permit No. GWP-870514-F-001, Textron Plant Site/ Sarah Greenfield 

Property. 19 June. 55 pages.

[159] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1997. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: July 1997 Thirdly Ground Water Monitoring Results, Ground Water 

Management Permit No. GWP-870514-F-001, Textron Plant Site/ Sarah Greenfield 

Property. 6 October. 50 pages. 

[160] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1997. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: November 1997 Thirdly Ground Water Monitoring Results, Ground 

Water Management Permit No. GWP-870514-F-001, Textron Plant Site/ Sarah Greenfield 

Property. 22 December. 49 pages. 

[161] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1998. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: April 1998 Thirdly Ground Water Monitoring Results, Ground Water 

Management Permit No. GWP-870514-F-001, Textron Plant Site/ Sarah Greenfield 

Property. 21 May. 61 pages.

[162] Rath, Young, and Pignatelli P.A. 1999. Letter addressed to Rydel, P. (New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services), RE: Textron Plant Site/Sara Greenfield Property. 

19 August. 64 pages. 

[163] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2000. L etter addressed to Thomas, J. (Textron Automotive 

Company), Subject: April 2000 G roundwater Sampling, NHDES Permit No. GWP870514-F-001. 13 July. 81 pages. 

[164] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2001. L etter addressed to Thomas, J. (Textron Automotive 

Company), Subject: July 2001 Groundwater Sampling, NHDES Permit No. GWP-870514-

F-001. 30 August. 60 pages. 
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 23 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[165] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2002. R eport on 2001 G roundwater Management Permit Annual 

Report, Textron Automotive Trim, Collins & Aikman Corporation. January. 154 pages. 

[166] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2002. L etter addressed to Groundwater Management Permits 

Coordinator (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Waste Management 

Division), Subject: July 2002 Groundwater Sampling, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant 

Site, NHDES Permit No. GWP-870514-F-001. 9 September. 70 pages. 

[167] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2003. 2002 Groundwater Management Permit Annual Report, 

Collins & Aikman Automotive Interiors, Inc. January. 143 pages. 

[168] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2004. R eport on July 2004 Groundwater Monitoring, Collins & 

Aikman Farmington Plant Site. 7 September. 90 pages. 

[169] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2005. R eport on July 2005 Groundwater Monitoring, Collins & 

Aikman Farmington Plant Site. 30 September. 96 pages. 

[170] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2006. 2005 Groundwater Management Permit Annual Report, 

Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant. 27 January. 198 pages. 

[171] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2006. Report on A pril 2006 Groundwater Monitoring, Collins & 

Aikman Farmington Plant Site. 8 June. 88 pages. 

[172] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2002. L etter addressed to Thomas, J. (Textron Automotive 

Company), Subject: April 2002 G roundwater Sampling, NHDES Permit No. GWP870514-F-001. 28 June. 47 pages. 

[173] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1995. G round Water Monitoring Results, July 1995 S ampling, 

Davidson Plant Site. 20 September. 44 pages. 

[174] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1999. Ground Water Management Zone Permit, 1998 Annual Report, 

Textron Automotive Company. 26 February. 160 pages. 

[175] GEI Consultants, Inc. 1999. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: July 1999 Thirdly Groundwater Monitoring Results, Groundwater 

Management Permit No. GWP-870514-F-001, Textron Plant Site/ Sarah Greenfield 

Property. 28 October. 125 pages. 

[176] GEI Consultants, Inc. 2000. Ground Water Management Zone Permit, 1999 Annual Report, 

Textron Automotive Company. 7 M arch. 207 pages. Original quality poor-best 

reproduction possible.

[177] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2000. Groundwater Management Permit Renewal, Textron 

Automotive Company. April. 75 pages. 

[178] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2000. Five Year Review, Textron Farmington Site. May. 13 pages. 
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 24 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[179] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2001. L etter addressed to Thomas, J. (Textron Automotive 

Company), Subject: April 2001 G roundwater Sampling, NHDES Permit No. GWP870514-F-001. 30 August. 59 pages. 

[180] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2003. Air Stripper Pilot Test Workplan, Groundwater Treatment 

System, Collins & Aikman Automotive Interiors. March. 22 pages. 

[181] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2003. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: April 2003 G roundwater Sampling Results, NHDES Permit No. 

GWP-198705014-F-002, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant Site. 20 June. 62 pages. 

[182] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2003. R eport on A ir Stripper Pilot Test, Collins & Aikman 

Farmington Plant. September. 97 pages. 

[183] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2003. Letter addressed to Thomas, J. (Collins & Aikman Automotive 

Interiors), Subject: Results of W19A Pumping Tests and Recommendations for System 

Modification, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plan Groundwater Containment System. 29 

September. 12 pages. 

[184] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2003. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: July 2003 Groundwater Sampling Results, NHDES Permit No. GWP198705014-F-002, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant Site. 20 November. 71 pages. 

[185] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2004. R emedial Action Plan Addendum, Collins & Aikman 

Farmington Plant. January. 157 pages. 

[186] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2004. 2003 Annual Report, Groundwater Management Permit, 

Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant. January. 143 pages. 

[187] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2004. Letter addressed to Young, S. B. (Rath, Young, Pignatelli & 

Oyer P.A.), Subject: April 2004 G roundwater Sampling Results, NHDES Permit No. 

GWP-198705014-F-002, Collins & Aikman Farmington Plant Site. 21 May. 74 pages. 

[188] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2006. Letter addressed to Thomas, J. (Collins & Aikman Automotive 

Interiors, Inc.), Subject: July 2006 G roundwater Monitoring Report. 11 September. 79 

pages. 

[189] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2000. L etter addressed to Thomas, J. (Textron Automotive 

Company), Subject: July 2000 Groundwater Sampling, Farmington Plant Site, NHDES 

Permit No. GWP-870514-F-001. 20 September. 57 pages. 

[190] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2005. Report on A pril 2005 Groundwater Monitoring, Collins & 

Aikman Farmington Plant Site. 28 July. 114 pages. 

[191] NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Protection). 1995. Letter to 

Thomas, J. (Davidson Interiors), Re: Farmington – Davidson Interiors Groundwater 

Management Permit (DES# 870514). 5 May. 8 pages. 
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 25 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[192] Bitzas, S. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2012. P roject Note, Re.: Influent and Effluent Data for Ground water remediation 

system. 11 October. 48 pages. 

[193] START (Weston Solutions, Inc., Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2010. Site Logbook, Collins & Aikman Plant (Former), TDD No. 01-09-07-0008. 28 

January. 6 pages. 

[194] NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Protection). 1984. Letter to Rath, 

T. D. (Orr and Reno P.A.), Subject: Samples from Farmington, New Hampshire, Split with 

Geotechnical Engineers. 28 March. 4 pages.

[195] Carlson, W. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Protection). 1984. 

Communication to File, Subject: Farmington and Davidson Rubber Groundwater Samples. 

11 April. 4 pages. 

[196] Parsons Corporation. 2004. Principles and Practices of Enhanced Anaerobic 

Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents. August. 457 pages.

[197] EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Site Characterization Technologies 

for DNAPL Investigations. September. Excerpt, 165 pages.

[198] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry. 1997. Tetrachloroethylene, CAS # 127-18-4. September. 2 pages. 

[199] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry. 2003. Trichloroethylene, CAS # 79-01-6. July. 2 pages. 

[200] Washoe County Department of Water Resources Water Service. Central Truckee Meadows 

Remediation District: What is PCE? Available from www.co.washoe.nv.us/water/ctmrdpce.htm. Internet accessed 4 April 2011. 4 pages. 

[201] United Kingdom Environment Agency. 2003. An illustrated handbook of DNAPL transport 

and fate in the subsurface. June. 67 pages.

[202] Reference Number Reserved. 

[203] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry. 1995. 1,1-Dichloroethene, CAS # 75-35-4. September. 2 pages. 

[204] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry. 1997. 1,2-Dichloroethene, CAS # 540-59-0, 156-59-2, 156-60-5. September. 2 

pages.
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 26 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[205] US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) CLU-IN (Contaminated Site Cleanup 

Information): C ontaminants: Dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLS): Policy and 

Guidance: 1,2-Dichloroethene. Available from http://cluin.org/contaminantfocus/default.focus/sec/Dense_Nonaqueous_Phase_Liquids_(DNAPLs)/

cat/Chemistry_and_Behavior/p/3/n/3. I nternet accessed 12 October 2012. Excerpt, 5 

pages. 

[206] US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) CLU-IN (Contaminated Site Cleanup 

Information): Contaminants: Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs): Chemistry and 

Behavior: 1,2-Dichloroethene. Available from 

http://clu-in.org/contaminantfocus/default.focus/sec/Dense_Nonaqueous_Phase_Liquids_(

DNAPLs)/cat/Chemistry_and_Behavior/p/3/n/3. I nternet accessed 12 October 2012. 

Excerpt, 2 pages. 

[207] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry. 1,1-Dichloroethene. Available from 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=130. Internet accessed 12

October 2012. Excerpt, 2 pages. 

[208] Reference Number Reserved. 

[209] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry. 2006. Public Health Statement: Vinyl Chloride, CAS#:75-01-4. Available from 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp20-c1-b.pdf. July. Excerpt, 7 pages.

[210] Scesny, C. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2012. P roject Note, Re: determination of the distance between GP-2 and the four 

source areas located on the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) site. 11 November. 2 pages. 

[211] GeoInsight, Inc. 2006. 2 005 Annual Water Quality Report, Town of Farmington, 

Farmington Municipal Landfill. 10 February. 37 pages. 

[212] CMA Engineers, Inc. 2007. Town of Farmington, Farmington Landfill, 2006 Annual Water 

Quality Report. March. 80 pages. 

[213] CMA Engineers, Inc. 2007. Town of Farmington, Farmington Landfill, 2007 Annual Water 

Quality Report. December. 66 pages. 

[214] CMA Engineers, Inc. 2009. Town of Farmington, Farmington Landfill, 2008 Annual Water 

Quality Report. January. 69 pages. 

[215] CMA Engineers, Inc. 2010. L etter to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental 

Services, RE: Farmington Municipal Landfill Water Quality Results – April 2010, GWP 

198401085-F-002. 4 May. 26 pages. 
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 27 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[216] CMA Engineers, Inc. 2011. L etter to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental 

Services, RE: Farmington Municipal Landfill, Groundwater Permit No. 198401085-F-002, 

Groundwater Management Permit Renewal and 2010 Annual Water Quality Summary. 19 

January. 78 pages. 

[217] CMA Engineers, Inc. 2012. . Town of Farmington, Farmington Landfill, 2011 Annual 

Water Quality Report. January. 65 pages. 

[218] EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), Superfund Site Information System. 

Farmington, New Hampshire Search Results. Available from 

http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchrslt.cfm?start=1&CFID=11069167&CFTOK

EN=60314027&jsessionid=e03078a3aa561ba958ee34745546455e5d6a. Internet accessed 

on 26 September 2012. 1 page. 

[219] EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), RCRAInfo (Resource Conservation Act 

Information System). Farmington, New Hampshire search results. Available from 

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/rcrainfo/index.html. Internet accessed on 26 S eptember 

2012. 23 pages. 

[220] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry. Public Health Assessment, Cardinal Landfill. Available from 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/pha.asp?docid=1172&pg=1. Internet accessed on 15 

October 2012. 18 pages. 

[221] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2007. 2006 Annual GMP Report, Cardinal Landfill Site. 31 January. 

288 pages. 

[222] Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2006. Letter addressed to Thomas, J. (Collins & Aikman, Inc.), 2005 

Annual GMP Report, Cardinal Landfill Site. 24 January. 261 pages. Original quality poorbest reproduction possible.

[223] Geotechnical Engineers Inc. 1985. S ummary Report, Phase II Hydrogeologic Study, 

Cardinal Landfill, Volume 1 of 2. 15 February. 100 pages. 

[224] Geotechnical Engineers Inc. 1985. Appendices, Summary Report, Phase II Hydrogeologic 

Study, Cardinal Landfill, Volume 2 of 2. 15 February. 299 pages. 

[225] Geotechnical Engineers Inc. 1985. Phase III Hydrogeologic Study, Cardinal Landfill. 8 

May. 52 pages. 

[226] New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services and New Hampshire Water Supply and 

Control Commission. Preliminary Assessment of the Cardinal Landfill Site. 5 pages. 

[227] Dupree, C. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2012. Project Note, Re: RCRA, CERLIS, and NHDES OneStop Sites in Farmington 

NH (Attribution). 22 October. 92 pages.
REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 28 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

[228] Hornok, G. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III). 2012. P roject Note, Re: Summary of Potential Groundwater Population within 4 

Radial Miles of Collins & Aikman Plant (Former). 21 October. 15 pages.

[229] Stark, E. M. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 2012. Email to 

Hornok, G. (Weston Solutions, Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 

III), Subject: Davidson-Records of Lagoon Closure. 22 October. 1 page. 

[230] Goldsmith, R., 1993. S urficial Geologic Map of the Baxter Lake Quadrangle, Strafford 

County, New Hampshire. 3 pages. 

[231] Goldsmith, R 1993. Surficial Geologic Map of the Farmington Quadrangle, Strafford and 

Carroll Counties, New Hampshire. 3 pages.

[232] Envirogen, Inc. 2001. S emi-Annual Status Report No. 3, September 26, 20 00 Through 

February 20, 2001, Project No. 92079. 29 March. 13 pages. 

[233] Envirogen, Inc. 2002. S emi-Annual Status Report No. 5, August 15, 2001 Through 

February 15, 2 002, Project No. 92079. 15 March. 18 pages. Original quality poor-best 

reproduction possible.

[234] Willoughby, S. A. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Waste 

Management Division). 2002. Letter to Mr. James Thomas, Textron Automotive 

Company, RE: Farmington – Textron Automotive Company: 2001 Groundwater 

Management Permit Annual Report dated January 2002; Analytical Results from 

Groundwater Treatment System Monitoring dated February 26, 2 002; April 2001 GMP 

Monitoring Report dated August 31, 2001 ; July 2001 GMP Monitoring Report dated 

August 31, 2001; and Five Year Review dated May 2000; by Haley & A ldrich (DES 

#198705014). 9 August. 4 pages. 

[235] Stark, E. M. (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Waste Management 

Division). 2007. L etter to James Thomas, Collins & Aikman Automotive Interiors, Inc., 

RE: Farmington – Textron Automotive Company Site, 56 Davidson Drive (Route 11) DES 

Site #198705014, Project #211, R eport on P hase I Investigations in Support of Revised 

Remedial Action Plan, prepared by Haley & Aldrich, dated October 6, 2006. 7 March. 4 

pages.

[236] Envirogen, Inc. 2000. S emi-Annual Status Report No. 2, F ebruary 4, 2000 Through 

September 5, 2000, Project No. 92079. 29 September. 3 pages. 
Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 29 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

SITE SUMMARY – Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)

The Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) site consists of three sources and the documented release of five 

hazardous substances to the overburden/bedrock aquifer and a Town of Farmington, New Hampshire 

(NH) former public drinking water supply well [Gravel Pack Number 2 (GP2) Well] downgradient from 

the facility (see HRS Figure 1). The three site sources which have released hazardous substances to the 

underlying aquifer consist of the following: leaks and spills from a former tetrachloroethene (PCE) 

solvent aboveground storage tank (AST) and piping, located south of the (now demolished) 

manufacturing building; a former percolating lagoon system, which includes three lagoons located east of 

the former manufacturing building, along NH Route 11; and a septic system tank, formerly located 

northwest of the manufacturing building (see HRS Figure 2) [see the Source Characterization sections of 

this HRS documentation record]. These sources have been documented to contain the following eight 

hazardous substances: PCE; trichloroethene (TCE); trans-1,2-dichloroethene (trans-1,2-DCE); vinyl 

chloride (VC); methylene chloride; methyl ethyl ketone (MEK); toluene; and xylene [see Source 

Characterization sections]. A release of PCE, TCE, VC, cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), and trans1,2-DCE from sources to ground water and the downgradient drinking water supply well has been 

documented [see the Ground Water Migration Pathway section of this HRS documentation record]. This 

release includes contamination exceeding the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in a drinking 

water supply well formerly serving an average of 750 employees [see the Ground Water Migration 

Pathway section].

The Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) property (the property) is an approximately 123-acre parcel located 

at 56 Davidson Drive along NH Route 11 in Farmington, Strafford County, NH (see HRS Figure 1) [6, 

p.1; 11, p. 1]. The parcel is identified by the Town of Farmington Property Map Numbers (Nos.) R-31 

and R-36, as Lot Nos. 34 and 2, r espectively [7, p. 1; 62, p. 25 ]. The geographic coordinates of the 

property, as measured from the former location of the PCE solvent AST, are 43o 22' 19.2" north latitude 

and 71o 03' 31.5" west longitude (see Figure 1) [9, p. 1; 10, p. 1; 121, p. 41]. The property is bordered to 

the north by NH Route 11; to the east by agricultural land and Meeting House Road; to the south by 

agricultural and undeveloped land; and to the west by Paulson Road and Pound Road [67, p. 8]. 

Ownership of the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) property prior to 1964 is unknown based on available 

file documentation. In 1964, D avidson Rubber Company (DRC), which was owned by McCord 

Corporation of Michigan, purchased the property [62, p. 9]. Between 1964 and 1987, ownership of DRC 

was transferred on two separate occasions from the original owners (with ownership by McCord 

Corporation from 1964 to 1980, Ex-Cell-O Corporation from 1980 to 1986, and Textron, Inc. from 1986

to 1987) [62, p. 9]. However, the DRC name was kept until 1987, when under ownership by Textron, 

Inc., it changed to Davidson Textron, Inc. [62, p. 9]. In 1994, Davidson Textron, Inc. changed its name to 

Textron Automotive Interiors, Inc., but remained under the same ownership (Textron, Inc.) [62, p. 9]. In 

2001, Textron Automotive Interiors, Inc. was purchased by Collins & Aikman Interiors, Inc.; and in 2002, 

the company name was changed to Collins & Aikman Automotive Interiors, Inc. (Collins & Aikman) [62, 

p. 9]. In 2007, ownership of the property was transferred to the New Hampshire Custodial Trust [6, p. 1]. 

