Between the 1960s until its 2001 shutdown, the Dresser Wayne Co. manufacturing plant authorized on-site disposal of several dangerous contaminants associated with production of Wayne brand fuel pumps. These contaminants, including TCE and hexavalent chromium, leached easily into the soil and groundwater underneath the site, with non-compliant levels visible in EPA-sanctioned testing to date. Under EPA regulations, this makes the Dresser Wayne site a non-remediated brownfield, an issue compounded by Salisbury University's prioritized interest in purchasing the lot after proper mitigation.
|
site background
The Dresser Wayne site, located at 124 W. College Avenue, was originally established as an industrial facility in 1939 by William H. Bateman (“100 Years”, 1991).
In 1950, Bateman’s company was bought by Symington-Gould Corporation, undergoing a merger in 1958 with Wayne Pump Company to eventually become Symington Wayne (see timeline). Shortly after Symington Wayne’s 1968 merger with Dresser Industries, the new company (known as Dresser Wayne) took over daily operations at the facility (“100 Years”, 1991).The Dresser Wayne site, located at 124 W. College Avenue, was originally established as an industrial facility in 1939 by William H. Bateman (“100 Years”, 1991).
Beginning in 1951, this facility was used to manufacture, test, and store Wayne Pump brand fuel dispensing pumps. After the ’68 merger, Dresser Wayne's manufacturing plant produced—and dumped—several forms of industrial toxic wastes on site. As documented by the EPA, the contaminants left by Dresser Wayne operations came from industrial cleaning solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons, wastewater sludge, and corrosive liquids from metal treatment (EPA, June 2021).
In 1991, Halliburton Company purchased Dresser Wayne Company. The Dresser Wayne site officially closed its doors in 2001, with plans to demolish the manufacturing plant entirely. Preliminary contamination testing began shortly after (EPA, June 2021).
By 2010, shortly after concluding demolition & industrial cleanup, the EPA sanctioned soil & groundwater testing for contaminants left over by Dresser Wayne operations. Groundwater contaminants detected through these tests include trichloroethylene (TCE), heavy metals such as hexavalent chromium & lead, and several chemicals associated with petroleum (EPA, June 2021).
In 1950, Bateman’s company was bought by Symington-Gould Corporation, undergoing a merger in 1958 with Wayne Pump Company to eventually become Symington Wayne (see timeline). Shortly after Symington Wayne’s 1968 merger with Dresser Industries, the new company (known as Dresser Wayne) took over daily operations at the facility (“100 Years”, 1991).The Dresser Wayne site, located at 124 W. College Avenue, was originally established as an industrial facility in 1939 by William H. Bateman (“100 Years”, 1991).
Beginning in 1951, this facility was used to manufacture, test, and store Wayne Pump brand fuel dispensing pumps. After the ’68 merger, Dresser Wayne's manufacturing plant produced—and dumped—several forms of industrial toxic wastes on site. As documented by the EPA, the contaminants left by Dresser Wayne operations came from industrial cleaning solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons, wastewater sludge, and corrosive liquids from metal treatment (EPA, June 2021).
In 1991, Halliburton Company purchased Dresser Wayne Company. The Dresser Wayne site officially closed its doors in 2001, with plans to demolish the manufacturing plant entirely. Preliminary contamination testing began shortly after (EPA, June 2021).
By 2010, shortly after concluding demolition & industrial cleanup, the EPA sanctioned soil & groundwater testing for contaminants left over by Dresser Wayne operations. Groundwater contaminants detected through these tests include trichloroethylene (TCE), heavy metals such as hexavalent chromium & lead, and several chemicals associated with petroleum (EPA, June 2021).
community impacts
Health:
Fortunately, groundwater contamination from former Dresser Wayne operations does not directly impact individuals in the community, as the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses (including Salisbury University) receive city-treated water. Additionally, a tall barbed-wire fence surrounds the now-empty field, shielding the public—and the student parking lot—from contact with contaminated soil. Trespassing is illegal, with only testing and maintenance work permitted on-site (Shelton, 2022).
