0

i.

DATE:

SUBJ:

FROM:

THRU:

TO:

United States Environmental Protection Agency

One Congress Street, Suite 1100

Boston, MA 02114-2023

MEMORANDUM

December 29, 2004

F. O'Connor Superfund Site, Augusta, Maine

Interim Remedial Action Report

Terrence Connelly

Project Manager

Karen Lumino, Acting Chief

ME/VT/CT Superfund Section

Mary Sanderson, Chief

Remediation & Restoration n Branch

Attached hereto is the Interim Remedial Action Report for the F. O'Connor Superfund Site in

Augusta, Maine. As specified by EPA guidance, Close Out Procedures for National Priorities

Sites, OSWER Directive 9320.2-09A-P, January 2000, an Interim RA Report is used for

remedial actions that include technical impracticability waivers because of the long time period

between source control cleanup and achievement of groundwater cleanup goals.

The criteria for EPA approval of an Interim RA Report with a TI waiver include: a remedy with a

waiver of groundwater standards because of technical impracticability; implementation of the

alternative remedy; other construction activities for other components of the operable unit have

been completed and their respective Record of Decision cleanup goals have been achieved; and

a final inspection has been conducted.

The 1989 ROD specified a groundwater extraction system and carbon adsorption treatment to

address the potential future residential risk of ingestion of contaminated groundwater. Following

an evaluation of the technical practicability of restoring groundwater to drinking water quality

within a reasonable time frame, EPA concluded that the selected management of migration

remedy would not achieve the 1989 ROD performance standards. In addition, EPA concluded

that there were no other technologies which could achieve this remedial action objective. EPA

therefore prepared a Proposed Plan in June 2002 to recommend amending the management of

migration remedy. This change in the remedy is documented in the September 2002 ROD

amendment in accordance with Section 117 of CERCLA 42 U.S. C. §9617, and Section

300.435(c)(2)(ii) of the National Contingency Plan ("NCP").

SDMS DocID 000212294
This Interim RA Report for the F. O'Connor Superfund Site documents the construction of the

active oil recovery system and that it is operating as intended. In addition, this Interim RA

Report documents the implementation of the institutional controls and the long-term monitoring

of groundwater and surface water which comprise the remedy described in the September 2002

ROD amendment. And finally, this Interim RA Report provides information on the final

inspection conducted in 2002 for the institutional controls and long-term monitoring program.

The Interim RA Report was prepared by EPA's project manager by incorporating appropriate

sections of documents previously submitted by the Settling Defendants' consultants as well as

EPA's September 2002 Preliminary Close Out Report, September 2002 ROD amendment, and

the September 2002 Five-Year Review Report into the format presented in EPA's guidance.

A signature below indicates approval of this Interim RA Report for the F. O'Connor Superfund

Site.

Mary Sanderson, Chief Date

Remediation & Restoration II Branch
INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT

FOR THE

F. O'CONNOR SUPERFUND SITE

AUGUSTA, MAINE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

1.1 Site Description and Location

1.2 Site History and Investigations

1.3 Prior Remedial Activities

2. Operable Unit Background

2.1 TI Waiver

2.2 September 2002 ROD Amendment

3. Construction Activities

3.1 Institutional Controls

3.2 Active and Passive Oil Recovery

3.3 Long-Term Monitoring

3.4 Five-Year Reviews

4. Chronology of Events

5. Performance Standards and Quality Control

6. Final Inspection

7. Operation & Maintenance Activities

8. Summary of Project Costs

9. Observations and Lessons Learned

10. Contact Information

11. References
Table

1. Oil Recovered from TWA II wells

Figures

1. Site Location Map

2. Site Plan

3. TI Zone

4. Designated Area and Restrictive Covenant Boundary

Appendix

A. Restrictive Covenant
1. Introduction

This Interim Remedial Action Report has been prepared for the F. O'Connor Superfund Site in

Augusta, Maine by EPA's project manager. Included in this section of the Interim RA Report are

brief descriptions of the location, history, and prior remedial activities at the Site. The

information presented in this section has been summarized from the September 2002 ROD

Amendment. The remainder of the report addresses the operable unit background, including the

TI waiver and 2002 ROD Amendment (Section 2); construction activities (Section 3);

chronology of events from completion of the source control (Section 4); performance standards

and quality control (Section 5); final inspection (Section 6); operation and maintenance activities

(Section 7); summary of project costs (Section 8); observations and lessons learned (Section 9);

contact information (Section 10); and, references (Section 11).