As of January 2010, the majority of the 123-acre Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) property consisted of 

undeveloped wooded areas [67, p. 6]. According to previous reports, the former actively used area of the 

property [the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility (the facility)] occupied approximately 33 acres 

and included a 232,000-square foot (ft2

) manufacturing building, a 60,000-ft2 warehouse, and paved areas 

which covered most of the remaining facility area [57, p. 8 ; 124, p. 8 ; 193, p. 4]. The manufacturing 

building was demolished in 2010 [83, p. 1; 193, p. 4].

According to available documentation, operations conducted at the facility included the manufacturing of 

instrumentation panel pads for automobiles and trucks [127, p. 10]. The instrumentation panel pads 
Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 30 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

consisted of polyurethane foam in a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) shell [127, p. 10]. Manufacturing processes 

conducted at the facility included polyurethane foam molding, construction of PVC shells, and the 

assembly of the finished panels [127, p. 10]. Paint operations were also conducted at the facility; 

however, the paint line was removed in 1983 [127, p. 10]. The manufacturing processes involved the use 

of solvents, some of which had been inadvertently released to ground water, soil, and surface water at the 

facility since the facility began operation in 1966 [57, pp. 2, 9-10]. Solvents used at the facility included 

isopropyl alcohol, PCE, TCE, methylene chloride, acetone, xylene, toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone 

(MIBK), and MEK [57, p. 10; 63, p. 1]. Wastes produced by the manufacturing processes were derived 

primarily from the cleaning of metal and epoxy molds; cleaning of air compressors and paint guns; and 

reclamation of materials, including PVC, from defective panels [127, p. 10]. In an undated NH Industrial 

Waste Survey, DRC indicated that an average of 28,000 gallons of wastewater was discharged to the 

percolation lagoons daily, and methylene chloride and PCE were recycled or recovered from operation 

wastes [22, pp. 1-3]. 

Organic solvents, including PCE, MEK, xylene, and methylene chloride, were stored in ASTs which were 

located 250 feet west of the manufacturing building, and which were connected to the building via 

underground piping [124, p. 8]. In 1977, a documented spill of PCE solvent occurred during refilling of 

an AST [63, p. 1]. Additional solvent releases from leaking underground piping also occurred [57, p. 16; 

63, p.1]. The ASTs and associated underground piping were removed in 1985 [124, p. 8]. 

A former septic and leachfield area existed northwest of the former manufacturing building, between the 

manufacturing building and the warehouse [120, pp. 3, 23, 27]. According to previous reports, from 1966 

to 1983, floor washings and inadvertent chemical spills may have been discharged to the septic and 

leachfield system [57, p. 15]. Based on the presence of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) 

in ground water in this area, Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc. (SHA) concluded that historical discharge 

of aqueous-phase CVOCs to the leachfields had occurred [120, p. 3]. 

Investigations of environmental conditions at the property began in 1984 after low concentrations of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in the GP2 municipal drinking water supply well [124, 

p. 8]. The GP2 supply well is located downgradient of the facility within the sand and gravel aquifer of 

the Sarah Greenfield Property (also referred to in some file documentation as Sara Greenfield Property) 

(SGP) (see HRS Figures 3 and 4) [130, pp. 8-10, 17, 39-42]. A Groundwater Management Permit (GMP) 

was first issued for the facility in 1995 for an effective period of 5 years, and was renewed in August 

2002 [124, p. 9]. The GMP established the Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ), which included the 

active facility portion of the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) property and the downgradient SGP, and 

implemented a ground water monitoring program which included sampling to be performed on a thirdly 

basis (April, July, and November of each year) [124, p. 9]. The conditions of the GMP were implemented 

by contractors for DRC and subsequently Collins & Aikman from July 1995 until November 1999 

[Geotechnical Engineers, Inc. (GEI)] and from April 2000 t o January 2007 [Haley & Aldrich (H&A)] 

[133, pp. 1-34; 139, pp. 2-4; 163, pp. 1-2; 176, pp. 6-28; 177, pp. 1-42]. In 2005, it was determined that 

Collins & Aikman had failed to meet the deadline to achieve NH Department of Environmental Services 

(NHDES) Ambient Groundwater Quality Standards (AGQS) in the SGP [120, p. 3]. In 2007, Collins & 

Aikman declared bankruptcy [120, p. 4]. 

Analytical data files retrieved from the facility indicate that extensive sampling was conducted at the 

facility between 1981 and 2002 f or various purposes [84, p. 1]. Furthermore, numerous investigations 

have been performed concerning the following: to determine the extent of VOC contamination within 

ground water at the facility and the adjacent SGP; to determine the hydrogeologic setting of the 

overburden/bedrock aquifer at both the facility and the downgradient SGP; to document the ground water 

contamination over time and maintain compliance with the State-issued GMPs; t o determine feasible 

remediation options to address the do cumented VOC-contaminated ground water plume; and to 
Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 31 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

document the effectiveness of the implemented ground water remediation activities [5, pp. 1-9; 42, pp. 3-

10; 57, pp. 2-4; 60, pp. 1-12; 79, pp. 28-32; 80, pp. 1-18; 86, pp. 2, 5; 87, pp. 1-2; 88, pp. 1-7; 89, pp. 1-3; 

90, pp. 1-6; 91, pp. 1-3; 92, pp. 1-7; 93, pp. 1-5; 94, pp. 1-48; 96, p. 3; 97, pp. 2-3; 98, pp. 1-2; 100, pp. 

1-7; 101, pp. 1 -3; 120, pp. 1 -19; 121, pp. 1 -29; 124, pp. 1 -21; 125, pp. 1-9; 126, pp. 2-24; 127, pp. 6 -9; 

128, pp. 32-93; 129, pp. 40-42; 130, p. 2; 131, p. 2; 132, pp. 1-30; 133, pp. 1-34; 134, pp. 1-6; 135, pp. 1-

4; 136, pp. 1-8; 137, pp. 1-9; 138, p. 1; 139, pp. 2-4; 140, pp. 8- 23; 144, pp. 1-10; 145, pp. 8-37; 146, pp. 

2-6; 148, pp. 1-30; 151, pp. 2-4; 152, pp. 1-3; 153, pp. 1-2; 154, pp. 1-2; 155, pp. 1-2; 156, pp. 2-4; 157, 

pp. 2- 29; 158, pp. 1-4; 160, pp. 1-4; 161, pp. 1-3; 162, pp. 2-6; 163, pp. 1-2; 164, pp. 1-2; 165, pp. 2-25; 

166, pp. 1-2; 167, pp. 2-25; 168, pp. 1-6; 169, pp. 1-7; 170, pp. 1-25; 171, pp. 1-6; 172, pp. 1-2; 173, pp. 

2-4; 174, pp. 8 -35; 175, pp. 1-6; 176, pp. 6 -28; 177, pp. 1-42; 178, pp. 1-9; 179, pp. 1-2; 180, pp. 1-5; 

181, pp. 1-3; 182, pp. 1-5; 183, pp. 1-5; 184, pp. 1-4; 185, pp. 1-5; 186, pp. 2-28; 187, pp. 1-4; 188, pp. 1-

5; 189, pp. 1-2; 190, pp. 1-6; 191, pp. 1-8]. 
Source Characterization

Source No. 1 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 32 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

Name of Source: PCE Tank

Number of Source: Source No. 1 

Source Type: Other – Leaks and Spills

Description and Location of Source (with reference to a map of the site): 

According to a 1986 Remedial Investigation (RI) report prepared by Chas T. Main, who was retained by 

DRC, three 2,000-gallon solvent storage tanks were installed at the facility in 1966 for bulk storage of 

PCE, MEK, and xylene solvents [57, pp. 2, 15]. Operations began at the facility in 1966, and included the 

use of PCE for degreasing and cleaning of molds until 1978 [57, pp. 8-10; 63, p. 1]. Based on an August 

2012 interview of a former employee at the facility, conducted by a NHDES Waste Management Division 

representative, the PCE solvent stored in the AST and used at the facility was referred to by the trade 

name “Philsol” [63, p. 1]. The three solvent storage tanks were originally installed on an exterior concrete 

pad, near what became the southern corner of the manufacturing building following the expansion of the 

building in 1977 [57, pp. 15, 62-63]. The solvents were conveyed from the tanks to the manufacturing 

building via 2-inch steel underground piping [57, p. 15; 63, p. 1]. In 1977, the solvent storage tanks and 

underground pipelines were relocated approximately 300 f eet to the west of the original location, 

immediately west of the southern corner of the newly expanded manufacturing building (see HRS Figure 

2) [57, pp. 15 -16, 62-63]. The pipeline connecting this new PCE solvent AST area is depicted as 

extending approximately 150 f eet northeast from the tank area to the southern portion of the building 

[131, p. 26]. In 1978, the use of PCE was discontinued, and the storage of methylene chloride was 

initiated in lieu of PCE [57, pp. 10, 16]. In 1985, the three solvent storage tanks and associated pipelines

were removed [57, p. 16; 62, p. 10]. 

Previous reports and an interview with a former employee at the facility indicate that an overfill spill of 

PCE solvent associated with an AST occurred in 1977, and that there were additional releases due to 

leakage/rupturing of the pipelines [42, p. 3; 63, p. 1; 122, p. 2]. Source No. 1 (Other – Leaks and Spills) 

comprises an unknown quantity of spilled PCE released from the overfill spill and leaking pipelines. 

Analytical results of soil samples collected from the area of the PCE solvent AST and associated piping 

provide additional supporting evidence of a release from Source No. 1, as described below.

Documentation of the August 2012 NHDES interview with a former employee indicated that a release of 

“several hundred gallons of solvent” occurred in late 1977 during filling of a decommissioned tank via a 

tanker [63, p. 1]. According to NHDES’s documentation of the interview, the “solvent was not recovered, 

and may have soaked into the ground around the pad and then flowed into the small nearby stream” [63, 

p. 1]. The former employee further stated that in 1978, he recognized a discrepancy between the amount 

of PCE solvent delivered to the facility and the amount used according to kept stock room records, and 

that several weeks later he noted a “PCE smell” outside the manufacturing building [63, p. 1]. Subsequent 

excavation was conducted in this area, and “the underground line leading to the Plant was found to have 

been ruptured by frost” [63, p. 1]. According to a facility diagram provided in the NHDES interview, the 

PCE solvent AST held 3,700 gallons [63, p. 3]. According to an undated NH Industrial Waste Survey, 

9,400 gallons of PCE were recycled or recovered by DRC; however, it is unclear if this quantity refers to 

use on a weekly, annual, or other basis [22, pp. 1-2]. No further documentation regarding the quantity of 

PCE used at the facility or released during the overfill spill or from leaking pipes was found in available 

file documentation. 
Source Characterization

Source No. 1 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 33 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

In 1989, GEI conducted a soil gas study, authorized by Davidson Instrument Panel/Textron, to identify 

potential subsurface source areas of VOCs beneath and outside of the manufacturing building [59, p. 2]. 

The highest VOC concentrations in soil gas samples [including concentrations of PCE, TCE, 

dichloroethylene (DCE), and VC] were detected at sampling locations between the former solvent storage 

tank area and the southern corner of the manufacturing building, indicating that VOCs from the tanks and 

associated piping may have been released to the soils between the former tanks and the building [59, pp. 

2, 11]. Based on the results of the soil gas study, GEI concluded that VOCs may have been released from 

the tanks and associated piping to the soils between the tanks and the manufacturing building, and GEI 

identified this area as a potential source area [59, pp. 11-12; 131, p. 17]. 

As described below, laboratory analytical results of soil samples collected during additional 

investigations, including the 1990 G EI Source Characterization Study, 1994 G EI Pre-Design Program, 

and 2009 SHA Additional Investigations and Remedial Alternatives Evaluation, have identified an area of 

contaminated soil associated with the PCE solvent storage tank and piping [121, pp. 9, 41, 74, 79, 189; 

131, pp. 20, 23, 26, 29, 3 2, 34, 55 -56; 132, pp. 56, 102, 132, 161 ]. Analytical results of soil samples 

collected during these investigations support that a release of PCE occurred [121, pp. 185, 189; 131, pp. 

29, 32, 34, 55-56, 58-59; 132, pp. 132, 161]. Background soil samples collected during these 

investigations indicate that the hazardous substances detected in the contaminated soil samples were 

above local background levels, and that these hazardous substances are not ubiquitous throughout the 

local area [121, pp. 176, 178, 182, 185, 189; 131, pp. 29, 32, 34, 38, 40, 43, 55-57, 58-59; 132, pp. 132, 

140, 161-162]. 

Laboratory analytical results of four soil samples (MW-105S:S2, B-2:S1, B-4:S1, and B-4:S3) collected 

as part of the 1990 GEI Source Characterization Study from borings located in the vicinity of the former 

PCE solvent storage tank documented the presence of the following hazardous substances at levels above 

laboratory reporting limits: PCE; TCE; 1,1-dichlorethylene (1,1-DCE); cis-1,2-DCE; 1,1-dichloroethane 

(1,1-DCA); and methylene chloride [131, pp. 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 34, 55-56, 58-89]. The concentrations of 

these hazardous substances in soil samples were significantly above non-detect background levels, based 

on comparison to three background soil samples (B-8:S-2, B-10:S-1, and B-103:S5A) collected from 

nearby locations that were outside the area influenced by a release from the PCE solvent tank area [131, 

pp. 23, 26, 29, 32, 34, 38, 40, 43, 55-57]. The analytical results of the four soil samples were compared to 

the contaminant concentrations detected in the background soil sample(s) which displayed the most 

similar matrix compositions [131, pp. 29, 32, 34, 38, 40, 43]. 

The background and contaminated soil samples were collected from similar depth intervals [between 3 

and 10 f eet below ground surface (bgs)], during the same time period, and using the same collection 

methods; and all samples were submitted to Eastern Analytical Inc. (EAI) laboratory for analysis via EPA 

Method 8010, 8015, and/or 8020 [131, pp. 7-8, 10, 12, 23, 29, 32, 34, 38, 40, 43, 55-59]. The maximum 

concentrations of hazardous substances detected among the four contaminated soil samples were detected 

in sample B-4:S1, as follows: PCE [11,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg)]; TCE (440 mg/Kg); 1,1-

DCE (1.7 mg/Kg); cis-1,2-DCE (500 mg/Kg); 1,1-DCA (1.8 mg/Kg); and methylene chloride (3.0 

mg/Kg) [131, pp. 23, 29, 32, 34, 55-56]. 

Laboratory analytical results of one soil sample (SC5-SS1) collected as part of the 1994 GEI Pre-Design 

Program from a boring located in the vicinity of the former PCE solvent storage tank documented the 

presence of PCE at a concentration of 4.1 mg/Kg, above the laboratory reporting limit [132, pp. 56, 102, 

132, 161]. The concentration of this hazardous substance in this soil sample was significantly above 

background levels based on comparison to background soil sample SC8-SS1, which contained a similar 

matrix composition and was collected from a nearby location presumably outside the area influenced by a 

release from the PCE solvent tank area [132, pp. 43, 56, 102, 105 , 132, 140 ]. Note that in different 
Source Characterization

Source No. 1 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 34 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

sections of the GEI Pre-Design Program report, these samples are also referred to as SC5-S1 and SC8-S1; 

however, these samples are referred to as SC5-SS1 and SC8-SS1 on t he chain-of-custody (COC) and 

laboratory reports [132, pp. 43, 1 02, 105, 132, 140, 161-162]. The background and contaminated soil 

samples were collected from the same depth interval (0 to 2 feet bgs), during the same time period, and 

using the same collection methods; and both samples were submitted to Pace Incorporated (Pace) 

laboratory for analysis via EPA SW 846, 3rd Edition, Method 8240 [132, pp. 20, 43, 72, 102, 105, 132, 

140, 161-162]. 

Laboratory analytical results of two soil samples [SH-3 (S-1) and B-5 (S-2)] collected from borings 

located in the vicinity of the former PCE solvent storage tank in 2008 as part of the 2009 SHA Evaluation

documented the presence of PCE at levels above laboratory detection limits [note that SH-3 (S-1) is 

reported as “SH-3” on the laboratory report and COC] [121, pp. 9, 41, 74, 79, 185, 189]. The laboratory 

detection limit for PCE was determined based on the evaluation of a trip blank sample that was submitted 

for analysis as part of the same sample delivery group [121, pp. 183, 185]. The concentrations of PCE in 

contaminated soil samples were significantly above background levels based on c omparison to one 

background soil sample [B-2 (S-2)], which contained a similar matrix composition and was collected 

from a nearby location outside the area influenced by a release from the PCE solvent tank area [121, pp. 

31, 41, 71, 74, 79, 176, 178, 182, 185, 189]. 

The background and contaminated soil samples were collected from similar depth intervals (between 0.7 

and 4 feet bgs), during the same time period, and using the same collection methods; and all samples were 

submitted to EAI laboratory for analysis via EPA Method 8260B [121, pp. 31, 71, 74, 79, 176, 178, 182-

183, 185, 189]. The maximum concentration of PCE detected among the two contaminated soil samples 

was 30 mg/Kg in SH-3 (S-1) [121, pp. 31, 74, 79, 185, 189]. 

2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE

List of Hazardous Substances Associated with Source

PCE

2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY

Evidence of hazardous substance migration from Source No. 1 i s based on information provided by a 

former employee, who indicated that the PCE solvent spilled in 1977 was never recovered; therefore, 

PCE would have presumably continued to migrate through the environment following the spill [63, p. 1]. 

Hazardous substance migration from Source No. 1 has also been documented by analytical results of soil 

samples collected from around the area of the PCE solvent AST and associated piping [121, pp. 74, 79, 

185, 189; 131, pp. 23, 29, 32, 34, 55-56; 132, pp. 102, 132, 161]. Therefore, Source No. 1 does not have 

full containment, and the source yields a containment value of 10 for the Ground Water Migration 

Pathway [1, p. 51597 (Table 3-2)].