There is currently no documented evidence to suggest groundwater or soil contamination has been spreading from the Dresser Wayne site. However, Shelton (2022) anecdotally links an incident of similar contaminants found in a water tower once located less than a quarter mile from the site. Additionally, because the flow of groundwater is highly unpredictable, it is difficult to ascertain whether the contaminants have truly not spread elsewhere.
Despite little risk of contamination on individuals, several of the wastes dumped on-site by Dresser Wayne from 1968-2001 seen in EPA testing are still known carcinogens and/or neurotoxins. Particularly concerning to the EPA is the high concentration of hexavalent chromium in the groundwater; exposure to this toxin is linked with cancer and severe respiratory ailments (EPA, 2017).
Under EPA standards, this makes the former Dresser Wayne site an active brownfield, listed by the Maryland Department of the Environment as “not remediated” (MDE, 2022).
Brownfields:
According to the EPA (July 2021), a brownfield is a property which has been essentially decommissioned by the presence of a hazardous substance, contaminant, or pollutant. Until a brownfield has been decontaminated in compliance with EPA standards, otherwise known as “remediated,” the land is functionally barren. Redevelopment or expansion of a brownfield, especially one marked as non-remediated, is a highly complex process.
This is because even after remediation under EPA standards, many brownfields still carry the burden of irresponsible pollutant disposal. For instance, after the former Dresser Wayne site is remediated, any potential redevelopment cannot have a basement to avoid soil & groundwater exposure on individuals. Additionally, no childcare facilities or athletic fields may be built over the site.
Fortunately, groundwater contamination from former Dresser Wayne operations does not directly impact individuals in the community, as the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses (including Salisbury University) receive city-treated water. Additionally, a tall barbed-wire fence surrounds the now-empty field, shielding the public—and the student parking lot—from contact with contaminated soil. Trespassing is illegal, with only testing and maintenance work permitted on-site (Shelton, 2022).
There is currently no documented evidence to suggest groundwater or soil contamination has been spreading from the Dresser Wayne site. However, Shelton (2022) anecdotally links an incident of similar contaminants found in a water tower once located less than a quarter mile from the site. Additionally, because the flow of groundwater is highly unpredictable, it is difficult to ascertain whether the contaminants have truly not spread elsewhere.
Despite little risk of contamination on individuals, several of the wastes dumped on-site by Dresser Wayne from 1968-2001 seen in EPA testing are still known carcinogens and/or neurotoxins. Particularly concerning to the EPA is the high concentration of hexavalent chromium in the groundwater; exposure to this toxin is linked with cancer and severe respiratory ailments (EPA, 2017).
Under EPA standards, this makes the former Dresser Wayne site an active brownfield, listed by the Maryland Department of the Environment as “not remediated” (MDE, 2022).
Brownfields:
According to the EPA (July 2021), a brownfield is a property which has been essentially decommissioned by the presence of a hazardous substance, contaminant, or pollutant. Until a brownfield has been decontaminated in compliance with EPA standards, otherwise known as “remediated,” the land is functionally barren. Redevelopment or expansion of a brownfield, especially one marked as non-remediated, is a highly complex process.
This is because even after remediation under EPA standards, many brownfields still carry the burden of irresponsible pollutant disposal. For instance, after the former Dresser Wayne site is remediated, any potential redevelopment cannot have a basement to avoid soil & groundwater exposure on individuals. Additionally, no childcare facilities or athletic fields may be built over the site.
involvement with salisbury university
The now-empty Dresser Wayne lot is located directly across Route 13 from Salisbury University (SU)'s main campus. Since at least 2014, before publication of SU’s mostly recently updated Facilities Master Plan, the university has held an active lease for two parking lots under ownership of Halliburton (listed as "Dresser" in the Facilities Master Plan).
(See “Image 2”): To accommodate student parking needs, the university now uses what was originally the Dresser Wayne employee parking lot ("Main Lot"). The second smaller lot ("Auxiliary Lot") leased by the university is functionally connected to the Main Lot, with the former facility grounds ("Dresser Wayne Site") narrowly separating the two.