1.1 Site Description and Location

The F. O'Connor Superfund Site is located in Augusta, Maine (Figure 1). The site is located on

U.S. Route 17 near the eastern boundary of the city limits of Augusta, Maine, approximately 3

miles east of the Kennebec River (see Figure 1). The 23-acre Site is contained within a 28-acre

property owned by Central Maine Power (CMP) and is bordered by Route 17 to the south, Riggs

Brook to the east, and undeveloped, wooded area to the north and west. The closest residence is

approximately 1000 feet to the west. Additional residential properties are located to the

northwest. On the south side of Route 17 are woods which lead down to Riggs Brook and

associated wetlands. Automotive entry to the Site is limited to a driveway off Route 17, and

there is a gate across the driveway near Route 17 that prevents vehicular traffic. There are foot

trails which enter the Site from the north and west.

Principal features on the property prior to remedial actions included an Upland Marsh, two

surface water impoundments (Upper and Lower Lagoons), three former outdoor transformer

work areas (TWAs), and Riggs Brook (Figure 2). Upon completion of the source control

remedial action for Operable Unit 1 (OU-1) the lagoons were restored as wetlands and the area

encompassing the three TWAs was covered with clean fill, re-graded, and successfully vegetated.

1.2 Site History and Investigations

The site was the former location of transformer salvaging processes, which included stripping

and recycling transformers, some of which contained PCB-contaminated oil. The F. O'Connor

Company operated from the early 1950s through the late 1970s. As a result of releases of

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead, chlorinated polyaromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs) and

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at the site, the site was placed on the National Priorities List

(NPL)inl983.
In September 1989, EPA issued a ROD for the O'Connor site. The barn structure was to be

decontaminated, demolished, and then disposed of off site at appropriate facilities; standing

water and sediments in the two lagoons were to be removed; soils contaminated with PCBs,

PAHs, and lead were to be excavated and treated using solvent extraction; contaminated

groundwater was to be pumped from the soils and bedrock, treated, and then discharged; and,

'sediments and fish in Riggs Brook were to be sampled for ten years.

Performance standards for soil and sediment were set at 1 parts per million (ppm) PCBs, 1 ppm

cPAHs, and 248 ppm lead. Performance standards for groundwater were set at 0.5 parts per

billion (ppb) PCBs, 5 ppb benzene, and 27 ppb 1,4-dichlorobenzene. Performance standards for

the standing water in the lagoons were set at 0.065 ppb PCBs, 1.94 ppb lead, and 87 ppb

aluminum. Performance standards for Riggs Brook sediment and biota were set at 1 ppm PCBs

and 2 ppm PCBs, respectively.

In September 1991, a Consent Decree between EPA and CMP was approved by the U.S. District

Court of Maine. With this Consent Decree, CMP agreed to perform and fund the remedy

selected in the 1989 ROD. One of the components of the remedy was institutional controls on

site groundwater. It was EPA's intent that those institutional controls would remain in effect

until remediation of the groundwater was complete.

The Consent Decree allowed for an evaluation of the solvent extraction technology selected for

the soils. Following this evaluation, EPA and Maine DEP agreed that this technology for the site

soils would not be able to attain the cleanup goals. As a result, in June 1994 EPA issued an

Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) which modified the soil remedy. Soils containing

more than ten ppm PCBs or cPAHS, or, 248 ppm lead would be treated using solvent extraction

technology, and soils containing between one to ten ppm PCBs or cPAHS would be consolidated

into one area onsite and then covered with clean fill brought in from off site. This designated

area is shown on Figure 4. In October 1995, EPA invoked the contingency remedy set forth in

the 1994 ESD. This ESD also included a contingency that allowed for the off-site disposal of

soil and sediment with greater than ten ppm PCBs and cPAHs without first requiring on-site

solvent extraction treatment.

At the same time as the ESD, a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant was executed between CMP

and Maine DEP but not recorded. This Restrictive Covenant was recorded on September 13,

2002 in concurrence with the ROD Amendment. The area covered by the covenant is the 23-acre

Site within the 28-acre property and is shown on Figure 4.