Table 1 - Hazardous Substances Available to Pathways

Containment Description Containment Factor References

Release to ground water: Based on a documented spill

of PCE and leaking underground pipes, a Containment 

Factor Value of 10 has been assigned for release to 

ground water for Source No. 1. 10

1, p. 51597 (Table 3-2); 63, p. 

1; 121, pp. 31, 41, 185, 189; 

131, pp. 23, 26, 29, 32, 34, 

55-56; 132, pp. 7, 132, 161
Source Characterization

Source No. 1 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 35 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

2.4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

2.4.2.1 Hazardous Waste Quantity

The Hazardous Waste Quantity (HWQ) for Source No. 1 was assigned a value of unknown but greater 

than 0, based on the documented presence of the source, and the lack of information regarding the 

quantity of the source due to source remediation activities conducted between 1999 and 2002 [63, p. 1; 

77, p. 3; 233, p. 1]. The Hazardous Constituent Quantity and Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Values 

were not evaluated for Source No. 1 because insufficient information was available, as described in the 

sections below [1, pp. 51590-51591 (Sections 2.4.2.1.1 and 2.4.2.1.2, Table 2-5)]. 

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

Description

The Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source No. 1 could not be adequately determined according to 

the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and 

releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [1, pp. 51590-

51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.1)]. Insufficient historical and current data [manifests, potentially responsible 

party (PRP) records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, etc.] are available to adequately 

calculate the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and the associated releases 

from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to calculate the Hazardous Constituent 

Quantity for Source No. 1 with reasonable confidence. 

Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value: NS

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

Description

The Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 1 could not be adequately determined according to 

the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and 

contaminants for the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with 

reasonable confidence [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.2)]. Insufficient historical and current data (manifests, 

PRP records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, annual reports, etc.) are available to

adequately calculate the total mass of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and 

contaminants for the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient 

information to adequately calculate or extrapolate the Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 1 

with reasonable confidence. 

Sum of Wastestream Quantity (pounds)/5,000 (1, p. 51591, Table 2-5): NS

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value: NS 

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

Description

An August 2012 NHDES interview with a former employee indicated that in 1977, a release of “several 

hundred gallons of solvent”, which were not recovered, occurred during filling of a decommissioned tank 

[63, p. 1]. No documentation is available regarding the exact quantity of PCE solvent spilled in 1977, or 

regarding the quantity documented to have been released from the ruptured pipeline [63, p. 1]. 
Source Characterization

Source No. 1 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 36 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

An air sparge and soil vapor extraction (AS/SVE) system was installed in May 1999 and began operating 

in September 1999 to address the source area identified as the former solvent tank and pipelines 

southwest of the manufacturing building [77, p. 3]. The system was designed to operate concurrently with

six ground water extraction wells (W-20 through W-25) installed in the source area, and included in-situ 

soil vapor extraction of the unconsolidated overburden to recover VOCs from source soils located above 

and below the natural ground water table [176, pp. 8-9; 236, p. 2 ]. The AS/SVE system included nine 

shallow SVE wells and 10 deep SVE wells installed in the vadose zone, and 10 air sparge wells installed 

below the dewatered ground water table [236, pp. 1-2]. The AS/SVE system was operated only 

intermittently between 2000 and 2002 due to various issues [126, pp. 2, 15; 232, p. 2; 233, p. 1; 236, p. 2]. 

These issues included dewatering and system electrical problems; high ground water conditions, which 

blocked the SVE well screens which was caused by irregular operation of the source area ground water 

extraction wells; operations and maintenance activities; and the ground water table being too low to 

provide effective sparging conditions [126, pp. 2, 15; 232, p. 2; 233, p. 1; 236, p. 2]. In a 2000 Five Year 

Annual Review Report, H&A stated that the on-site remediation systems did not appear to be reducing 

the extent of the VOC-contaminated ground water plume rapidly enough to meet the existing 10-year 

remedial goal [178, p. 6 ]. In 2002, N HDES expressed concern that the AS/SVE wells may not be 

optimally designed and may not actively remediate the source of PCE, and noted that the concentration of 

PCE in ground water in the area had recently increased to 700 micrograms per liter (μg/L), the highest 

concentration since July 1998 [234, p. 3]. NHDES further stated that the system design may be affecting 

only extremely localized areas of contamination, without effectively impacting nearby contaminated 

source areas [234, p. 4]. As of 15 March 2002, the AS/SVE system was shut down [233, p. 1]. In a March 

2007 letter, NHDES stated that the on-site remedial systems had failed to treat, remove, or contain all 

sources [235, p. 1]. 

As presented above in Section 2.2.1, analytical results of soil samples collected in 2008, several years 

after the initiation and shut-down of the AS/SVE system, indicated that PCE contamination remained 

around Source No. 1 [121, pp. 31, 74, 79, 185, 189 ]. Therefore, the Volume Assigned Value for Source 

No. 1 is known to be greater than zero, but exact amount unknown. 

Table 2 – Volume

Source Type

Description

(# drums or dimensions)

Units

(yd3

) References

Other- Leaks 

and Spills

Overfill spill and leaks of an unknown 

quantity of PCE solvent >0

1, p. 51591 (Table 2-5); 42, 

p. 3; 63, p. 1; 122, p. 2 

Sum (yd3

): >0

Equation for Assigning Value (1, p. 51591, Table 2-5): >0 yd3

 ÷ 2.5 = >0 

Volume Assigned Value: >0

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Description

Based on the HRS, if the volume of a source can be determined, the area measure of that source should 

not be evaluated and the area value assigned should be 0 [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.3]. 

Area Assigned Value: 0
Source Characterization

Source No. 1 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 37 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

The HWQ Value for Source No. 1 was assigned as unknown but greater than 0, based on the documented 

presence of a source, but a lack of current information to sufficiently quantify the source [1, p. 51591, 

Table 2-5]. 

Highest HWQ value assigned from Ref. 1, Table 2-5: >0
Source Characterization

Source No. 2 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 38 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

Name of Source: Percolating Lagoon System

Number of Source: Source No. 2 

Source Type: Other

Description and Location of Source (with reference to a map of the site): 

In 1975, a lagoon system was constructed at the facility to receive industrial wastewater [56, p. 2; 57, p. 

12]. The Percolating Lagoon System (Source No. 2 - Other) comprises the pipelines, influent tanks, and 

three percolation lagoons which made up this lagoon system [29, p. 3; 43, pp. 3, 5, 28; 57, pp. 12-13]. 

Tanks associated with the lagoon system included two settling tanks, an aeration tank, and a dose (or 

dosing) tank [56, p. 1]. The buried settling and dose tanks and the three adjacent percolation lagoons were 

located east of the manufacturing building, adjacent to Route 11 (see HRS Figure 2) [43, p. 28; 57, pp. 

62-63]. Based on documentation prepared by DRC, wastewater was discharged into a drain line, pumped 

through a distribution box, and subsequently pumped to the two settling tanks (each with a 6,500-gallon 

capacity) into which the solid waste would settle out [43, pp. 3, 5]. Wastewater was then transferred from 

the settling tanks to the 600-gallon aeration tank, and subsequently to the 3,200-gallon dosing tank [43, 

pp. 5]. When the dosing tank reached its capacity, an automatic siphon drained the tank’s contents 

through aboveground pipes into the three percolation lagoons [43, pp. 3, 5]. Each lagoon encompassed an 

area of approximately 10,000 ft2

 and was approximately 4 feet deep [43, p. 5]. 

From 1975 until 1982, the lagoon system received industrial wastewater from the facility, including 

wastewater from the paint booth water curtains and floor drains [56, p. 2; 57, p. 12]. According to the 

1986 Chas T. Main RI, solvents used by DRC as part of painting operations included acetone, xylene, 

toluene, MIBK, and MEK [57, p. 10]. An undated NH Industrial Waste Survey indicated that an average 

of 28,000 gallons of wastewater from the parts washing process were discharged daily to the percolation 

lagoons, and associated wastes included “fatty metallic soap and oil base material emulsified with fatty 

acids and amines” [22, pp. 1-3]. Based on 1983 correspondence between DRC and NH Bureau of Waste 

Management, 7,000 gallons of “waste solvents” were generated per year from the paint line [33, p. 1]. In 

1983, DRC reportedly disassembled and removed its paint line operation from the facility [33, p. 1; 45, p. 

5]. According to a December 1984 Closure Plan Proposal for Surface Impoundment System, prepared by 

DRC, a daily average of approximately 2,000 to 3,000 gallons of wastewater from various processes were 

discharged through the lagoon system [43, pp. 1, 4, 6-8]. 

In October 1981, NH Bureau of Solid Waste Management representatives conducted a R esource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) inspection of the facility [26, p. 1; 27, p. 1]. The NHDES RCRA 

Inspection Checklist documented that the on-site lagoons had no l iners, and that liners for surface 

impoundments were not yet regulated (NYR) at the time of the inspection [26, p. 7]. Based on the results 

of the RCRA inspection, NH Bureau of Solid Waste Management required that testing be conducted to 

characterize the outflow of the paint line operations and to determine whether hazardous wastes were 

entering the lagoons [27, p. 2]. NH representatives requested that organic solvents and extraction 

procedure (EP) toxicity testing be conducted for the wastewater upon entry into the lagoons; for the 

sludge accumulated in the holding tanks; and for the soils within the lagoons at depths of 6 inches, 2 feet, 

and 4 feet [27, p. 2]. 

On 20 September 1984, GEI conducted sampling of the lagoon system under authorization by DRC [43, 
Source Characterization

Source No. 2 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 39 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

pp. 21-22]. As part of the investigation, GEI collected one sludge sample from the settling tank and one 

water sample from the dose tank [43, pp. 21-22]. Using a hand auger, GEI also collected one surface soil 

sample from each of the three percolation lagoons [43, pp. 23, 28]. On 30 October 1984, GEI excavated 

test pits in each of the three lagoons [43, pp. 23, 28]. Each test pit was excavated to the bedrock surface, 

which was encountered at 5 t o 8 feet deep below the bottom of the lagoons [43, pp. 23, 30-35]. GEI 

collected soil sample aliquots from each of the three test pits (TP-1, TP-3, and TP-5), at depths of 3 feet, 5 

feet, and 6 to 7 feet, for a total of nine sample aliquots [43, pp. 23-24, 27, 28]. The three soil sample

aliquots collected at similar depths from each of the lagoons were composited by laboratory personnel 

into one sample for each depth, for a total of three composite samples [43, pp. 24, 27-28]. The sludge, 

aqueous, and soil samples were submitted to Resource Analysts, Inc. (RAI) for VOC and base-neutral 

extractable chemicals; and the sludge samples and one of the composite soil samples were also analyzed 

for EP toxicity metals [43, pp. 22-24]. Analytical results of soil samples collected from the hand auger 

and test pit locations within the three lagoons indicated non-detect to trace levels of TCE, toluene, and 

ethyl benzene, and non-detect to quantifiable levels of methylene chloride and di-n-butylphthalate [43, pp. 

27, 42-53]. Based on analytical results of the sludge and dose water samples, GEI determined that these 

materials were classified as hazardous wastes according to NH Hazardous Waste Rules HE-P-1905 [43, p. 

21]. As presented below, one sludge sample collected from the settling tank by GEI in 1984 has been 

utilized to characterize the Percolating Lagoon System (Source No. 2). 

Laboratory analytical documentation found during a review of files at the facility indicated that additional 

samples designated as “lagoon dose tank” and “lagoon” samples, assumed to be collected by DRC in 

1984, contained elevated levels of methylene chloride, trans-1,2-DCE, 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), 

MEK, toluene, acetone, ethylbenzene, and trichlorofluoromethane [83, pp. 1, 23, 41]. However, limited 

information was available in files or reports regarding documentation of the sampling. 

In 1985, Chas T. Main and DRC performed testing of a pipeline component of the lagoon system and 

determined that the line was leaking [56, p. 2]. On 12 and 13 May 1986, Cardinal and Sons was retained 

by DRC to repair the lines [56, p. 2]. As part of the investigation of the leaking pipelines, two test pits (A 

and B) were excavated at different portions of the pipelines extending from the manufacturing building to 

the percolation lagoons, where wastewater leakage was suspected of occurring [56, pp. 2, 4 ]. Following 

identification and repair of the leak, which was found at an iron/PVC pipe connection, the assembly was 

replaced [56, p. 1 ]. Two liquid samples collected from the test pits during the lagoon pipeline 

investigation activities have been utilized to characterize Source No. 2 (see below). 

As of May 1986, DRC had completed several actions related to closure of the lagoon system [54, p. 1; 56, 

p. 1]. These actions included removing the contents of the lagoon dose tank, aeration tank, and settling 

tanks, and steam-cleaning the tanks [56, p. 1]. Additional proposed closure activities included removing 

contaminated sediment/soil from each of the lagoons, and asphalt capping of the lagoons [43, p. 68; 57, p. 

13]. In a July 1986 letter to NH Office of Waste Management, which described the clean-out of the tanks, 

DRC stated that no f urther work at the “site” (presumed to be referring to the facility) would be 

performed until a final closure plan was approved [56, p. 1 ]. According to information provided by 

NHDES, no records are on file regarding final closure of the lagoon system [229, p. 1]. In addition, the 

three lagoons were observed during a 2012 reconnaissance, and were observed to lack asphalt cover [83, 

p. 1]. Based on a review of available file documentation, no additional sampling has been conducted for 

the percolating lagoon system after 1986. 

2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE

In September 1984, GEI collected one solid sludge sample (S-1) within the settling tank and submitted 

the sample to RAI for VOC analysis via EPA Method 624 [43, pp. 22-24, 38]. In May 1986, two liquid 

samples (“Manhole LLB” and “Test Pit LLA”) were collected from the test pits (A and B) excavated by 
Source Characterization

Source No. 2 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 40 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

Cardinal and Sons along the underground pipelines extending from the manufacturing building to the 

percolation lagoons [56, pp. 2, 4-6]. The two liquid samples were submitted to RAI for VOC analysis via 

EPA Method 624 [56, pp. 5-6]. 

Based on chemical analysis of source sample S-1 and source samples “Manhole LLB” and “Test Pit 

LLA”, the Percolating Lagoon System (Source No. 2) has been documented to contain the following six

hazardous substances: PCE, TCE, trans-1,2-DCE, VC, methylene chloride, and MEK [1, p. 51586; 43, 

pp. 21, 26, 3 8; 44, p. 7; 56, pp. 5, 6]. Therefore, these six hazardous substances are considered to be 

associated with Source No. 2 (see Table 3) [1, p. 51588, Section 2.2.2]. 

Table 3 – Sample Descriptions and Hazardous Substances Associated with Source No. 2

Sample 

ID/

Lab No.

Sample

Type

Sample

Date

Sample 

Description

Hazardous 

Substance 

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration

Detection 

Limit Reference

1984 GEI Settling Tank sample

S-1/

3801-1 Source

20 Sept. 

1984

Sludge sample 

collected from 

settling tank.

Methylene Chloride 700 mg/Kg 1 mg/Kg 43, pp. 21-

22, 26, 38; 

44, p. 7

TCE 3 mg/Kg 1 mg/Kg

PCE 4 mg/Kg 1 mg/Kg

1986 DRC Lagoon System Piping Test Pit samples

Manhole 

LLB/

6844-2 Source

12-13 

May 

1986

Liquid sample 

collected from test 

pit excavated at 

PVC/iron 

connection of 

lagoon system 

piping.

VC 79 μg/L 20 μg/L

56, pp. 2, 5

trans-1,2-DCE 570 μg/L 10 μg/L

TCE 71 μg/L 10 μg/L

PCE 48 μg/L 10 μg/L

MEK 56 μg/L 50 μg/L

Test Pit 

LLA/

6844-3 Source

12-13 

May 

1986

Liquid sample 

collected from test 

pit excavated at 

lagoon system 

piping. trans-1,2-DCE 43 μg/L 5 μg/L 56, pp. 2, 6

List of Hazardous Substances Associated with Source

Methylene Chloride 

PCE

TCE

trans-1,2-DCE

VC

MEK
Source Characterization

Source No. 2 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 41 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY 

Available documentation indicates that no portion of Source No. 2 h as a liner [26, p. 7; 83, p. 1]. 

Therefore, Source No. 2 does not have full containment, and the source yields a containment value of 10 

for the Ground Water Migration Pathway [1, p. 51597 (Table 3-2)].

Table 4 - Hazardous Substances Available to Pathways

Containment Description Containment Factor References

Release to ground water: Based on the lack of a liner, a Containment 

Factor Value of 10 has been assigned for release to ground water for 

Source No. 2. 

10 1, p. 51597 

(Table 3-2); 26, 

p. 7; 83, p. 1

2.4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

2.4.2.1 Hazardous Waste Quantity

The HWQ for Source No. 2 w as assigned a value of unknown but greater than 0, ba sed on t he 

documented presence of the source, and the lack of recent analytical data regarding the current extent of 

the source [43, pp. 21, 26, 38; 44, p. 7; 56, pp. 5, 6]. The Hazardous Constituent Quantity and Hazardous 

Wastestream Quantity were not evaluated for Source No. 2 because insufficient information was 

available, as described in the sections below [1, pp. 51590-51591 (Table 2-5, Sections 2.4.2.1.1, 2.4.2.1.2 

and 2.4.2.1.3)]. 

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

Description

The Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source No. 2 could not be adequately determined according to 

the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and 

releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [1, pp. 51590-

51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.1)]. Insufficient historical and current data (manifests, PRP records, State records, 

permits, waste concentration data, etc.) are available to adequately calculate the total mass of all 

CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there 

is insufficient information to calculate the Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source No. 2 with 

reasonable confidence.

Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value: NS

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

Description

The Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 2 could not be adequately determined according to 

the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and 

contaminants for the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with 

reasonable confidence [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.2)]. Insufficient historical and current data (manifests, 

PRP records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, annual reports, etc.) are available to 

adequately calculate the total mass of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and 

contaminants for the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient 

information to adequately calculate or extrapolate the Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 2 

with reasonable confidence.
Source Characterization

Source No. 2 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 42 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

Sum of Wastestream Quantity (pounds)/5,000 (1, p. 51591, Table 2-5): NS

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value: NS 

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

Description

It is unknown if the AS/SVE system which operated at the site between 1999 and 2002 had any impacts 

on Source No. 2, a lthough available documentation indicates that this system may not have been 

effectively remediating the source of PCE [73, p. 3; 126, pp. 2, 15; 232, p. 2; 233, p. 1; 234, p. 3]. The 

AS/SVE system was designed only to address the source area identified as the former solvent tank and 

pipelines southwest of the manufacturing building [77, p. 3]. According to NHDES, the AS/SVE system 

design may have affected only extremely localized areas of contamination, without effectively impacting 

nearby contaminated source areas [234, p. 4]. Due to the lack of information to adequately estimate the 

volume of the percolating lagoons or the total waste volume historically discharged to the lagoons, and 

due to the unknown impacts of the AS/SVE system, the Volume Assigned Value for Source No. 2 is 

known to be greater than zero, but exact amount unknown. 

Table 5 – Volume

Source Type

Description

(# drums or dimensions)

Units

(yd3

) References

Other Unknown quantity of waste material >0

43, pp. 21-22, 26, 38; 44, 

p. 7; 56, pp. 2, 5, 6

Sum (yd3

): >0

Equation for Assigning Value (1, p. 51591, Table 2-5): >0 yd3

 ÷ 2.5 = >0 

Volume Assigned Value: >0

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Description

Based on the HRS, if the volume of a source can be determined, the area measure of that source should 

not be evaluated and the area value assigned should be 0 [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.3]. 

 

Area Assigned Value: 0

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

The HWQ Value for Source No. 2 was assigned as unknown but greater than 0 based on the documented 

presence of a source, but a lack of recent sampling data to sufficiently characterize the current extent of 

the source [1, p. 51591, Table 2-5]. 

Highest HWQ value assigned from Ref. 1, Table 2-5: >0
Source Characterization

Source No. 3 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 43 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

Name of Source: Northwest Septic System Tank

Number of Source: Source No. 3 

Source Type: Tank

Description and Location of Source: 

According to the 1986 RI report prepared by Chas T. Main, who was retained by DRC, a septic/leachfield 

system (the Northwest Septic System) was installed at the facility between 1966 and 1977 in an area 

northwest of the manufacturing building [57, pp. 2, 15, 63]. The Northwest Septic System Tank (Source 

No. 3 - Tank) comprises the septic tank formerly located northwest of the manufacturing building (see 

HRS Figure 2) [37, p. 11; 57, p. 63]. Figures provided in reference documentation depict the approximate 

location of Source No. 3 [ 37, p. 11; 57, p. 63 ]. Materials which historically entered this system were 

released to the soils surrounding the leachfield discharge area [57, p. 15]. 

The Northwest Septic System reportedly received cafeteria and sanitary wastewater from the facility from 

1966 until at least 2008 [120, pp. 23]. In addition, between 1966 and 1983, the Northwest Septic System 

reportedly received industrial wastewaters from several connected floor drains within the manufacturing 

building, prior to the floor drains being cemented closed in 1983 [57, pp. 15, 63]. According to the 1986 

RI report, floor washings and chemical spills may have been drained to the septic system during the time 

period it was connected to the floor drains [57, p. 15]. Laboratory analytical documentation found during 

a review of files at the facility indicated that “floor wash” samples collected by DRC in 1984 contained 

elevated levels of acetone, MEK, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene [81, p. 9; 83, pp. 1, 41 ]. However, 

limited supporting documentation regarding these samples was available.

As of August 1986, cooling tower blowdown water was also documented as being discharged to the 

Northwest Septic System, although the time period that this discharge occurred was not reported in file 

documentation [57, p. 15] . An October 1985 W astewater Evaluation and Disposal Plan, prepared by 

Kimball Chase Company, Inc. (Kimball Chase) for DRC, presented analytical results of cooling tower 

blowdown water samples which indicated elevated concentrations of several VOCs, including methylene 

chloride, MEK, acetone, and MIBK [117, pp. 5, 12]. Based on laboratory analytical documentation found 

in facility files, additional samples collected from the cooling towers by DRC in 1983 contained elevated 

levels of PCE, TCE, trans-1,2-DCE, and toluene [83, pp. 1, 27, 30, 32]. 

The 1985 Kimball Chase report presented a summary of analytical results of composite samples collected 

from the pipe influent to the septic tank, which indicated elevated concentrations of PCE, methylene 

chloride, toluene, xylene, acetone, and ethylbenzene [117, p. 11]. Laboratory analytical documentation 

maintained in facility files included results of aqueous septic tank samples collected by DRC in 

November 1983 and August 1984, which indicated elevated concentrations of PCE, trans-1,2-DCE, TCE, 

1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), methylene chloride, ethylbenzene, toluene, acetone, MEK, MIBK, and 

xylenes [83, pp. 1, 7, 56]. September 1984 laboratory analytical results of aqueous samples collected by 

DRC from the pumping chamber of the septic tank, “just prior to discharge”, indicated elevated levels of 

methylene chloride, acetone, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and MEK [81, pp. 4, 6]. 

Sludge and aqueous samples collected during the 1984 GEI Hydrogeologic Study have been used to 

characterize the Northwest Septic System Tank (Source No. 3), as presented below. In addition, analytical 
Source Characterization

Source No. 3 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 44 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

results of soil samples collected in 2000 during the H&A Investigation of Bedrock Topography 

documented elevated levels of PCE in soils in the former Northwest Septic System leachfield areas, and 

provide supporting evidence for a lack of containment features associated with Source No. 3 (see Other 

possible sources not scored section below).

2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE

Between December 1983 and September 1984, GEI conducted a hydrogeologic study on behalf of DRC

[127, pp. 6-7]. In April 1984, as part of Phase II of the hydrogeologic study, GEI collected one sludge 

sample and one aqueous effluent sample from the septic tank located north of the manufacturing building 

[127, pp. 7, 27]. The septic tank samples were submitted to ERCO/Energy Resources Co. Inc. laboratory 

and analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 624 [127, pp. 119-120]. Based on chemical analysis of the septic 

tank source samples, the Northwest Septic System Tank (Source No. 3) has been documented to contain 

the hazardous substance PCE(see Table 6) [1, p. 51586; 127, pp. 7, 120-121]. Therefore, this hazardous 

substance is considered to be associated with Source No. 3 [1, p. 51588 (Section 2.2.2)]. 

Table 6 – Sample Descriptions and Hazardous Substances Associated with Source No. 3

Sample

ID/

Lab No.

Sample

Type Date

Sample 

Description

Hazardous 

Substance

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration

Reporting 

Limit Reference

Tank Sludge/

3318 Source

1 April 

1984

Sludge collected 

from septic tank.

PCE 460μg/Kg 200μg/Kg 127, pp. 7, 

120-121

Tank Effluent/

3316 Source

1 April 

1984

Effluent water 

collected from 

septic tank.

PCE 5μg/L 1μg/L 127, pp. 7, 

120-121

List of Hazardous Substances Associated with Source 

PCE

2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY 

Materials entering the Northwest Septic System were released to the soils surrounding the leachfield 

discharge area [57, p. 15]. Hazardous substance migration from the Northwest Septic System Tank 

(Source No. 3) has been documented by analytical results of soil samples collected from borings within 

and around the former leachfield area (borings B701 through B704) [120, pp. 23, 27; 125, pp. 13, 16-17, 

66, 71, 74, 79] . Therefore, Source No. 3 doe s not have full containment, and the source yields a 

containment value of 10 for the Ground Water Migration Pathway [1, p. 51597 (Table 3-2)].

Table 7 - Hazardous Substances Available to Pathways

Containment Description Containment Factor References

Release to ground water: Based on evidence that this 

source was designed to discharge via leachate fields to the 

ground water, a Containment Factor Value of 10 has been 

assigned for release to ground water for Source No. 3. 10

1, p. 51597 (Table 3-2); 

125, pp. 13, 16-17, 66, 

71, 74, 79
Source Characterization

Source No. 3 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 45 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

2.4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

2.4.2.1 Hazardous Waste Quantity

The HWQ for Source No. 3 w as assigned a value of unknown but greater than 0, ba sed on t he 

documented presence of the source but the lack of sufficient information regarding the total amount of 

waste that entered the septic tank. The Hazardous Constituent Quantity and Hazardous Wastestream 

Quantity were not evaluated for Source No. 3 because insufficient information was available, as described 

in the sections below [1, pp. 51590-51591 (Table 2-5, Sections 2.4.2.1.1, 2.4.2.1.2 and 2.4.2.1.3)]. 

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

Description

The Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source No. 3 could not be adequately determined according to 

the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and 

releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [1, pp. 51590-

51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.1)]. Insufficient historical and current data (manifests, PRP records, State records, 

permits, waste concentration data, etc.) are available to adequately calculate the total mass of all 

CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there 

is insufficient information to calculate the Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source No. 3 w ith 

reasonable confidence.

Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value: NS

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

Description

The Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 3 could not be adequately determined according to 

the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and 

contaminants for the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with 

reasonable confidence [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.2)]. Insufficient historical and current data (manifests, 

PRP records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, annual reports, etc.) are available to 

adequately calculate the total mass of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and 

contaminants for the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient 

information to adequately calculate or extrapolate the Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 3 

with reasonable confidence.

Sum of Wastestream Quantity (pounds)/5,000 (1, p. 51591, Table 2-5): NS

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value: NS 

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

Description

There is insufficient information in available file documentation to adequately estimate the total volume 

of the Northwest Septic System Tank (Source No. 3). Therefore, the Volume Assigned Value for Source 

No. 3 is known to be greater than zero, but exact amount unknown. 
Source Characterization

Source No. 3 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 46 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

Table 8 – Volume

Source Type

Description

(# drums or dimensions)

Units

(yd3

) References

Tank One septic tank of unknown dimensions >0 127, pp. 120-121

Sum (yd3

): >0

Equation for Assigning Value (1, p. 51591, Table 2-5): > 0 yd3

 ÷ 2.5 = >0 

Volume Assigned Value: >0

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Description

Based on the HRS, if the volume of a source can be determined, the area measure of that source should

not be evaluated and the area value assigned should be 0 [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.3]. 

Area Assigned Value: 0

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

The HWQ Value for Source No. 3 was assigned as unknown but greater than 0 based on the documented 

presence of a source, and the lack of information to adequately estimate the amount of waste discharged 

to the source [1, p. 51591, Table 2-5]. 

Highest HWQ value assigned from Ref. 1, Table 2-5: >0
Source Characterization

Summary of Source Descriptions/Other Possible Sources

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 47 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

Table 9 – Summary of Source Descriptions

Source 

No.

Source 

HWQ

Value

Source 

Hazardous 

Constituent 

Quantity 

Complete? 

(Y/N)

Containment Factor Value by Pathway

Ground 

Water 

(GW)

(Ref. 1, 

Table 3-2)

Surface Water (SW) Air

Overland/ 

flood

(Ref. 1, 

Table 4-2)

GW to 

SW

(Ref. 1, 

Table 3-2)

Gas

(Ref. 1, 

Table 6-

3)

Particulate

(Ref. 1, 

Table 6-9)

1 >0 N 10 NS NS NS NS

2 >0 N 10 NS NS NS NS

3 >0 N 10 NS NS NS NS

Total Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: >0

Other possible sources not scored:

The following three possible source areas have been documented: the PCE Degreaser Pits, Contaminated

Soil Associated with the Former No. 6 F uel Oil Tanks, and the Northwest Septic System Leachfields. 

These sources were not scored due to the lack of information to sufficiently characterize the sources, and 

because inclusion of these sources into the HRS evaluation would not impact the overall site score. 

PCE Degreaser Pits

Based on previous reports and an interview with a former employee at the facility, the PCE Degreaser Pits 

represent an additional potential source of PCE contamination at the facility. Reportedly, a 10-foot by 10-

foot by 6-foot deep concrete pit was installed in the floor of the manufacturing building, near the center of 

the building, and a PCE vapor degreaser unit was installed and operated in the pit [57, pp. 14-15; 63, p. 

1]. Allegedly, PCE solvent was heated in the pit, and molds were dipped into the pit to clean them [63, p. 

1]. Degreasing operations were conducted within the pit between 1966 and 1978; and during this time 

period, the concrete wall of the pit fractured slightly and may have allowed for the release of PCE into the 

soils underlying the building [57, pp. 14-15]. 

According to the 1989 G EI Soil Gas Study, soil gas samples collected from beneath the center of 

manufacturing building in the area of the former PCE Degreaser Pit indicated elevated concentrations of 

PCE above background levels [59, p. 13; 131, p. 17]. As higher levels of VOCs were detected in soil gas 

samples collected hydraulically downgradient of the PCE Degreaser Pit, GEI concluded that shallow 

ground water may be transporting VOCs from the pit area [59, p. 13]. According to the 1990 GEI Source 

Characterization Study, there may have been a second PCE Degreaser Pit located southeast of the original 

central pit location [131, p. 17]. The central PCE Degreaser Pit could not be accessed with the drill rig 

used for soil sampling during the 1990 GEI study; however, the second pit was accessible, and subsurface 

soil samples were collected from the area for headspace screening [131, p. 17]. Headspace screening of 

soil samples collected in the vicinity of the second PCE Degreaser Pit did not indicate significant 

concentrations of VOCs [131, p. 17]. 

This source was not scored as quantitative analytical sampling data have not been obtained from the two 

PCE Degreaser Pit areas, and the nature and extent of hazardous substances potentially associated with 

this source have not been fully characterized. 
Source Characterization

Summary of Source Descriptions/Other Possible Sources

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 48 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

Contaminated Soil Associated with the Former No. 6 Fuel Oil Tanks 

Two 10,000-gallon No. 6 fuel oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were reportedly located near the 

northeastern portion of the manufacturing building [62, pp. 10, 27] . In a 17 August 1994 l etter, GEI 

informed NHDES that petroleum-stained soils were encountered while drilling wells for the construction 

of a hydraulic containment system at the facility [61, p. 1]. Analytical results of soil samples collected 

from borings at two impacted wells, W-4 and W-18, indicated concentrations of total petroleum 

hydrocarbons (TPH) at 230 parts per million (ppm) and 13,600 ppm, respectively [61, pp. 2, 5, 7 ]. In 

addition, PCE was detected at the quantitation limit of 40 micrograms per kilogram (μg/Kg) in the soil 

sample collected at W-4 [61, pp. 2, 6]. 

In July 2004, H&A completed a Site Investigation Report for the No. 6 Fuel Oil Release to determine the 

location and extent of No. 6 fuel oil impacts to soil and ground water [62, p. 7]. Analytical results of soil 

samples collected during the site investigation indicated elevated levels of benzene, toluene, fluorene, 

pyrene, and TPH [62, pp. 12-13, 22, 27, 56-57]. H&A concluded that impacts of No. 6 fuel oil appeared 

to be localized near containment wells W-2 through W-5 [62, pp. 14-15, 17]. The No. 6 fuel oil-impacted 

soil appeared to occur at depths of approximately 30 feet bgs; and there was approximately 8 to 10 feet of 

fill, as well as pavement, located over the contaminated area [62, pp. 15, 17]. The major contaminant (No. 

6 fuel oil) is a crude oil, which is excluded from the HRS definition of a hazardous substance [1, p. 

51586]. 

Northwest Septic System Leachfields

In July 2000, as presented in a December 2000 Report on Investigation of Bedrock Topography, H&A 

collected soil samples from four borings (B-701 through B-704) advanced in an area northwest of the 

manufacturing building which was suspected of exhibiting a bedrock depression [125, pp. 2-3, 13, 16-17]. 

Based on a figure included in a 2008 report by SHA, borings B-701 and B-703 (developed as monitoring 

wells MW-701 and MW-703, respectively) were advanced within the area identified as the easternmost 

leachfield of the Northwest Septic System, and borings B-702 and B-704 were advanced immediately 

south and southeast of this leachfield [120, pp. 23, 27; 125, pp. 16, 58, 59]. The soil/source samples were 

submitted to EAI laboratory and analyzed for VOCs using EPA Method 8260B [125, pp. 63-79]. 

Laboratory analytical results of seven soil/source samples collected from borings located within and 

around the Northwest Septic System leachfield area indicated PCE concentrations ranging from 200 to 

720 μg/Kg [125, pp. 13, 46, 49, 52, 55, 66, 74]. This source was not scored as it is unknown what impacts 

ongoing remediation activities have had on this source, and no sampling data are available to document 

the current extent of the source area [120, p. 23]. 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 49 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

3.0 GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY

3.0.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ground Water Migration Pathway Description

The Town of Farmington and the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility (the facility) are situated in 

the Cocheco River Valley (see HRS Figures 1 and 4) [8-9; 123, p. 104; 130, p. 8]. The Cocheco River 

generally flows from northwest to southeast and passes to the northeast of the facility (see HRS Figures 1 

and 4) [8-9]. The Collins & Aikman facility is located on the southwestern flank of the Cocheco River 

Valley [120, p. 4]. Surface topography in the vicinity of the facility generally slopes northeast toward the 

center of the valley, which contains a major sand and gravel stratified-drift aquifer which may yield 

moderate-to-large quantities of ground water to several water supply wells [120, p. 4; 130, p . 8]. The 

impacted and currently inactive Town of Farmington Gravel Pack-2 (GP2) well, along with other active 

municipal wells located upgradient of GP2, are completed in the Cocheco River Valley aquifer north and 

east of the facility [120, p. 4]. Ground water from the facility generally flows to the northeast and east 

toward the Cocheco River, passing beneath Route 11 and the SGP [17, pp. 1-3; 130 p. 9]. In-situ bedrock 

ground water elevation measurements conducted during overburden pumping, have confirmed the 

hydraulic connection between the two aquifers [121, pp. 20 -21]. The aquifer described in this 

documentation record consists of a hydraulically interconnected overburden and fractured bedrock 

aquifer, as described below, which has been impacted by CVOCs from documented sources at the Collins 

& Aikman Plant (Former) site [120, p. 5; 121, pp. 20-21]. 