According to multiple sources, including the EPA (June 2021) and the SU Facilities Master Plan (Salisbury University, 2015), the university currently wishes to acquire the former Dresser Wayne site after remediation, purchasing for ownership the empty field in addition to both parking lots.
At an unknown time, most likely between 2010-2014, Salisbury University made a "right of first refusal" agreement with Halliburton Company, which gives SU the option to enter a business transaction for the property before other buyers can make offers (Shelton, 2022). This right of first refusal was a one-time fee of unknown monetary value paid to Halliburton by the university, under guidance from the Salisbury University Real Estate Foundation, or SUREF (EPA, June 2021).
As a state entity, Salisbury University cannot legally assist in remediation of any EPA-monitored brownfield on privately-owned land. By paying for a right-of-first refusal in addition to annual leasing fees for the parking lots, the SUREF inadvertently compensates Halliburton for part of the Dresser Wayne site’s financial burden on their company.
Additionally, because the university is legally obligated to maintain a “hands-off” approach to remediation, any mobilization towards this process rests in the power of Halliburton. By choosing to enter a right of first refusal agreement with an institution unable to assist in remediation efforts, Halliburton continues to burden the community with its legacy. If Halliburton decided to sell the land to a private company, making remediation both incentivized and legally acceptable for the new owner, complete cleanup would be much more likely to happen in a timely manner.
As a result of these complications, the Dresser Wayne site is an exemplary study in brownfield legacy, or the long-lasting social and environmental impacts on communities from brownfields (even if remediated). Halliburton’s dealings with the university over the Dresser Wayne site creates a complex ongoing scenario which, at its most optimistic, is morally questionable due to SU’s influence within the community.
In fact, Salisbury University maintains disproportionate financial, social, and political power in the community. In addition to its status as a major employer in the area, the university has around 8,000 undergraduate students, creating significant, ongoing economic impact across multiple sectors. Most housing developments surrounding the campus (and the Dresser Wayne site by proximity) are marketed towards university students, with local businesses receiving considerable revenue from students, faculty, & staff. Real estate surrounding the campus is more valuable to businesses than gold—this is not lost on the SUREF, whose properties noticeably loom ever-closer to the Dresser Wayne site (See “Image 2”).
Because this site is even closer to campus than many other facilities the university has acquired over the years, it seems a no-contest decision for the SUREF to vie for first place in purchasing this lot once declared as “remediated” under EPA standards. In negotiating a right of first refusal with Halliburton, the SUREF assures this active brownfield will become university property as soon as the site is legally sellable under state requirements.
On one hand, this appears to be a logical conclusion for the Dresser Wayne site. The university, an institution which certainly makes enough revenue to build & maintain a new facility atop the Dresser Wayne site, wants to expand its properties for the benefit of its students. The former Dresser Wayne employee lots are already being used for student parking—would connecting the two lots to make one large student parking area truly impact the community in a negative way?
Additionally, if Halliburton did not enter this agreement with the university, selling the land instead to a speculative investor, it would be within the new owner’s power to hold the site indefinitely. As the student body increases, the university’s demand for space would also increase, eventually forcing the SUREF to either buy the property from the new owner at a hefty markup or abandon interest altogether.
Nonetheless, from a community-backed perspective, the university has helped Halliburton craft a borderline-unethical situation over ownership (and, by extension, a timely remediation) of the Dresser Wayne site. Why work towards remediation when Halliburton could simply profit off the university’s leasing fees until, when added to the eventual selling price, meets profit optimization?
Salisbury University, which holds every available resource to back its enterprises, will almost certainly receive ownership of the former Dresser Wayne lot. Though it is by no means the SUREF’s fault the university cannot assist with remediation, nor are they responsible for Halliburton’s painstakingly slow progress towards remediation, this scenario exposes potential improvements in the SUREF’s decision-making. In future endeavors, the SUREF should work more closely with environmental groups & community advocates, including community members themselves, to ensure their decisions promote equity and community engagement.