On April 25, 1996, EPA agreed to delay completion of the management of migration (MOM)

design, and to separate the Riggs Brook component from the MOM as a third operable unit (OU3). This was done so that the sampling and analysis for Riggs Brook, the remedial action

required by the ROD, could begin prior to the completion of the MOM design. The source

control (SC) component of the selected remedy was designated as OU-1 and the MOM

component was designated as OU-2.
1.3 Prior Remedial Activities

The source control remedial action (OU-1) was completed in 1997. It began in 1996 with the

cleaning, demolition, and off-site disposal of the barn situated along Route 17, and other site

preparation activities. The second phase of the soil cleanup was completed in 1997. These

activities included the collection and off-site disposal of lagoon water, and the excavation and

off-site disposal of nearly 20,000 tons of soil. An additional 3000 to 4000 tons of soils with

PCBs or cPAHS concentrations between 1 and 10 ppm were placed within the designated area on

site. This area was then covered with a minimum of one foot of clean fill brought in from off

site. The entire site was then graded. Drainage patterns and the on-site wetlands were restored.

An additional 0.4 acre of wetlands was created in the former lagoons as replacement for wetlands

lost as a result of the cleanup activities.

Laboratory tests of samples collected from the bottom and perimeter of the excavation

demonstrated that the excavation had removed the contaminated soil to the performance

standards set in the 1994 BSD. Combined with the operation and maintenance of the soil cover

and monitoring points, the risk to public health from contact with the soil and inhalation of

vapors are addressed.

A more complete description of the source control activities can be found in the September 1998

Source Control Remedial Action report.

The Management of Migration component (OU-2) described in the 1989 ROD included

installation of groundwater extraction wells, installation of a groundwater treatment system,

monitoring of the treatment system, and monitoring the groundwater using selected monitoring

wells.

A pilot-scale aquifer test was performed in August 1992 as part of the pre-design phase. Prior to

the pump test, the presence of a thin layer of oil was noted in one bedrock well. During and after

the pilot-scale test, separate phase oil up to 3.5 feet was noted in three bedrock monitoring wells.

As a result of this aquifer test, in November - December, 1992, additional wells were installed in

both the overburden soils and in bedrock to determine the lateral extent of the separate phase oil

in TWA II and to determine whether separate phase oil was also present in the upland marsh,

TWA I and TWA III. No separate phase oil was found in any of these other locations, and the

PRP's consultant concluded that the lateral extent of separate phase oil was limited to the central

area of TWA II.

Phase 1 of the vacuum-enhanced recovery system (VER) occurred in November - December,

1996. Phase 1 included installation of an extraction well and reinjection wells, and testing of the

system components. The results of this indicated that a constant vacuum could be maintained on

the extraction well, the reinjection wells worked successfully, and response to the pumping was

observed in other monitoring wells up to forty-five feet away.
Phase 2 of the VER began in January 1997 and ended in May 1997, prior to the implementation

of Phase 2 of the Source Control Remedial Action. Phase 2 of the VER included the setup of the

treatment process, an initial two-week operation to determine the optimal vacuum setting, and

then a three-month operation before a month of pulse pumping. The results of these activities

indicated that running the system at five inches of mercury allowed the system to approximate

the recharge to the groundwater flow system and to allow for the stabilization of groundwater

levels. In addition, it was found that the pumping created preferred orientation of groundwater

flow along the bedrock ridge. CMP recommended that no additional active extraction measures

be taken for OU-2.

Following Phase 2, CMP continued to recover free oil from on-site wells passively (that is,

without applying a vacuum to a particular well, instead removing any accumulated oil in the

wells with absorbent materials). From July 1997 to July 2001, a little under seven gallons of

PCB-contaminated oil was recovered.

Phase 3 of the VER operation began in August 2001 and ended in October 2001. A vacuum was

sequentially placed on five wells, the original recovery well and four monitoring wells. This

cycle was repeated until no more oil was recovered. Approximately twenty gallons of PCB-laden

oil were recovered in Phase 3. A summary of oil recovery is presented in Table 1.