Regional and Site Geology: 

Bedrock Geology:

The facility is located within an area generally underlain by bedrock comprised of the Silurian-aged 

Rangeley Formation bedrock which is described as a rusty-weathering pelitic schist, quartz-rich schist, 

and metasandstone, with minor coticule [12, pp. 1-2, 34; 120, p. 5; 121, p. 14]. Located to the north and 

south of the Silurian-aged Perry Mountain Formation is the Rangeley Formation, which is a generally 

similar ‘meta-pelite’ rock type, which also contains quartzitic intervals and more common coticule layers 

[12, pp. 1, 3, 32; 121, p. 14]. Areas beneath the SGP, located northeast of the facility, are underlain by 

interbedded metamorphic schists and gneisses comprising the Pittsfield member of the Littleton 

Formation [130, p. 8] . Subsurface investigations at the facility have also encountered pegmatite, 

interlayered schist/pegmatite, and granite/gneiss which may be related to the Devonian-aged Concord 

Granite (mapped to the west of the facility) which intrudes into the older Rangeley and Perry Mountain 

Formations [121, p. 15]. No major faults have been mapped in the area of the Collins & Aikman facility 

[121, p. 14].

Bedrock types encountered during the 2009 S HA investigation activities indicated the presence of 

pegmatite and schist in borings beneath the facility [121, p. 18]. The pegmatite bedrock was generally 

observed as light green-to-gray or tan, medium- to coarse- grained muscovite- and quartz-rich equiangular 

chips, while the schistose bedrock was observed as gray to dark gray/black, fine-grained, biotite-rich platy 

chips, with a minor quartz component [121, pp. 18, 46]. SHA noted that the distribution of these two 

bedrock types appears complex across the area and within the borings completed [121, pp. 18, 46] . 

During the 2000 H&A investigations, slightly to highly weathered schists were encountered during boring 

activities and well installation [95, pp. 121-128; 121, pp. 68-117; 125, p. 6; 127, pp. 69-92; 128, pp. 108-

262; 130, pp. 48-67; 132, pp. 75-108]. In addition, investigations on the “site” (presumed to be referring 

to the facility) have indicated the presence of a more complex geology containing not only schist, but also 

pegmatite and granite/gneiss [120, p. 5; 121, pp. 18, 46]. 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 50 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

Surficial Geology: 

The regional surficial geology in the vicinity of the facility is characterized by a major sand and gravel 

stratified-drift aquifer, known as the Cocheco River Valley aquifer [120, p. 4; 121, p. 13; 122, p. 13; 230; 

231]. Numerous studies indicate that the overburden materials are glaciolacustrine and glaciofluvial in 

origin [123, pp. 20 -22; 125, p. 6; 128, p. 9 ]. A conceptual hydrogeologic model presented by SHA 

concluded that overburden materials closer to the “site” (presumed to be referring to the facility) are 

generally indicative of ice-contact deposits, containing predominantly poorly-sorted fine-grained 

materials (silty-sands) with varying amount of gravel [120, p. 1 4]. Closer to the main portion of the 

Cocheco River Valley (northeast across Route 11) these poorly sorted materials transition to 

predominantly coarse-grained soils containing sand and gravel with minor silt fractions, which are 

indicative of deposition in a fluvial or glacio-fluvial environment [120, pp. 14-15]. The overburden ranges 

in thickness from approximately 20-120 feet beneath the site [130, p. 41; 148, p.11]. 

Subsurface investigations conducted on the facility have indicated that overburden materials are generally 

fill and natural overburden materials consisting of poorly-sorted sand with gravel and boulders/cobbles 

(glaciofluvial or glaciolacustrine deposits) [95, pp. 121-128; 120, pp. 14-15; 121, pp. 15, 68-117; 125, pp. 

17, 44-57; 127, pp. 69 -92; 128, pp. 108 -262; 130, pp. 48-67; 132, pp. 75 -108]. During bedrock boring 

installation activities summarized by SHA in 2009, ov erburden materials were documented to be 

composed of poorly-sorted sand with gravel, and included intervals of boulders and/or cobbles [121, p. 

15]. SHA concluded that these conditions are generally consistent with surficial geologic materials that 

may be ‘transitional’ between the till-dominant, topographically-higher areas south of the “main site 

building” (assumed to be the manufacturing building), and the stratified-drift dominant areas associated 

with the Cocheco River Valley to the north [120, p. 4; 121, p. 15]. . 

Aquifer Interconnection: 

The aquifer being scored as part of this HRS Evaluation is the documented hydraulically interconnected 

glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine overburden and the weathered and fractured bedrock aquifer which

extends from the facility north-northeast toward the SGP and Cocheco River Valley [121, pp. 20-21; 130, 

pp. 48-67; 132, pp. 75-108]. There are no major discontinuities within the 4-mile target distance limit (see 

HRS Figure 5 and description below). 

SHA noted that downward hydraulic gradients from overburden to bedrock are dominant in the facility 

area; and also suggested, based on overburden pumping (via the ground water containment system), that 

the bedrock may have some degree of hydraulic interconnection with the overburden materials [121, pp. 

18, 20]. SHA noted that based on the site hydrogeology, dissolved CVOC constituents in overburden 

ground water originating from sources in the vicinity of the main building have migrated downward into 

the bedrock [120, p. 1 5]. Borings completed on the facility and SGP have not indicated layers of 

significantly lower hydraulic conductivity [95, pp. 121-128; 127, pp. 69-92; 128, pp. 108-262; 130, pp. 

48-67; 132, pp. 75 -108, 401-408]. The aquifer interconnection is also demonstrated by a migration of 

hazardous substances (PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and VC) detected in sources into the on-site overburden 

and bedrock ground water, and the downgradient overburden and bedrock ground water beneath the SGP 

(see Observed Release Section) [14]. In addition, the saturated overburden material within the SGP 

supplied water to the public drinking water supply well, GP2, located approximately 0.7 m iles eastnortheast of the sources areas (see Observed Release Data Tables – Tables 14, 15, 17, and 18). Therefore, 

an aquifer interconnection occurs within 2 m iles of sources which constitutes the combined aquifer 

(Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer) being evaluated for scoring the site [1, p. 51595 (Section 3.0.1.2.1)]. 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 51 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

Bedrock investigations at the facility and the SGP have indicated that the bedrock is highly fractured and 

weathered, and does not closely resemble surface topography [98, pp. 7, 15 -20; 121, p. 17; 130, pp. 12 -

13, 41, 48 -67; 137, pp. 2 5, 32-35, 45-53]. As part of the Phase I Investigation to support a Revised 

Remedial Action Plan, H&A conducted a bedrock fracture trace analysis and Very Low Frequency (VLF) 

geophysical survey to investigate general fracture patterns in the area of the facility and provide evidence 

of potentially transmissive fracture zones in bedrock [124, p. 7]. H&A concluded that potential confining 

units that could inhibit the movement of ground water between overburden and bedrock had not been 

observed and that interaction between the overburden and bedrock flow systems is likely complex due to 

the heterogeneity of fractured crystalline rock [124, p. 17] . A subsequent study by S HA involving 

overburden ground water pumping, documented a ground water elevation response in bedrock monitoring 

wells suggesting a h ydraulic connection between shallow/deep bedrock and overburden ground water 

[121, pp. 20-21]. Borehole geophysics conducted by Hager-Richter Geoscience (HRG) in 2009 

documented multiple several significant fracture zones within one bedrock monitoring well as w ell as 

potential for ground water flow to occur within the investigated well [137, pp. 4-5]. The HRG survey also 

indicated that in the vicinity of this well, the bedrock fractures predominantly dipped between 30 and 80 

degrees [137, pp. 6-7]. SHA further noted that based on the 1 percent EPA ‘solubility criterion’ that PCE 

may be present as DNAPL in bedrock in the vicinity of the bedrock well on the facility [4, p. 11; 137, p. 

7]. 

Aquifer Discontinuity 

No major faults or other bedrock discontinuities have been mapped in the area of the facility and within 

the 4-mile target distance limit (see HRS Figure 5) [121, p. 14; 130, p. 8]. The Cocheco River Valley is 

generally a n orthwest-to-southeast trending valley (see HRS Figures 1, 4 a nd 5) [8-9]. Regional 

topography generally slopes from both the east and west toward the center of the Cocheco River Valley 

(see HRS Figure 1) [8-9]. Topography from the facility across Route 11 generally slopes east, toward the

Cocheco River [130, pp. 8, 41]. Regional ground water flow is generally in the unconfined aquifer in the 

area and flows toward the center of the Cocheco River Valley from both sides of the valley [130, p. 9]. 

The Cocheco River does intercept shallow ground water flow of the overburden/bedrock aquifer but it 

does not entirely transect the geologic units which define the aquifer [129, pp. 10-12]. 

Numerous ground water and subsurface investigations noted that the overburden ground water flow 

across the facility is generally north-northeast [17, pp. 1-3; 121, pp. 16, 42; 132, pp. 25-26, 60]. Depth to 

ground water within the overburden in 2009 ranged from 260.65 to 320.5 feet referenced to National 

Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [121, p. 36]. An overall steepening of the horizontal hydraulic gradient 

with ground water flow across the facility has been documented [121, pp. 16, 42; 132, pp. 25-26, 57-59]. 

The hydraulic gradient in the area of the “main site building” (assumed to be the manufacturing building) 

is approximately 0.04 feet per foot (ft/ft), while underneath the northeastern portion of the facility the 

gradient is steeper at approximately 0.12 ft/ft [121, p. 16]. According to a 2009 SHA report, the saturated 

thickness of the aquifer in the area of the facility is inferred by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 

to be 20 feet or less, while a saturated thickness of greater than 40 feet occurs northeast of the property on 

the northwestern portion of the SGP [121, p. 14]. 

Table 10 - Summary of Aquifers Being Evaluated

Aquifer 

No. Aquifer Name

Is Aquifer Interconnected 

with Upper Aquifer within 2 

miles? (Y/N/NA)

Is Aquifer 

Continuous within 

4-mile TDL? (Y/N)

Is Aquifer 

Karst? 

(Y/N)

1 

Overburden/Bedrock 

Aquifer N/A Y N 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 52 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

3.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE

3.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE

Chemical Analysis – Ground Water 

Aquifer Being Evaluated: Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

As described above, the hydrogeology beneath the facility is characterized by the ‘transition’ between the 

till-dominant, topographically-higher areas south of the main facility location, and the predominantly 

coarse-grained, sand and gravel stratified-drift dominant areas of the Cocheco River Valley [120, p. 4; 

121, p. 15]. In addition, the glacial overburden is hydraulically connected to the weathered and fractured 

bedrock [121, pp. 18, 46]. On-site ground water monitoring wells on the facility and the SGP, including 

GP2 on the SGP, have been documented to contain CVOCs [14; 141, pp. 1-3]. An aquifer interconnection 

occurs within 2 miles of sources, resulting in a combined aquifer that is being evaluated for scoring the 

site [1, p. 51595 (Section 3.0.1.2.1)]. A steep hydraulic gradient exists from the facility toward the 

northeast and east, onto the SGP [121, pp. 16, 42; 130, p. 39; 132, pp. 25-26, 57-59]. An interconnection 

between the overburden aquifer beneath the facility, the weathered and fractured bedrock aquifer beneath 

the facility, and the downgradient overburden and bedrock aquifer is supported by the migration of 

CVOCs from on-site sources, across NH Route 11, to the SGP and to the former GP2 supply well (see 

below). This documentation record presents data from background ground water monitoring wells, from 

selected overburden and bedrock monitoring wells at the facility, and from downgradient SGP overburden 

monitoring wells, to document an observed release (by chemical analyses) to the ground water aquifer 

during the time period when GP2 was closed, and after the initiation of a remedial system (see below). 

Background Concentrations [Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Facility and SGP Monitoring Wells]: 

This documentation record presents data from three background wells (SW201, MW305, and MW605) 

installed by consultants for DRC and DRC successors, which represent background conditions at 

locations beyond the extent of influence from site-specific contaminants and generally along the 

boundaries of the VOC plumes originating from sources (see HRS Figures 2 through 4). 

On 30 July 1984, as part of the Hydrogeologic Study conducted by GEI, ground water monitoring well 

SW201 was installed on the southeast side of the warehouse building, on t he northern portion of the 

facility (see HRS Figures 2 and 4) [127, pp. 7, 31, 40, 61, 86] . This monitoring well was installed to 

determine the extent of migration of VOCs in ground water in the direction of the property water supply 

wells [121, p. 41; 127, pp. 14, 40]. The slotted screen section of the background monitoring well was 

installed to straddle sections in both the widely graded sand overburden and the granitic-gneiss bedrock 

beneath the facility [127, pp. 21, 61, 86]. 

On 3 M ay 1989, a s part of the Hydrogeologic Study of the SGP conducted by GEI, ground water 

monitoring well MW305 was installed on the western portion of the SGP, north of the facility (see HRS 

Figures 3 and 4) [130, pp. 29, 32, 39, 64-65; 133, p. 4 6]. This location is approximately 700 feet 

downgradient from a reported gasoline release near the intersection of Route 11 and Paulsen Road [130, 

p. 13]. The screened section of ground water monitoring well MW305 was installed in the widely graded 

sand and gravel overburden aquifer [130, pp. 29, 64-65]. 

File references indicate that this background monitoring well was installed between December 1994 and 

January 1995, with the explicit purpose of providing an upgradient background monitoring well location 

[80, p. 24; 138, p. 1; 140, pp. 16, 37]. Ground water flow interpretations indicate that the monitoring well 

is located upgradient of sources (see HRS Figures 2 through 4) [17, pp. 1-3]. A cross section, presented 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 53 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

by H&A (Figure 9, October 2006), indicates that the area where MW605 is installed consists of sand with 

gravel and shallow overburden material [15, p. 16; 124, pp. 17-18, 49]. 

As indicated earlier, the overburden materials within the area of observed release contain predominantly 

poorly-sorted fine-grained materials with varying amounts of gravel as well as coarse-grained materials, 

containing sand and gravel with minor silt fractions [120, pp. 14-15]. In addition, a high degree of 

overburden and bedrock connection exists due to the fractured nature of the bedrock [98, pp. 7, 15 -20; 

121, pp. 17-18, 20-21; 137, pp. 25, 32-35, 45-53]. The background ground water monitoring wells are 

screened within various portions of the overburden and bedrock aquifers, and overburden/bedrock 

interface from which observed release samples were collected [15, p. 6; 127, pp. 30-31, 43, 54, 61, 78, 86; 

130, pp. 29, 32, 64-65]. In addition, plume maps produced by various environmental consultants for DRC 

and DRC successors indicate that in general, the VOC plume is contained within the area bounded by the 

background monitoring wells [16; 95, pp. 24-25, 148-150; 122, pp. 2, 11, 15, 38, 93-95; 124, pp. 11, 15, 

44-47; 126, pp. 10-12, 20-21, 33-35; 128, pp. 8-11; 132, pp. 17, 20, 22, 24-26, 28, 31-33, 56-65, 365, 

367, 395-396; 133, pp. 14-17, 23-24, 46-49; 140, pp. 6-11, 17, 19, 37-38; 145, pp. 14-16, 27, 29-31, 36, 

56, 63; 157, pp. 12, 22-25, 28, 48, 55; 165, pp. 8 -12, 14-15, 20-21, 23, 33-36; 167, pp. 9 -10, 15-17, 22, 

35-37; 174, pp. 14 -16, 28-30, 33, 76-77, 84; 176, pp. 8-10, 12-15, 24, 26, 70 -72; 186, pp. 10-12, 15-16, 

18-19, 39-41]. 

Table 11 - Background Ground Water Monitoring Well Details

Monitoring 

Well ID Location

Installation 

Date

Sampling 

Frequency

Screened 

Interval (feet)

Screened 

Interval 

Geology Reference

SW201

South of the 

Warehouse Building 7/30/84

12 times from 

Sept-84 to 

Jul-94 310.2 to 290.2 1

Across the 

gravelly sand and 

silty sand 

overburden, and 

granitic-gneiss 

bedrock

127, pp. 31, 

34-35, 40, 43, 

61, 86; 128, 

pp. 33, 38, 43, 

48

MW305

North of Route 11, on 

the western portion of 

the Sarah Greenfield 

Property 5/3/89

36 times from 

May-89 to

Nov-06 253.5 to 219.5 2

Gravelly sand

overburden

128, pp. 35, 

40, 45, 50; 

130, pp. 29, 

32, 36, 39, 

64-65; 133, 

pp. 46, 88

MW605*

South of the 

Manufacturing 

Building and the 

Solvent Storage Tank 

Area

Between 

December 1994 

and January 

1995

20 times from 

Apr-95 to 

Nov-06 NA* NA* 

80, p. 23; 

133, p. 100; 

138; 139; 

140, p. 16

1 Elevation is referenced to mean sea level [127, pp. 30-31, 43]. 2 Elevation is based on ground elevation referenced to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 and well 

construction specifications [130, pp. 29, 32, 64-65].

* Complete well construction information was not available in site file documentation.

Background ground water monitoring wells were sampled between September 1984 and November 2006 

as part of numerous investigations of the facility and SGP [13, pp. 1 -8]. Beginning in February 1984, 

background and release ground water samples were collected from the facility and the SGP within similar 

geologic settings (overburden and bedrock) (see Tables 11, 13, and 16). 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 54 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

The background samples were submitted for VOC analysis via EPA Methods 624, 8010, 8010A, 8260, 

8260A, 8260B, and/or 8021B [13, pp. 1-7]. In addition, background ground water samples were collected 

during similar time periods as ground water samples which document an observed release (see Tables 11, 

13, and 16). In most cases, at least one background sample was submitted with each round of release 

samples throughout the investigations of the facility and the SGP [13, pp. 1-8; 14, pp. 4-5]. 