Once this site is remediated and purchased, the university will also have the power to make a positive impact on the community, depending on its plans for rebuilding (see “What Should be Done?”) On the other hand, some of SU’s ideas for potential redevelopment would serve infrastructure but remain inaccessible to the community (and even some students), such as connecting the parking lots or installing a solar field (Shelton, 2022).
what is being done?
Current groundwater & soil tests from the former Dresser Wayne site still indicate non compliant levels of contaminants under EPA standards. As indicated by the MDE (2022), the site is classified as an active brownfield.
However, this does not mean Halliburton has made no effort towards mitigating contaminants. Since the plant’s 2001 shutdown, DII Industries, LLC—a subsidiary of Halliburton—has conducted tests to determine levels of soil & groundwater contamination left from Dresser Wayne operations. (Note: While DII Industries is a third party contractor and ideally free from bias, DII Industries is under contractual obligations from Dresser [EPA, June 2021]).
In addition to regular testing, DII Industries has overseen a handful of interim (temporary) corrective measures at the site, intended to mitigate direct threats to human health & the environment. For instance, contaminated surface soils containing PCBs and chromium have been removed from the Dresser Wayne site (which, from another perspective, simply moves the problem elsewhere). While this method has resulted in a successful surface-level cleanup, the EPA remains concerned about the high levels of groundwater contaminants, particularly hexavalent chromium (EPA, June 2021).
Current corrective measures for contaminated groundwater underneath the site involve extraction of the groundwater, which is then treated on-site via filtration to remove hexavalent chromium, and finally re-injected back into the ground (EPA, June 2021).
These cleanup processes are not intended to remediate the Dresser Wayne site, but rather to stabilize immediate hazards and exposure potential. Presently, DII Industries is still in the investigative stages for remediation.
However, this does not mean Halliburton has made no effort towards mitigating contaminants. Since the plant’s 2001 shutdown, DII Industries, LLC—a subsidiary of Halliburton—has conducted tests to determine levels of soil & groundwater contamination left from Dresser Wayne operations. (Note: While DII Industries is a third party contractor and ideally free from bias, DII Industries is under contractual obligations from Dresser [EPA, June 2021]).
In addition to regular testing, DII Industries has overseen a handful of interim (temporary) corrective measures at the site, intended to mitigate direct threats to human health & the environment. For instance, contaminated surface soils containing PCBs and chromium have been removed from the Dresser Wayne site (which, from another perspective, simply moves the problem elsewhere). While this method has resulted in a successful surface-level cleanup, the EPA remains concerned about the high levels of groundwater contaminants, particularly hexavalent chromium (EPA, June 2021).
Current corrective measures for contaminated groundwater underneath the site involve extraction of the groundwater, which is then treated on-site via filtration to remove hexavalent chromium, and finally re-injected back into the ground (EPA, June 2021).
These cleanup processes are not intended to remediate the Dresser Wayne site, but rather to stabilize immediate hazards and exposure potential. Presently, DII Industries is still in the investigative stages for remediation.
what should be done?
First, DII Industries should continue performing corrective measures as well as their regular testing. The EPA, to whom DII directly reports, should stay involved—ideally pressing DII Industries to implement formal, time-bound remediation efforts.
Until this site is remediated under EPA standards, it will remain a non-functional brownfield with no potential benefit to the community. DII Industries, the Halliburton subsidiary responsible for testing/cleanup of the Dresser Wayne site, needs to begin mobilizing an official remediation effort as soon as possible.
Below are two potential scenarios for redevelopment of the Dresser Wayne site. While the first is much more likely to happen, the second has the potential to greater benefit the community. Each includes a list, in order from most- to least-beneficial for community equity & engagement.
Until this site is remediated under EPA standards, it will remain a non-functional brownfield with no potential benefit to the community. DII Industries, the Halliburton subsidiary responsible for testing/cleanup of the Dresser Wayne site, needs to begin mobilizing an official remediation effort as soon as possible.