As will be discussed below, EPA approved a final Technical Impracticability Report for OU-2 in

June 2002. Following a 30-day public comment period in the summer of 2002, EPA issued a

ROD amendment in September 2002. During the same period, Department of Justice, EPA, and

Central Maine Power began revising the 1991 Consent Decree. An amendment to the Consent

Decree was lodged in U.S. District Courts in Maine in January 2004. Following a public

comment period, it was entered on March 27, 2004.

1.2 Operable Unit Background

The O'Connor site was divided into three operable units in 1996, seven years after the ROD was

signed. The three units are source control OU-1, groundwater OU-2, and Riggs Brook OU-3.

Remedial action for OU-1 was completed in 1997 and EPA, with concurrence from Maine DEP,

signed off on this component with the approval of the September 1998 Source Control Remedial

Action report. The limited action required for Riggs Brook by the 1989 ROD continues to be

carried out.

The groundwater remedy selected in the 1989 ROD included the remedial action objective to

reduce future health risks from ingestion of contaminated groundwater found on the site. This

remedial action objective was to be achieved through the performance of the selected remedy

including pumping wells, a treatment system, and a network of monitoring wells to track

contamination levels. The intent was to pump and then treat groundwater which contained

dissolved PCBs and VOCs and thereby restore the quality of the groundwater.
2.1 Technical Impracticability Waiver

EPA concluded that it was technically impracticable to restore the groundwater within a

reasonable time frame. The remedial action objective in the 1989 ROD had included restoration

of the contaminated groundwater. However, with the 1992 pilot test resulting in the discovery of

separate phase PCB-contaminated oil in the bedrock, the prospect of restoring the groundwater to

drinking water quality became problematic. Ultimately, following additional oil recovery efforts

performed by CMP, EPA concluded that it was technically impracticable (TI) to restore the

groundwater in a reasonable time frame for the following reasons:

• the continued presence of separate phase PCB-laden oil in the bedrock five years after

the successful completion of the source control remedial action;

• the site is located on a topographic high with a relatively thin veneer of clay and till

soils above the bedrock. As such, there is little lateral groundwater flow moving through

the overburden that could desorb the contaminations;

• the presence of residual oil in discrete fractures in the desiccated brown clay and in the

soft, unfractured gray clay represents a long-term source. Surface water infiltrates into the

fractures in the brown clay and is quasi-perched on top of the soft clay, making itself

available for evapotranspiration. Based on historic water elevation data, the quasiperched water table in the brown clay fluctuates as much as 6 to 8 feet during the year.

• the overburden groundwater is confined in the till beneath the clay but the water table is

discontinuous depending on seasonal water levels and bedrock elevation;

• the bedrock surface, as observed during the source remedial action, appeared to be very

competent. Very few fractures appeared to be exposed along the bedrock surface and

none appeared to be able to supply any significant amount of recharge to the bedrock flow

system, nor that might be the entry zone for contaminants to migrate from the overburden

into the bedrock.

• the limited fracture network of the bedrock flow system and limited available recharge

from the overburden limits flow in the bedrock aquifer. Recharge to the bedrock from the

overburden is limited by the low permeability overburden soils and lack of shallow

groundwater in the overburden. Because the bedrock is tight, limited flow moves through

the bedrock system.

When all these factors are combined, they point to a residual contamination within the

overburden where hydrologic flushing is limited, and dispersed contamination in minimally

fractured bedrock which makes any active restoration effort technically impracticable.
2.2 September 2002 ROD Amendment

The 1989 ROD was amended to address the long-term effectiveness and permanence of

maintaining safe drinking water for the population that could be affected by groundwater

contamination; to change the approach to cleanup of the overburden and bedrock aquifers; and to

set up monitoring for both the TI zone and the area downgradient of it.

The September 2002 ROD amendment included the following components:

• institutional controls to prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater;

• active and passive oil recovery from the overburden soil and bedrock;

• establishment of a technical impracticability zone for a limited area of the Site for

PCBs and seven VOCs;

• long-term monitoring of the groundwater to track its progress toward meeting drinking

water standards outside of the TI zone; and

• periodic reviews to evaluate whether this cleanup approach continues to be protective of

human health and the environment.

1.3 Construction Activities

The remedy selected in the September 2002 ROD amendment included institutional controls,

active and passive oil recovery within TWA II, long-term monitoring of groundwater, and fiveyear reviews.