Ground water flow at the property is generally in a northerly direction beneath the facility from the 

uplands behind (south of) the plant towards the SGP [148, p. 1 1]. Ground water samples from wells 

installed upgradient of the documented source areas have not indicated detectable concentrations of 

CVOCs [13, pp. 1 -8]. Background ground water sample results during historical sampling at wells 

SW201, MW305, and MW605 were consistently non-detect at either the reporting limit, detection limit, 

or quantitation limit [13, pp. 1-8]. During historical sampling, the various reported laboratory limits (e.g., 

detection limits, reporting limits, quantitation limits) for these background samples ranged from 0.5 μg/L 

to 5.0 μg/L for PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE, and from 0.5 μg/L to 10.0 μg/L for VC [13, pp. 1-8]. For the 

purposes of this HRS Documentation Record, the highest non-detect detection limit is utilized to compare 

against release samples presented in Tables 14, 15, 17, and 18. Therefore, PCE, TCE and cis-1,2-DCE 

concentrations greater than 5 μg/L and VC concentrations greater than 10 μg/L are used to document an 

observed release to the interconnected overburden/bedrock aquifer for all samples presented [1, pp. 51588 

(Section 2.2.3), 51589 (Table 2-3); 13]. 

Table 12 - Hazardous Substances Associated with Background Ground Water Samples

Sample 

ID

Hazardous 

Substance

Concentration 

(μg/L)

Maximum Detection 

Limit* (μg/L) References

SW201 PCE ND 5.0

13, pp. 1-8; 127, pp. 34-

35; 128, pp. 33, 38, 43, 48

TCE ND 5.0

VC ND 10.0

Cis-1,2-DCE ND 5.0

MW305 PCE ND 5.0

13, pp. 1-8; 128, pp. 35, 

40, 45, 50; 130, pp. 34, 

75; 133 p. 88

TCE ND 5.0

VC ND 10.0

Cis-1,2-DCE ND 5.0

MW605 PCE ND 2.0

13, pp. 1-8; 133, p. 100

TCE ND 2.0

VC ND 2.0

Cis-1,2-DCE ND 2.0

* Values represented within this column indicate the maximum detection limits encountered during laboratory 

analysis of background samples. These were based on laboratory reporting requirements upon submission of 

samples for analysis [13, pp. 1-8]. 

Contaminated Samples [Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Facility Monitoring Wells]:

Beginning in late 1983, ground water monitoring wells have been installed on the Collins & Aikman 

facility to better characterize the impacts of the release of CVOCs to the underlying overburden/bedrock 

aquifer [127, pp. 6-9]. Table 13, presented below, is a summary of ground water monitoring wells which 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 55 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

are used to characterize the impact of CVOCs to the underlying overburden/bedrock aquifer at the 

facility.

Table 13 - Contaminated Ground Water Monitoring Well Details

Monitoring 

Well ID Location

Installation 

Date

Sampling 

Frequency

Screened 

Interval

Screened Interval 

Geology Reference

SW104

Northwest of the 

manufacturing 

building 1/24/84

18 times from 

Feb-84 to

Jul-94 308.8 to 268.8 1

Across the gravelly 

sand overburden and 

weathered bedrock 

interface

127, pp. 31, 

40, 42, 57, 

81; 128, pp. 

33, 38, 43, 

48; 134, p. 

12

SW205

Northeast of and 

adjacent to the 

manufacturing 

building 7/31/84

36 times from 

Sep-84 to

Apr-00 305.9 to 285.9 1

Across the silty 

gravelly sand 

overburden and 

fractured bedrock 

interface

127, pp. 31, 

40, 43, 67, 

92; 128, pp. 

33, 38, 43, 

48; 133, p. 

116

SW501

Directly north of the 

manufacturing 

building 10/1/93

42 times from 

Oct-93 to

Apr-08 301 to 271 2

Sand, sand and gravel, 

and silty sand and 

gravel overburden

132, pp. 7, 

41, 84-85; 

133, p. 117; 

135, p. 7

SH-8R

Northeast of the 

main facility 

building adjacent to 

Route 11 11/12/08

Three times 

Jan-09 to

Jan-10 269.9 to 195.1 3 Schistose bedrock

121, pp. 41, 

46, 60, 113-

117; 135, p. 

9 

1 Elevation is referenced to mean sea level [127, pp. 30-31, 43].

2 Elevation is referenced to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 [128, p. 28; 132, pp. 41, 58, 75-80, 

84-85, 88-89].

3 Monitoring well is finished as an open hole in bedrock. Elevation is based on ground surface elevation and 

monitoring well construction logs [121, pp. 113-117]. 

As noted above, the on-site ground water samples collected and presented for this evaluation were 

collected from within the same aquifer, similar geologic zone (overburden, overburden/bedrock interface, 

or bedrock), and during the same time period as the background samples. In addition, the on-site ground 

water samples were submitted to the same laboratories for the same VOC analysis method as background 

ground water samples collected during the same sampling event. For the purposes of this HRS 

documentation record, PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and VC analytical results from four ground water 

samples (SW104, SW205, SW501, and SH-8R) are used to document an observed release to the ground 

water aquifer on the facility during the time period when GP2 was closed, as well as after the initiation of 

remedial activities in July 1995 (see Tables 14 and 15). 

Ground water samples SW104 and SW205, presented in Table 14, were collected by GEI in April and 

November 1984, r espectively, and represent ground water conditions at the facility during the time 

periods when GP2 was in use as a public drinking water supply well (SW104) and shortly after its closure 

(SW205) [101; 103; 108]. Samples collected from these wells indicated an observed release of PCE, TCE, 

trans-1,2-DCE, and VC based on chemical analysis and comparison to background concentrations (see 

Tables 12 and 14) [1, p. 51589]. 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 56 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

Table 14 –Hazardous Substances Associated with Ground Water Samples 

collected from the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Facility in 1984

Sample

ID

Hazardous 

Substance

Concentration 

(μg/L)

Sample 

Date

Reporting Limit*

(μg/L) References

SW104

PCE 450 4/18/84 101

37, pp. 3-4; 128, pp. 33, 38, 43, 

48

TCE 100 4/18/84 10 1

Trans-1,2-DCE 980 4/18/84 10 1 

VC 430 4/18/84 10 1

SW205

PCE 6,200 11/13/84 10 2

 

128, pp. 33, 38, 43, 48; 133, p. 

116; 149, pp. 29-30

TCE 1,800 11/13/84 10 2 

Trans-1,2-DCE 710 11/13/84 10 2

VC 110 11/13/84 10 2

* Values in this column represent reporting limits or the minimum reporting limit based on an adjustment resulting 

from the dilution factor (see below). 

1 Analytical result indicates a reporting limit for the sample of 10 μg/L [37, pp. 3-4].

2 Ground water sample SW205 was analyzed with a dilution factor of 5, and a minimum reporting limit of 2 μg/L, 

for the analysis by EPA Method 624 [149, pp. 29-30]. The dilution factor multiplied by the minimum reporting limit 

provides the minimum reporting limit for the sample (10 μg/L) [149, pp. 29-30]. 

Remedial actions were considered in the evaluation and sampling of the Collins and Aikman site. 

Sampling showed that contamination remained after removal activities had taken place. Remedial 

activities on the facility have focused on two methods: source control methods within identified source 

areas to reduce VOCs; and management of migration methods to reduce the concentration of VOCs in 

ground water on the facility and the downgradient SGP to levels below state and federal standards [122, 

pp. 18-20]. 

 

A remedial system referred to as a management of migration component (MOM3a) was developed and 

implemented at the facility during July 1995 to reduce the concentration of VOCs in ground water and to 

minimize migration of these contaminants toward the SGP [122, pp. 18-51; 140, pp. 6-7, 11-12]. The 

MOM3a addressed the goals of the MOM2 system, which involved the dewatering of the aquifer in the 

area of the former solvent tank and piping, while also creating hydraulic containment in the area of the 

leachfield [122, pp. 18-51; 140, p. 7]. Six extraction wells (W-20 through W-25) were installed in the 

former solvent storage tank and piping area, while 19 containment wells (W-1 through W-19) were 

arranged in two rows along the northern and northeastern portion of the facility in the area of the leach 

field [140, pp. 10, 37; 157, p. 13] . Each well was installed through the overburden and five feet into 

bedrock to provide a sump for the well [140, p. 10]. The purpose of the containment wells (W-1 through 

W-19) was to capture contaminated ground water and minimize contaminant migration across the future 

compliance boundary, while the extraction wells (W-20 through W-25) were installed to dewater the 

former solvent storage tank and piping area to facilitate an AS/SVE system [157, p. 13]. The extracted 

water was treated for VOCs, and the treated ground water was then discharged back to the ground water 

aquifer through an infiltration trench [140, pp. 7, 11]. During 2002, the extraction wells were taken offline 

due to ineffectiveness and only the containment system was continued [167, pp. 17-18]. 

An air sparge and soil vapor extraction (AS/SVE) system was installed in May 1999 and began operating 

in September 1999 to address the source area identified as the former solvent tank and pipelines 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 57 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

southwest of the manufacturing building [77, p. 3]. The system was designed to operate concurrently with 

six ground water extraction wells (W-20 through W-25) installed in the source area, and included in-situ 

soil vapor extraction of the unconsolidated overburden to recover VOCs from source soils located above 

and below the natural ground water table [176, pp. 8-9; 236, p. 2] . The AS/SVE system included nine 

shallow SVE wells and 10 deep SVE wells installed in the vadose zone, and 10 air sparge wells installed 

below the dewatered ground water table [236, pp. 1-2]. The AS/SVE system was operated only 

intermittently between 2000 and 2002 due to various issues [126, pp. 2, 15; 232, p. 2; 233, p. 1; 236, p. 2]. 

These issues included dewatering and system electrical problems; high ground water conditions, which 

blocked the SVE well screens which was caused by irregular operation of the source area ground water 

extraction wells; operations and maintenance activities; and the ground water table being too low to 

provide effective sparging conditions [126, pp. 2, 15; 232, p. 2; 233, p. 1; 236, p. 2]. In a 2000 Five Year 

Annual Review Report, H&A stated that the on-site remediation systems did not appear to be reducing 

the extent of the VOC-contaminated ground water plume rapidly enough to meet the existing 10-year 

remedial goal [178, p. 6 ]. In 2002, N HDES expressed concern that the AS/SVE wells may not be 

optimally designed and may not actively remediate the source of PCE, and noted that the concentration of 

PCE in ground water in the area had recently increased to 700 micrograms per liter (μg/L), the highest 

concentration since July 1998 [234, p. 3]. NHDES further stated that the system design may be affecting 

only extremely localized areas of contamination, without effectively impacting nearby contaminated 

source areas [234, p. 4]. As of 15 March 2002, the AS/SVE system was shut down [233, p. 1]. In a March 

2007 letter, NHDES stated that the on-site remedial systems had failed to treat, remove, or contain all 

sources [235, p. 1]. 

Ground water samples collected at the facility, after the implementation of the MOM3a, have indicated an 

observed release of PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and VC based on c hemical analysis and comparison to 

background concentrations (see Tables 12 and 15) [1, p. 51589; 14, pp. 1-5, 8-10]. 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 58 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

Table 15 – Hazardous Substances Associated with Ground Water Samples 

collected from the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) Facility after July 1995

Sample

ID

Hazardous 

Substance

Concentration 

(μg/L)

Sample 

Date

Quantitation or 

Reporting Limit*

(μg/L) References

SW205 PCE 930 12/04/96 20 1 

133, p. 116; 156, pp. 65-66; 157, 

p. 224; 160, p. 24

TCE 550 12/04/96 20 1

Cis-1,2-DCE 1,300 12/04/96 20 1

VC 270 11/12/97 20 1

SW501 PCE 8,700 4/28/98 100 1

133, p. 117; 159, p. 44; 160, p. 28; 

161, p. 29

TCE 210 † 4/28/98 100 1

Cis-1,2-DCE 530 11/12/97 100 1

VC 20 7/25/97 4 1

SH-8R PCE 17,000 11/18/09 200 2

137, pp. 56-60

TCE 2,600 11/18/09 200 2

Cis-1,2-DCE 1,200 11/18/09 200 2

* Values in this column represent quantitation limits or the reporting limit based on a dilution factor (see below). 

† A higher concentration of 350 μg/L for TCE in sample SW501 was reported [133, p. 117]. The detection limit for 

TCE could not be confirmed for the sample from available documentation; therefore, the next highest concentration 

is presented [156, p. 68; 161, p. 29]. 

1 The quantitation limit for the sample is reported [157, p. 224; 160, pp. 24, 28; 161, p. 29]. 

2 A trip blank submitted with ground water sample SH-8R was analyzed using the same method with a dilution 

factor of 1 [137, pp. 56-60]. The reporting limit for the non-detect analytes is reported for the Trip Blank sample. 

Ground water sample SH-8R was analyzed using a d ilution factor of 100, and a reporting limit was determined 

based on the trip blank reporting limit multiplied by 100. 

In summary, the samples presented above document an observed release to the ground water pathway 

during early 1984 (Table 14) and continued release to ground water after the implementation of MOM3a 

(Table 15). In 2002, N H DES stated that PCE concentrations in ground water continued to remain 

elevated [234, p. 3] . In addition, influent data collected as part of the operation of the MOM3a has 

indicated the continued release of chlorinated VOCs to the ground water as evident in the continued 

elevated concentrations entering the system [126, p. 28; 133, p. 44; 136, pp. 299-300; 140, pp. 32-33; 

145, pp. 72-75; 148, p. 39; 157, pp. 64-67; 165, p. 31; 167, p. 33; 170, p. 36; 174, p. 69; 176, p. 67; 186, 

p. 37; 192, pp. 1 -2]. This documented release to ground water beneath the facility has extended toward 

the SGP and GP2 (see below).

 Contaminated Samples (Sarah Greenfield Overburden Monitoring Wells):

The SGP occupies approximately 180 acres on the northeast side of Route 11, down gradient from the 

Collins & Aikman facility [124, p. 9]. This area was historically used as a source of sand and gravel; and 

currently contains undeveloped land owned by the Town, and a privately operated commercial 

composting facility on t he portion of the property nearest the Collins & Aikman facility [124, p. 9 ]. 

Collins & Aikman began investigating ground water impacts on the SGP in 1989 with the installation of 

six overburden and two bedrock monitoring wells (MW300-series) (see HRS Figures 3 and 4) [124, p. 9; 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 59 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

130, pp. 2, 11-13, 32, 41-42]. 

A steep hydraulic gradient and sloping bedrock surface directs ground water from the facility toward the 

SGP [15, pp. 1-2; 17, pp. 1-3; 124, pp. 15, 45; 126, pp. 20-21, 35; 127, pp. 8, 23, 41; 130, pp. 14-18, 21, 

40-41; 132, pp. 25-26, 32-33, 59-60; 133, pp. 27, 32, 62-64; 135, pp. 3, 12; 137, pp. 6, 16-17; 145, pp. 29-

30, 36, 63; 148, pp. 26-27, 54-60; 157, pp. 24, 28, 55; 165, pp. 20-21, 23, 36; 167, pp. 21-22, 38-39; 170, 

pp. 22-23, 52-53; 174, pp. 28 -30, 33, 84; 176, pp. 23 -24, 26, 79; 186, pp. 18-19, 24, 27, 42] . Numerous 

ground water flow interpretations indicate that ground water flow from the facility within the 

interconnected overburden/bedrock aquifer is directed north-northeast, toward the SGP (see HRS Figure 

3) [17, pp. 1-3; 124, pp. 15, 45; 126, pp. 20-21, 35; 127, pp. 8, 23, 41; 130, pp. 14-18, 21, 40-41; 132, pp. 

25-26, 32-33, 59-60; 133, pp. 27, 32, 62-64; 135, pp. 3, 12; 137, pp. 6, 16-17; 145, pp. 29-30, 36, 63; 148, 

pp. 26-27, 54-60; 157, pp. 24, 28, 55; 165, pp. 20-21, 23, 36; 167, pp. 21-22, 38-39; 170, pp. 22-23, 52-

53; 174, pp. 28-30, 33, 84; 176, pp. 23-24, 26, 79; 186, pp. 18-19, 24, 27, 42 ]. Monitoring wells have 

been installed in both the overburden and bedrock to characterize the impacts of CVOCs migrating from 

the facility to the SGP [130, pp. 2, 12-13, 17, 19-21, 25]. Ground water monitoring wells and samples 

which characterize the impact of the release of CVOCs to the aquifer from the facility to the 

downgradient SGP are presented below (Tables 16 through 18). 

Table 16 - Contaminated Ground Water Monitoring Well Details

Monitoring 

Well ID Location

Installation 

Date

Sampling 

Frequency

Screened 

Interval

Screened 

Interval 

Geology Reference

MW302

North of Route 11 

on the western 

portion of the Sarah 

Greenfield property, 

east-northeast of the 

facility 3/27/89

55 times from 

May-89 to

Nov-09

262 to 

236.7 1 Gravelly sand

130, pp. 29, 32, 

39, 41, 51-52; 133, 

p. 46

MW303

North of Route 11 

on the Eva 

Christensen 

property, northeast 

of the facility 4/11/89

56 times from 

May-89 to

Aug-11

262.4 to 

237.1 1 Gravelly sand

130, pp. 29, 32, 

39, 53; 133, p. 46

1 Elevation is based on ground elevation referenced to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 and well 

construction specifications [130, pp. 29, 32, 39, 41, 48-59, 66-67].

As noted above, the background ground water samples were collected from within the same aquifer, 

similar geologic zone (overburden), and during the same time period as the samples collected from the 

SGP. 