Below are two potential scenarios for redevelopment of the Dresser Wayne site. While the first is much more likely to happen, the second has the potential to greater benefit the community. Each includes a list, in order from most- to least-beneficial for community equity & engagement.
Scenario 1: After remediation, the SUREF successfully purchases the Dresser Wayne site & parking lots. Further development plans do not include childcare facilities or infrastructure posing any risk of exposure to soil & groundwater (such as digging a basement).
1. The site is turned into a solar panel field, which would contribute to sustainable energy on campus but would be of little use to the community.
2. The university builds a new facility for students, particularly focusing on an area/major lacking in quality infrastructure.
3. The university builds a new facility for both student & community use, such as a performing arts center (Shelton, 2022).
4. The university builds a new facility to provide accessible, affordable resources to the community (as well as SU students). Examples include mental health counseling, crisis center/shelter, healthcare, or community resource center.
Scenario 2: The university backs out of the right-of-refusal and Halliburton sells the property to a private company. The new owner successfully manages contamination levels by launching full-scale, intensive remediation procedures, meeting EPA standards within a timely manner. Further development plans do not include childcare facilities or infrastructure posing any risk of exposure.
1. The new owner develops the land to provide goods & services to the community, such as a pharmacy, grocery store, or urgent care facility.
2. The new owner develops the site for goods and services as indicated above, but with the additional intention of providing affordable, accessible goods & services to the community.
3. The new owner develops the site with the intention of providing community-specific resources, equitable in affordability and accessibility. See “Scenario 1” (under #4) for examples.
conclusion
At best, on-site disposal of any dangerous contaminant puts the entire surrounding community at risk for serious illness. To avoid exposure on non-authorized individuals, Halliburton has done what it can to mitigate immediate harms on the community. However, for over two decades, the Dresser Wayne site’s active brownfield status burdens the community in an entirely different way.
Salisbury University is the epicenter for arts & entertainment (not to mention employment and education) within the community, making any close-by space a precious commodity. While choosing SU as the site’s eventual owner has some potential to benefit the community, Halliburton’s exceptional disregard for the city of Salisbury has made itself clear these last two decades. Halliburton must know the university cannot help them remediate their mess—it is the company’s responsibility to do right by the community. When will they start?
additional resources
- “100 Years of Dresser.” (1991). Wayne Division, Dresser Industry records. Local history archives 2016.100, Edward H. Nabb Research Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury University.
- EPA. (2017). Chromium(VI). IRIS Assessments. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=144
- EPA. (2004). Current human exposures under control. RCRA Corrective Action Environmental Indicator for Dresser Industries. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/hh_mdd044147098.pdf
- EPA. (2021, June). Hazardous Waste Cleanup: Wayne Division Dresser Equipment Group in Salisbury, Maryland. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/hwcorrectiveaction/hazardous-waste-cleanup-wayne-division-dresser-equipment-groupsalisbury-md
- EPA. (2018). Mitigation of contaminated groundwater under control. RCRA Corrective Action Environmental Indicator for Dresser Industries. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/gw_mdd044147098.pdf
- EPA. (2021, July). Overview of EPA's Brownfields Program. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview-epas-brownfields-program
- MDE. (2022). Brownfields master inventory, active, by county. Maryland Department of the Environment. https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/land/MarylandBrownfieldVCP/SiteAssets/Pages/BrownfieldMasterInventory/BMI_Active_Jan%202022.pdf
- Salisbury University. (2015). (rep.). Salisbury University 2014-2023 Facilities Master Plan. Retrieved from https://www.salisbury.edu/administration/administration-and-finance-offices/architectural-and-engineering-services-capital-projects/facilities-master-plan/_files/Facilities_Master_Plan_2014-Update.pdf.
- Sentementes, Gus G. (2001). Fuel pump maker to close plant. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2001-03-02-0103020279-story.html.
- Shelton, W. (2022). Personal communication.* https://www.salisbury.edu/faculty-and-staff/wxshelton