3.1 Institutional Controls

The September 2002 ROD amendment changed the risk management approach from active

restoration of the groundwater through treatment to the establishment of institutional controls and

active recovery of separate phase oil. Specifically, the ROD amendment recognized a restrictive

covenant that CMP placed on the property that prevents use of the groundwater or any activities

that might interfere with the site cleanup without written approval from Maine DEP. This

restrictive covenant is for the entire 28-acre parcel and is attached as Appendix A.

3.2 Active and Passive Oil Recovery

The September 2002 ROD Amendment changed the approach for management of migration from

groundwater extraction and treatment to active and passive oil recovery . As noted above, the oil

extraction system was first implemented in November - December, 1996. Following this

successful testing of the system, the active recovery continued from January - May 1997. Phase

3 of the VER operation began in August 2001 and ended in October 2001. A vacuum was
sequentially placed on five wells, the original recovery well and four monitoring wells. This

cycle was repeated until no more oil was recovered. Approximately twenty gallons of PCB-laden

oil were recovered in Phase 3. Subsequent to this and the September 2002 ROD Amendment,

CMP has operated the active recovery system annually in the August - October period.

In addition to the active oil recovery, CMP continued to recover free oil from on-site wells

passively using absorbent materials to remove any accumulated oil in the TWA II wells.

3.3 Long-Term Monitoring

The Statement of Work, Appendix A of the 2004 Amendment to Consent Decree, specified the

activities which would comprise the long-term monitoring task. The long-term monitoring plan

(LTMP) is a modification of the groundwater and sediment monitoring that has been carried out

at the site beginning in the mid-1990s. The LTMP identifies the sampling locations, frequency

of sampling, and analysis. It has three objectives: monitoring the separate phase PCBcontaminated oil in TWA II; monitoring of the perimeter of the TI zone to demonstrate that the

dissolved contaminant plume is not expanding; and monitoring of the downgradient groundwater

to demonstrate that natural processes are continuing to decrease the concentrations of the

contaminants. Following approval by EPA, CMP switched from the existing monitoring

program to the LTMP.

The monitoring data will be used to verify that contaminant concentrations are decreasing, refine

the time estimates necessary to reach federal and state standards, and support the site conceptual

model that the contaminants are not expanding through the overburden and bedrock.

The current groundwater data indicates that performance standards were attained in the area

downgradient of the TI zone, and in fact, were also attained in the overburden wells within the

TI zone downgradient of the TWA II area.

Similarly, the most current sediment data for Riggs Brook (OU-3) indicates that the performance

standards were attained in nearly all locations (34 out of 36). It is believed that the two sporadic

exceedances represent the heterogenous nature of sediment organic content.

3.4 Five-Year Reviews

As long as contamination remains on site, the Superfund law requires reviews every five years to

evaluate the effectiveness of the implemented cleanup plan. The next five-year review is

scheduled for the summer of 2007.

As part of each five-year review, EPA will review the Site conditions to determine if the cleanup

action is protecting public health and the environment and refine the time estimates necessary to

reach the groundwater standards. The review will also be used to assess the continued

application of the active oil recovery component.
In addition to the evaluation of data relevant to the management of migration, the five-year

review will be used to confirm the protectiveness of the source control component (OU-1). In

addition the next five-year review will assess the ten years of sediment sampling (1997 - 2007),

the ROD remedy for Riggs Brook (OU-3).

4. Chronology of Events

F. O'Connor Superfund Site

F. O'Connor Co. begins operating a salvage and electrical

transformer recycling business on the site

Oil spill on site found to have migrated toward Riggs Brook

Maine DEP conducts additional sampling events at the site,

identifies polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination

EPA conducts sampling events at the site, confirms PCB

contamination

Site placed on National Priorities List (NPL)

EPA issues Unilateral Administrative Order to O'Connor Co.