Ground water samples MW302 and MW303, presented in Table 17, were collected from May 1989 to 

October 1991, and represent ground water conditions on the SGP prior to the July 1995 implementation 

of the MOM3a remediation system [14, pp. 1, 11-13; 140, pp. 6-7, 11-12]. Ground water samples 

collected from these wells indicated an observed release of PCE, TCE, trans-1,2-DCE, and VC based on 

chemical analysis and comparison to background concentrations (see Tables 12 and 17) [1, p. 51589]. 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 60 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

Table 17 – Maximum Concentration of Hazardous Substances Associated with Ground Water Samples

collected from the Sarah Greenfield Property May 1989 to July 1995

Sample

ID

Hazardous 

Substance

Concentration 

(μg/L)

Date Detection Limit

(μg/L) References

MW302 PCE 450 7/11/91 8 

128, p. 50; 133, p. 82; 149, pp. 

1-2, 169, 207

TCE 140 7/11/91 8 

1,2-DCE 270 7/11/91 8 

VC 73 10/5/89 10

MW303 PCE 220 10/5/89 5 

130, p. 71; 149, pp. 1-2, 153, 

170; 152, pp. 19, 30

TCE 180 5/15/89 5 

1,2-DCE 250 10/10/91 5 

As noted above, a MOM3a remedial system with extraction and containment wells was implemented at 

the facility in July 1995. Analytical results of the treatment system effluent has indicated elevated 

concentrations of CVOCs [136, p. 300]. Ground water samples MW302 and MW303, presented in Table 

18, were collected on the SGP subsequent to the MOM3a implementation, and analytical results have 

indicated continued elevated concentration of CVOCs [14, pp. 1, 11 -12, 14; 140, pp. 6 -7, 11-12]. 

Concentrations of PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE in ground water samples meet observed release criteria by 

chemical analysis (see Tables 12 and 18) [1, p. 51589]. VC concentrations in sample MW302 and TCE 

concentrations in sample MW303 did not meet observed release criteria based on sampling performed in 

April 2008 and November 2009; however, these concentrations did exceed their respective MCL values 

[137, pp. 55-60]. Results of earlier rounds of sampling documented an observed release of these two 

hazardous substances at these locations [13, pp. 1-4; 14, pp. 1, 11-13]. 

Table 18 – Hazardous Substances Associated with Ground Water Samples

collected from the Sarah Greenfield Property After July 1995

Sample

ID

Hazardous 

Substance

Concentration 

(μg/L) Date

Detection or 

Reporting Limit* 

(μg/L) References

MW302 PCE 280 11/19/09 2 1

137, pp. 55-60

TCE 63 11/19/09 2 1

Cis-1,2-DCE 110 11/19/09 2 1

MW303 PCE 200 4/16/08 2 2

Cis-1,2-DCE 41 4/16/08 2 136, pp. 232-235, 240-241 2

* Values in this column represent detection limits or reporting limits (see below). 

1 A trip blank submitted in 2009 with ground water sample MW302 was analyzed using the same method with the 

same dilution factor of 1 [137, pp. 55-60]. The reporting limit for the non-detect analytes is reported for the Trip 

Blank sample. Based on the same method and same dilution factor, ground water sample MW302 has the same 

reporting limit as the trip blank for the analytes of concern.

2 Trip blank samples submitted in 2008 with ground water sample MW303 were analyzed using the same method 

with the same dilution factor of 1 [136, pp. 232-265, 240-241]. The detection limit for the non-detect analytes is 

reported for the Trip Blank sample. Based on the same method and same dilution factor, ground water sample

MW303 has the same detection limit as the trip blank for the analytes of concern.
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 61 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

Chemical Analysis – Drinking Water Samples

Gravel Pack Well No. 2 (GP2), installed in 1944, is located adjacent to (west side of) Route 153, 

approximately 400 feet south of Pokamoonshine Brook on the SGP [116, p. 23; 129, pp. 4, 8; 130, pp. 9, 

38]. The SGP is underlain by extensive, highly permeable sand and gravel deposits which thicken 

eastward toward GP2 [130, p. 9]. The bedrock surface slopes steeply from Route 11 and the facility, onto 

the SGP, and toward GP2 [130, pp. 9, 41]. Ground water also exhibits this trend flowing eastward from 

Route 11 toward the Cocheco River and GP2 [130, pp. 9, 40-41]. Well installation logs for GP2 indicate 

that the area underlying the well consists of coarse sand and gravel to at least 58 feet bgs, which is 

consistent with borings from other portions of the SGP and the Cocheco River Valley [123, pp. 20-22; 

130, pp. 9, 48-67]. 

Ground water samples have indicated an observed release of site-related hazardous substances, at 

concentrations significantly above background, to the aquifer (see previous section). Background ground 

water samples have been collected within the same aquifer as GP2, and samples collected from GP2 have 

indicated an observed release of site-related hazardous substances to the drinking water supply well (see 

below). 

- Background Concentrations: 

As indicated earlier, beginning in September 1984, ground water samples have been collected from three 

background ground water monitoring wells. These three sample locations represent various geologic 

strata within the interconnected aquifer, and the sample analytical results have consistently documented 

non-detect concentrations for site-related hazardous substances (PCE, TCE, DCE, and VC) [13, pp. 1-8]. 

The background ground water monitoring wells are located on the outer edges of the CVOC plume 

originating at the facility, and ground water flow interpretations indicate consistent flow northeast and 

east [17, pp. 1 -3]. One background ground water monitoring well (MW305) is installed upgradient of 

GP2 on the SGP and within the sand overburden [130, pp. 9, 41, 64-65]. 

During one sampling event conducted for GP2, an additional town well (Town Well 3) was sampled 

within the Cocheco River Valley aquifer [129, p. 8; 130, p. 8; 141, pp. 1-5]. Town Well 3 (also referred to 

as GP3) is located approximately 4,500 f eet north of GP2, on t he opposite (east) side of the Cocheco 

River [129, p. 8]. References indicate that this well is drilled to 51 feet bgs, with 10 feet of screen 

installed at the bottom [116, p. 25].

Table 19 - Background Drinking Water Monitoring Well Details

Monitoring 

Well ID Location

Installation 

Date

Screened 

Interval 

(feet bgs)

Screened Interval 

Geology Reference

Town Well 3 

(GP3)

Off Elm Street next 

to a pond 1974 41 to 51* Overburden

116, p. 25; 

129, p. 8

*File information indicates that the well is screened between 41 and 51 feet below the ground surface [116, p. 25].

bgs = Below ground surface.

Town Well 3 was sampled on 16 February 1984 during a sampling investigation of GP2 (also referred to 

as Town Well 2) [141, pp. 1-3]. Background drinking water sample Town Well 3 w as submitted to 

ERCO/Energy Resources Co. Inc., for VOC analysis by EPA Method 624 [ 141, pp. 2 -3]. Analytical 

results of the background drinking water sample collected from Town Well 3 indicated that all listed 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 62 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

analytes were non-detect at the reporting limit of 1 μg/L [141, pp. 2-3]. 

Table 20 - Hazardous Substances Associated with Background Drinking Water Samples

Sample 

ID

Hazardous 

Substance

Concentration 

(μg/L)

Reporting Limit

(μg/L) References

Town Well 

3 (GP3)

PCE ND 1 141, pp. 1-3 

Trans-1,2-DCE ND 1 141, pp. 1-3 

Based on the analysis of background public drinking water supply sample Town Well 3, an observed 

release is documented when at minimum the analyte concentration is equal to or greater than 1 μg/L. 

- Contaminated Samples: 

Initial sampling of GP2 was conducted on 24 A ugust 1983, a nd analytical results indicated detectable 

levels of CVOCs in the public supply well [100, pp. 1-3, 5-7; 101]. Subsequent sampling of the well 

indicated varying concentrations of the same CVOCs through June 1986 [57, p. 58; 129, pp. 44, 51]. The 

sampling events were conducted by both a state of NH agency and contractors for DRC [57, pp. 2, 58]. 

Sampling of GP2 (also referred to as Town Well 2) on 16 February 1984 was conducted by personnel 

from the State of New Hampshire Groundwater Permit Division while one employee from GEI (DRC 

consultant) was present [194, p. 1]. The sample from GP2 was collected from a faucet in the discharge 

line, and a split sample was provided to GEI [194, p. 1; 195, p. 1]. 

Table 21 – Public Drinking Water Well Details

Monitoring 

Well ID Location

Installation 

Date

Screened 

Interval 

(feet bgs)

Screened 

Interval Geology Reference

Gravel Pack 

Well 2

(GP2)

Adjacent to (west side of) Route 

153, approximately 400 feet south 

of Pokamoonshine Brook 1944 45.5 to 55.5* Sandy overburden

116, p. 23; 

129, pp. 4, 8

* File information indicates that the well is screened between 45.5 and 55.5 feet below the ground surface [116, p. 

23; 129, pp. 4, 8].

bgs = Below ground surface.

On 16 F ebruary 1984, the Town Well 2 s ample (also referred to as GP2) was submitted by GEI 

(contractor for DRC) to ERCO/Energy Resources Co. Inc., for VOC analysis by EPA Method 624 [141, 

pp. 1-3]. Analytical results indicated the presence of PCE and trans-1,2-DCE above laboratory reporting 

limits [141, pp. 1-3]. Therefore, an observed release of PCE and trans-1,2-DCE has been documented in a 

drinking water sample from Town Well 2 (also known as GP2) based on chemical analysis and 

comparison to background concentrations [1, p. 51589; 141, pp. 1-3]. 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 63 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

Table 22 - Hazardous Substances Associated with Drinking Water Samples

Sample 

ID

Hazardous 

Substance

Concentration

(μg/L)

Reporting Limit

(μg/L) References

Town 

Well 2 

(GP2)

PCE 8.6 1 

Trans-1,2-DCE 3 1 141, pp. 1-3 

Based on the sampling results presented above, as well as results of additional samples collected at the 

facility, the SGP, and the GP2 supply well, an observed release of CVOCs to the aquifer has been 

documented (see above). 

Attribution:

The hazardous substances used to establish an observed release (PCE, TCE, trans-1,2-DCE, cis-1,2-DCE, 

and VC) are associated with the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) site or are transformation products of 

hazardous substances associated with the site, and the site has contributed at least in part to the significant 

increase of the hazardous substance concentrations, as described in the paragraphs below. Other possible 

sources of the observed release hazardous substances were investigated through review of file information 

and observations made during field activities (see Other Possible Sources section below).

Based on file documentation and an interview with a former employee, PCE solvent was historically used 

and stored at the facility and a spill/leakage of PCE solvent occurred which was associated with a PCE 

solvent tank and pipelines (see Source No. 1) [57, pp. 8-10; 63, p. 1] . According to previous reports 

prepared for DRC and EPA Hazardous Waste Compliance Program documentation, TCE was also used at 

the facility, reportedly for maintenance [25, pp. 1, 14; 57, pp. 1, 10]. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), a polymer 

which contains VC, was used at the facility and generated as a solid waste [39, p. 4; 57, pp. 8-10; 209, pp. 

1-2]. Based on analytical sampling data, PCE, TCE, and VC, as well as trans-1,2-DCE, have been 

documented in sources at concentrations greater than background (see Sources Nos. 1, 2, and 3) [43, pp. 

21-22, 26, 38; 44, p. 7; 56, pp. 2, 5-6; 63, p. 1; 127, pp. 7, 120-121]. These sources exhibit containment 

factor values greater than zero (see Source Nos. 1, 2, and 3) [23, p. 7; 63, p. 1; 121, pp. 31, 41, 185, 189; 

125, pp. 13, 16-17, 66, 71, 74, 79; 131, pp. 23, 26, 29, 32, 34, 55-56; 132, pp. 7, 132, 161]. 

PCE, TCE, DCE, and VC are manufactured chemicals that are non-naturally occurring in the environment 

[143, p. 19; 147, p. 203; 198, p. 1; 199, p. 1, 200, p. 1; 203, p. 1; 204, p. 1; 207, p. 1; 209, p. 1]. PCE is a 

parent substance that is associated with Source No. 1 based on documentation that the chemical was used 

and stored at the facility and based on supporting soil sample analytical results, and is associated with 

Source Nos. 2 and 3 based on analytical sample results [43, pp. 21, 26, 38; 44, p. 7; 56, pp. 5, 6; 57, pp. 

15; 63, p. 1; 121, pp. 31, 41, 185, 189; 127, pp. 7, 120-121; 131, pp. 23, 26, 29, 32, 34, 55-56; 132, pp. 7, 

132, 161; 196, pp. 2 6-27]. Under reducing conditions in soil and/or ground water, naturally occurring 

microorganisms can degrade PCE (through a process known as anaerobic reductive dechlorination) to 

transformation products such as TCE [196, pp. 26-27; 200, pp. 1-3]. Degradation of TCE continues to 

DCE [which may exist as 1,1-DCE or 1,2-DCE isomers (cis-DCE or trans-DCE)], which then can be 

degraded to VC [196, pp. 26-27]. SHA has concluded that ground water beneath the facility and the SGP 

has exhibited the formation of degradation products over time [120, pp. 11-17]. 

The presence of hazardous substances associated with Source Nos. 1 through 3, and the documentation 

via chemical analysis of a significant increase of these substances to ground water, support at least partial 

attribution of the hazardous substances to releases from the site [1, p. 51588, Section 2.2.2]. 

TCE, PCE, DCE, and VC can exist as dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) [201, p. 8; 205, p. 1; 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 64 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

206, p. 1]. DNAPLs are denser than water and are relatively immiscible in water, allowing them to remain 

in a non-aqueous phase [197, pp. 149-156]. These features can make DNAPLs difficult to detect in the 

environment, and can also allow DNAPLs to act as a source over time for dissolved contamination in 

ground water [200, pp. 1-3]. The migration of DNAPLs is determined by complex interactions between 

the DNAPL chemicals and the hydrogeological formations through which the DNAPLs move [197, pp. 

149-156]. Provided there is sufficient mass to drive movement, the DNAPL will continue to move 

downward through preferential pathways (i.e., coarser grained materials that provide less capillary 

resistance) until it meets a zone of low permeability, where it will tend to pool or, if the zone has a slope, 

will move across the surface to lower areas [197, pp. 149-156]. DNAPLs will tend to move vertically 

downward and collect in low spots or along impermeable barriers [200, pp. 1-3]. NH DES affirms that 

there likely is DNAPL present on the facility based on the examination of PCE concentrations within 

ground water wells, and that this DNAPL is possible in the deeper bedrock [235, pp. 1-2]. 

Subsurface investigations at the Collins & Aikman facility have indicated that the overburden materials 

underlying the facility are generally fill and natural overburden materials consisting of poorly-sorted sand 

with gravel and boulders/cobbles [121, p. 15]. During bedrock boring installation activities in 2009, SHA 

concluded that sand and gravel are generally consistent with surficial geologic materials that may be 

‘transitional’ between the till-dominant, topographically-higher areas south of the “main site building” 

(assumed to be the manufacturing building), and the stratified-drift dominant areas associated with the 

Cocheco River Valley to the north (assumed to be the SGP) [120, p. 4; 121, p. 15]. In addition, bedrock 

investigations at the facility have indicated that the bedrock is highly fractured and weathered, and does 

not closely mimic surface topography [98, pp. 7, 15-20; 121, p. 17; 137, pp. 25, 32-35, 45-53]. A study by 

SHA involving overburden ground water pumping, documented a ground water elevation response in 

bedrock monitoring wells suggesting a hydraulic connection between shallow/deep bedrock and 

overburden ground water [121, pp. 20-21]. 

Numerous ground water flow interpretations conducted within the interconnected aquifer indicate that 

ground water flow from the facility is directed north-northeast from the bedrock uplands behind (south of) 

the plant toward the SGP [17, pp. 1-3; 121, pp. 16, 42; 132, pp. 25-26, 60; 148, p. 11]. A steep hydraulic 

gradient and sloping bedrock surface directs ground water from the facility toward the SGP [15, pp. 1-2; 

17, pp. 1-3; 124, pp. 15, 45; 126, pp. 20-21, 35; 127, pp. 8, 23, 41; 130, pp. 14-18, 21, 40-41; 132, pp. 25-

26, 32-33, 59-60; 133, pp. 27, 32, 62-64; 135, pp. 3, 12; 137, pp. 6, 16 -17; 145, pp. 29-30, 36, 63; 148, 

pp. 26-27, 54-60; 157, pp. 24, 28, 55; 165, pp. 20-21, 23, 36; 167, pp. 21-22, 38-39; 170, pp. 22-23, 52-

53; 174, pp. 2 8-30, 33, 84; 176, pp. 23 -24, 26, 79; 186, pp. 18-19, 24, 27, 42] . Ground water samples 

from wells installed upgradient of the documented source areas have not indicated detectable 

concentrations of CVOCs (see Background Concentrations) [13, pp. 1-8]. In addition, plume studies have 

indicated a source of CVOCs at the facility and their migration across Route 11 and onto the SGP [16, pp. 

1-4]. 

Sampling of numerous ground water monitoring wells on the facility and the SGP have indicated elevated 

concentrations of CVOCs [14, pp. 1-14]. In addition, ground water monitoring wells installed 

downgradient of the facility on the SGP (MW300 series) and close to GP2 (MW301) have continued to 

show elevated concentrations of CVOCs [148, pp. 18, 112-114, 117-119, 143-152; 170, pp. 16, 134-137, 

147, 170]. 

Other Possible Sites: 

A review of the EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information 

System (CERCLIS) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) databases 

identified two CERCLIS and 59 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites in Farmington, 

NH, including the Collins & Aikman (Former) site [218; 219]. The two sites identified in the CERCLIS 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 65 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

database search are the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) and the Cardinal Landfill site [218, p. 1]. A 

search of the RCRA database and NH DES One Stop was performed for the Town of Farmington to 

identify sites with similar operational activities, or with manifests for substances similar to or the same as 

the contaminants of concern at Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) [227, pp. 1-2]. The search indicated five 

locations within Farmington where these chlorinated solvents have been used [227, pp. 1-2]. 

Cardinal Landfill

Farmington Landfill 

Both the Cardinal Landfill and the adjacent Farmington Landfill are located near the facility and within 

the downgradient aquifer in which the former Town of Farmington drinking water supply well (GP2) is 

located [95, pp. 102; 122, p. 93]. Historical environment investigation reports indicate that both properties 

have been documented to contain CVOCs [97, pp. 8, 9; 211, pp. 31-37; 212, pp. 37-45; 213, pp. 36-43; 

214 pp. 40-47; 216, pp. 46-55; 217, pp. 42-50; 220, p. 4; 221, pp. 3, 8; 222, pp. 3, 8; 223, p. 59; 225, p. 

13]. Below is a summary of the Cardinal and Farmington Landfills as well as a pump test investigation 

conducted to determine CVOC contributions to GP2 in relation to the Collins & Aikman facility and the 

two landfills. In addition, the other possible source search results described above are explained. 

The Cardinal Landfill (EPA CERCLIS ID number NHD980913321) is located on Watson Corner Road in 

Farmington, NH, approximately 1 mile east of the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility and 

approximately 0.35 miles east-southeast of the former Town of Farmington Supply Well GP2 [95, p. 102; 

220, p. 1; 218, p. 1 ; 122, p. 93] . The landfill covers approximately 30 a cres and is bordered on the 

southwest by the Farmington Municipal Landfill [220, p. 4 ]. Beginning in the late 1960s, Textron 

Automotive Company or its predecessors in interest began disposing of hazardous wastes in the Cardinal 

Landfill [220, p. 1]. Based on historical reports, the wastes included PVC trimming scraps, paint wastes, 

drums of waste solvents, and other wastes, which reportedly contained various chemicals (primarily 

VOCs), including degreasing or cleaning solvents (methylene chloride, PCE, TCE) and paint solvents 

(acetone, MEK, MIBK, xylenes, and toluene) [220, pp. 4,5; 223, pp. 12-13; 226, pp. 2-3]. The Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) noted that the primary forms of contamination at the 

Cardinal Landfill are waste solvents and other VOCs in ground water [220, p. 1]. These contaminants 

were disposed of in the northeastern portion of the landfill ("the primary landfill") between the late 1960s 

and 1981 [220, p. 1]. Following an inspection of the Textron facility [Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 

facility] in 1981, the State prohibited disposal of hazardous materials in the landfill; however, for the next 

10 years (until 1991), Textron continued to use the landfill for non-hazardous waste disposal [220, pp. 1, 

5]. Contaminants of concern at the Cardinal Landfill include hazardous substances used to document an 

observed release at the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) site, including PCE, TCE, DCE, and VC [97, 

pp. 8-9; 220, p. 5; 221, pp. 3, 8; 222, pp. 3, 8; 223, p. 59; 225, p. 13]. 

Shallow ground water flow carries the contaminants mostly west and then southwest toward the Cocheco 

River, which is located between the Cardinal Landfill and GP2 [97, pp. 10, 13, 24; 220, p. 1; 224, p. 268; 

225, p 24; 226, p. 4]. Several homes along Watson Corner Road were forced to abandon their private 

wells in the mid-1980s due to chemical contamination from the landfill [220, pp. 1-2]. The ground water 

contamination in the shallow overburden has decreased considerably over time, yet concentrations of 

some VOCs still remain very high or unchanged on the landfill [220, p.1]. 

The Farmington Landfill is located along Dump Road in Farmington, NH, approximately 0.9 mile east of 

the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility and approximately 0.35 miles southeast of the former Town 

of Farmington Supply Well GP2 [216, p. 6; 95, p. 102; 220, p. 4; 218, p. 1]. The landfill consists of 

approximately 31.5 acres of land, of which approximately 12.5 acres make up the footprint of the active 

landfill [212, p 4 ; 216, p. 6]. Landfill operations began in the late 1940s and prior to this time, the 

property was a sand and gravel barrow pit [216, p. 6]. Wastes deposited in the landfill consisted primarily 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 66 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

of residential refuse; however, the landfill had also accepted commercial wastes from local businesses 

[216, p. 6]. Since the 1970s, residential septic sludge and sludge from the Farmington Wastewater 

Treatment Plant were disposed of in the lagoons located on the southern end of the property [216, p. 6]. 

Disposal of septic wastes within the lagoons ended in 2005 [216, p. 6]. 

A series of environmental investigations have been conducted at the Farmington Landfill beginning in 

1984 [211, pp. 1-37; 212, pp. 1 -80; 213, pp. 1-66; 214, pp. 1-69; 215, pp. 1-37; 216, pp. 6, 14-58]. 

Contaminants of concern documented in an observed release at the Collins & Aikman site have also been 

documented at the Farmington Landfill [211, pp. 31-37; 212, pp. 37 -45; 213, pp. 36 -46; 214 pp. 40 -49; 

216, pp. 46 -58; 217, pp. 42 -53]. Historical reports indicate that ground water flow has been 

predominantly to the southwest from the main landfill area toward the Cocheco River [211, pp. 5, 11-13; 

213, p. 38; 214 p. 8; 216, p.12; 217, p. 9 ]. The ground water on the Farmington Landfill is reportedly 

impacted by the Cardinal Landfill, which abuts the property to the northeast and is hydraulically 

upgradient; however, VOC contamination continues to decrease over time [216, p. 8]. 

 GP2 Pump Test: 

A pump test of supply well GP2 was conducted by ChemCycle Corporation in August 1988 for 

Davidson/Textron to determine the possible sources of VOCs detected in the well [129, p. 4]. A network 

of newly installed observation wells and existing ground water monitoring wells located between the 

three possible sources (Collins & Aikman facility, Cardinal Landfill, and Farmington Landfill) and the 

GP2 supply well, were used to track the ground water elevation changes during pumping and provide 

sample locations for VOC analysis [129, pp. 6, 8-15]. Based on results of the pumping test study, 

ChemCycle concluded ground water does not appear to cross under the Cocheco River and that the river 

provides sufficient recharge to the aquifer to act as a ground water barrier [95, pp. 10, 97, 101,102; 129, 

pp. 40-41]. Pumping test observations indicated that after 900 minutes of pumping GP2, the first signs of 

recharge to the aquifer from the Cocheco River were noted to the south [95, p. 10, 97; 129, p. 77]. The 

observation well located in the Cardinal Landfill showed no effect from the pumping test [129, p. 41]. 

The pumping test further revealed that drawdown induced GP2’s cone of depression into a VOC 

contamination plume to the west of GP2 and directly downgradient of the Collins & Aikman Plant 

(Former) facility, beyond the Test Well TW-1 [95, pp. 10, 101,102; 129, pp. 11, 41]. Furthermore, ground 

water quality results for samples collected as part of the pumping test indicated that low levels of VOCs 

were detected in GP2 and the test wells to the west (MW-1, MW-2, TW-1); while no VOCs were detected 

in the wells MW-3 and MW-4, located to the east between GP2 and the Cocheco River, toward the 

Cardinal and Farmington Landfills [95, pp. 10, 1 01,102; 129, pp. 40 -42, 45-52]. ChemCycle further 

concluded that recharge from the Cocheco River prevents GP2 from drawing any contaminants from east 

of the river, such as those that have been identified at the Cardinal Landfill [95, pp. 12]. This pump test 

indicates that contamination from the Cardinal Landfill and the Farmington Landfill did not significantly 

contribute to the contamination in GP2.

Review of Additional Possible Sites:

A search of NH DES One Stop was performed on Gozzie’s Garage, Perreault Auto Body, Schaefer Rolls, 

Vioth Paper, and Energy Resources Group and yielded information which indicated that no releases had 

been reported at the facilities [227]. A review of online documentation obtained from the NH DES One 

Stop Hazardous Waste Generator Reports indicated that wastes generated and transported off site for the 

five locations began as early as 1988 [227]. CVOC contamination was first discovered in GP2 in early 

1984 [129, p. 44 ]. Gozzie’s Garage is located northwest of Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) and is 

hydraulically upgradient. Background monitoring well MW305 is located northwest of the Collins & 

Aikman Plant (Former) and downgradient of Gozzie’s Garage, and has not indicated the presence of 

CVOCs [227]. In addition, Perreault Auto Body Schaefer Rolls, Vioth Paper, and Energy Resources 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 67 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

Group are located hydraulically downgradient of GP2 [227]. 

Hazardous Substances Released

Tetrachloroethene/Tetrachloroethylene/Perchloroethylene (PCE)

Trichloroethene/Trichloroethylene (TCE) 

Vinyl Chloride (VC)

cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE) 

trans-1,2-DCE

Ground Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550

3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

3.2.1 TOXICITY/MOBILITY

The Toxicity Factor Value and the Mobility Factor Value are assigned to the hazardous substances 

associated with the sources and releases at the site, and are based on the values presented in the Superfund 

Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) [2]. 

Table 23 - Toxicity and Mobility Factor Values Associated with Observed Release Hazardous Substances

Hazardous 

Substance

Source No.

(and/or

Observed 

Release)

Toxicity 

Factor 

Value

Mobility 

Factor 

Value*

Does Hazardous 

Substance Meet 

Observed Release by 

Chemical Analysis? 

(Y/N)

Toxicity/

Mobility

(Ref. 1, 

Table 3-9) References

PCE 1,2,3,4 100 1 Y 100 2, A-336

TCE 1,2,3,4 1,000 1 Y 1,000 2, A-2 

1,2-DCE 1,2,3,4 100 1 Y 100 2, A-132

Trans-1,2-DCE 1,2,3,4 100 1 Y 100 2, A-136

Cis-1,2-DCE 1,2,3,4 1,000 1 Y 1,000 2, A-134

VC 1,2,3,4 10,000 1 Y 10,000 2, A-395

*Per the HRS, any hazardous substance that meets the criteria for an observed release by chemical analysis to one or 

more aquifers underlying the sources at the site, regardless of the aquifer being evaluated, is assigned a mobility 

factor value of 1 [1, pp. 51601-51602 (Section 3.2.1.2)]. 

The observed release substance, VC, is assigned a Toxicity Factor Value of 10,000 and a Mobility Factor 

Value of 1.0 [1, pp. 51601-51602 (Sections 3.2.1.1 and 3.2.1.2); 2, p. A-395]. From HRS Table 3-9, a 

Toxicity Factor Value of 10,000 and a Mobility Factor Value of 1.0 for VC results in a Toxicity/Mobility 

Factor Value of 10,000 [1, p. 51602 (Table 3-9)]. 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value [1, p. 51602 (Table 3-9)]: 10,000 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 68 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

3.2.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

Table 24 - Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source No. Source Type Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

1 Other – Leaks and Spills > 0

2 Other > 0

3 Tank > 0

> = Greater than.

Sum of Values: > 0 

Based on HRS Section 2.4.2.2, if the Hazardous Constituent Quantity is not adequately determined for 

one or more sources, and if any target for the ground water pathway is subject to Level I or Level II 

concentrations, a factor value is assigned from Table 2-6 or a value of 100, whichever is greater, as the 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value for that pathway [1, pp. 51 591 (Table 2-6), 51592 ( Section 

2.4.2.2)]. 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.2)]: 100

3.2.3 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FACTOR CATEGORY VALUE

The Toxicity Factor Value (10,000) and the Mobility Factor Value (1.0) for VC are multiplied in order to 

determine the Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value (10,000) [1, p. 51602 ( Section 3.2.1.3 (Table 3-9))]. The 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value for the aquifer (10,000) is multiplied by the Hazardous Waste Quantity 

Factor Value for the aquifer (100) in order to determine the Waste Characteristics Product, subject to a 

maximum value of 1 × 108 [1, pp. 51592 (Section 2.4.3.1), 51602 (Section 3.2.3)]. 10,000 × 100 = 1 × 

106

. 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 

 Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value (10,000) × Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value (100): 1 × 106 

From HRS Table 2-7, the Waste Characteristics Product (1 × 106

) is assigned a Waste Characteristics 

Factor Category Value of 32 [1, pp. 51592 (Section 2.4.3.1), 51602 (Section 3.2.3)]. 

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value [1, p. 51592 (Table 2-7)]: 32

3.3 TARGETS

Previous investigations have documented a release of hazardous substances to ground water downgradient 

of the Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) facility that are at least partially attributable to source areas. In 

1985, based on the results of drinking water supply samples collected from nearby residences, impacted 

residences were connected to the Town of Farmington, NH municipal water supply through construction 

of a water line extension completed by the facility owner [68, p. 1; 69, pp. 1-3; 70, pp. 4-17; 71, p. 1; 72, 

pp. 1-2; 73, pp. 1-2; 74, p. 1; 75, p. 1; 76, pp. 5, 7]. The addition of these residential drinking water supply 

wells as targets, and the resulting pathway score, would not impact the overall site score (the ground 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 69 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

water pathway is maximized by the scoring presented); therefore, these targets have not been included in 

the HRS documentation record. However, a threat may be present for additional residential drinking water 

targets not yet identified. Below is a discussion of targets scored based on the documented observed 

release. 

Level I Concentrations 

In the public drinking water sample presented, PCE was detected at a concentration above the MCL in 

drinking water [1, pp. 51593 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2), 51603 (Table 3-10); 2, p. A-336, 141, pp. 

1-3]. 

Based on P CE and trans-1,2-DCE analytical results of samples collected from GP2, a r elease to the 

drinking water supply well has been documented, and Level I concentrations confirmed [1, pp. 5159 3 

(Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2), 51603 (Table 3-10); 2, p. A-336, 141, pp. 1 -3]. Chlorinated solvents 

were detected in samples collected from GP2 beginning in late August 1983 [100, pp. 3, 5; 101]. In 

addition, samples collected on 16 February 1984 indicate detectable levels of PCE and DCE in the 

drinking water supply well sample [141, pp. 1-3]. 

Drinking water from GP2 was used exclusively by the DRC facility after the discovery of chlorinated 

solvents; however, the well supplemented the Town of Farmington drinking water supply on oc casion 

[102, p. 1; 103; 112; 114; 116, pp. 29-30]. In early 1984, DRC begin investigating the installation of new 

alternative drinking water supply wells to be located at the facility, which would serve all potable water 

needs [104; 105; 106, p. 1; 107-110]. Records indicate that the wells became an active supply of drinking 

water to the facility between March and June 1984 [111, p. 2; 113, pp. 2-4]. Records also indicate that the 

system failed in August 1985; and file information does not indicate what was used as the supply of 

drinking water to the DCR facility during this period [111]. Based on t his information, documented 

contaminated drinking water from GP2 was being consumed from at least August 1983 to March 1984. 

Table 25 - Benchmark Comparison for Level I Drinking Water Samples

Sample ID

Hazardous 

Substance

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration 

(μg/L)

Benchmark 

Concentration 

(μg/L) Benchmark

References for 

Benchmark

Town Well No. 2

(GP2) PCE 8.6 5.0 MCL

2, p. A-336, 141, 

pp. 1-3 

Level II Concentrations 

No Level II concentrations were evaluated as part of this documentation record.

3.3.1 NEAREST WELL

Based on PCE analytical results of the drinking water sample from GP2, a release to the drinking water 

supply well has been documented, and Level I concentrations confirmed [1, pp. 51593 (Section 2.5.1 and 

Section 2.5.2), 51603 (Table 3-10); 2, p. A-336, 141, pp. 1-3]. As a drinking water supply well is subject 

to Level I concentrations, a Nearest Well Factor Value of 50 is assigned [1, pp. 51602-51603 (Section 

3.3.1)]. The closest drinking water supply well containing Level I concentrations of the target compounds 

is the GP2 well, located between 0.5 and 0.7 miles northeast of the sources presented in this HRS 

Documentation Record [210]. 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 70 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

Well ID: GP2 (Town Well 2) 

Level of Contamination (I, II, or potential): I 

If potential contamination, distance from source in miles: 

Nearest Well Factor Value [1, p. 51603 (Table 3-11)]: 50

3.3.2 POPULATION

3.3.2.1 Level of Contamination

3.3.2.2 Level I Concentrations

Level I Population Targets 

A remedial investigation and interview with a former employee indicated that between January 1983 and 

August 1986, the DRC employed between 600 and 1,400 people [57, p. 8; 115; 117, p. 9]. A Wastewater 

Evaluation conducted by Kimball Chase, completed between January and October 1984 and during the 

period of documented consumption of contaminated drinking water indicated that the average 

employment for the DCR facility was 750 employees [117, p. 9]. This date range generally corresponds to 

the time during which the on-site drinking water supply wells came on-line and the use of GP2 was 

discontinued due to VOC contamination and is therefore considered the most accurate estimation of the 

drinking water target population [52, p. 2; 58, pp. 1-2; 85, p. 1; 111, p. 2; 113, pp. 2-4; 119, pp. 1-2]. 

File information indicates that a total of 750 employees were served by drinking water supply well GP2 

during documented chlorinated solvent contamination (16 February 1984) and that a total of 750 Level I 

Actual Contamination Targets have been documented [1, pp. 51593 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2), 

51603 (Table 3-10); 2, p. A-336, 141, pp. 1-3]. 

Table 26 - Level I Wells

Level I Well Aquifer No. Population References

GP2 1 750 111, p. 3; 115; 117, p. 9

Sum of Population Served by Level I Wells: 750 

Sum of Population Served by Level I Wells x 10: 7,500 

Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 7,500 

[1, p. 51603 (Section 3.3.2.2)] 

3.3.2.3 Level II Concentrations

Level II Population Targets

No Level II Population Targets have been identified as part of the investigation of the facility. 

Sum of Population Served by Level II Wells: None 

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0 

[1, p. 51603 (Section 3.3.2.3)] 
Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Overburden/Bedrock Aquifer 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) 71 HRS Documentation Record

NHN000105928 May 2013

3.3.2.4 Potential Contamination

Potential Population Targets

The potential population relying on ground water supply sources within 4 radial miles of the Collins & 

Aikman Plant (Former) facility was evaluated but not scored as part of this HRS Documentation Record 

[228, p. 1]. 

Calculations: 

Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values: 

Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values/10: 

Potential Contamination Factor Value: Not Scored 

(1, p. 51603-51604 (Section 3.3.2.4)]

3.3.3 RESOURCES

No Resources were evaluated as part of this HRS Documentation Record. 

Resources Factor Value: Not Scored

3.3.4 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA

No Wellhead Protection Areas were evaluated as part of this HRS Documentation Record. 

Wellhead Protection Area Factor Value: Not Scored