requiring it to fence 5 acres of the Site and sample and

analyze all drums and tanks on the site

EPA notifies O'Connor and Central Maine Power of their

potential responsibility for contamination at the Site

O'Connor and CMP voluntarily enter into an Administrative

Order by Consent (AOC) with EPA to conduct a Remedial

Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Site

Maine DEP issues an Administrative Order to O'Connor

designating the Site an Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance

Site under Maine law

Maine DEP issues an AOC to O'Connor and CMP

EPA and Maine DEP issue an amended AOC to O'Connor

and CMP. Order extends Site limits to approximately 9 acres

CMP submits a draft RI/FS to EPA and Maine DEP

ROD issued by EPA

CD between EPA and CMP entered into Maine District Court

Early 1950s

Feb 1972

1978& 1982

1982-1984

SeptS, 1983

Dec 21, 1984

April 1985

May 13, 1986

May 19, 1986

June 23, 1986

May 23, 1987

June 15, 1989

September 27, 1989

Septembers, 1991
Maine DEP and CMP sign a Declaration of Restrictive

Covenant

BSD signed

Revised Statement of Work (RSOW) issued

EPA invokes the contingency remedy

Source Control 100% Design completed

Phase 1 of Source Control completed (OU-1)

First sampling of OU-3, Riggs Brook sediment

Phase 1 Vacuum Enhanced Recovery (VER) (pilot)

completed (OU-2)

Phase 2 VER completed (OU-2)

Phase 2 of Source Control completed (OU-1)

Source Control Remedial Action completed

Phase 3 VER completed (OU-2)

TI Evaluation Report approved by EPA

Completion of First Five- Year Review

ROD Amendment issued by EPA

Active oil recovery in TWA II

Active oil recovery in TWA II

Amendment to Consent Decree lodged in Maine District

Court

Amendment to Consent Decree entered in Maine District

Court

Active oil recovery in TWA II

June 1994

July 11,1994

October 20, 1994

October 10, 1995

July 1996

Aug-Oct 1996

October 1996

October 1996

Jan -March 1997

May-Nov 1997

November 11, 1997

Aug- October 2001

June 2002

August 2002

September 2002

Aug - October 2002

Aug - October 2003

January 2004

March 27, 2004

Aug - October 2004

5. Performance Standards and Quality Control

Activities at the Site have been consistent with the ROD, BSD, ROD Amendment and all work

plans. Specifically, the remedial activities associated with the long-term monitoring are being

conducted in compliance with the Revised Statement of Work, Appendix I to the Amendment to
CD. These activities are detailed in the Project Operations plans and are consistent with the

EPA's Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures. Detailed work plans for all

activities including oil recovery and sampling and analyses were reviewed and approved by EPA

prior to initiation of field work. All analytical data has been and will continue to be reviewed

and validated according to EPA approved data validation procedures.

All procedures and protocol utilized during the development and implementation of response

actions are described in the work plans and summary reports submitted for each activity. These

documents are available for review at the EPA Region I Record Center and the Maine DEP.

Additionally, all decision documents are also available at the Lithglow Public Library in

Augusta, Maine.

The QA/QC program utilized throughout the Remedial Action was sufficiently rigorous and was

adequately complied with to enable EPA and the State to determine that analytical results

reported are accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA, consistent

with the ROD, BSD, ROD amendment and RD plans and specifications.

6. Final Inspection

As noted in Section 3.1, institutional controls are a major component of the amended remedy.

On September 13, 2002, a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant on the 28-acre property was

recorded in Kennebec County Registry of Deeds. This covenant, signed by CMP and Maine

DEP, includes restrictions against the use of groundwater or any activity which might disrupt

remedial or monitoring measures without prior written approval from Maine DEP.

In addition, as stated in the 2002 ROD Amendment, should EPA find that this covenant is no

longer protective, effective, or it interferes with the performance of the remedy, additional

institutional controls will be placed on the property.

EPA conducted a final inspection of the Source Control Remediation Action on November 12,

1997, and determined that CMP had constructed the remedy in accordance with the RD/RA plans

and specifications. Additionally, as part of the first five-year review, EPA conducted an

inspection on May 22, 2002. EPA determined that the remedy remains in accordance with the

RD/RA plans and specifications. As a result of the ROD amendment, no additional construction

was required. Most recently, EPA made a site visit on December 15, 2004 that found a steel gate

has been installed across the access road to prevent vehicular access, the oil recovery system and

monitoring wells secured, and there were no indications of any erosion or excavations of the soil

cover over the source control area.

7. Operation and Maintenance Activities

An operation and maintenance (O&M) plan has been implemented to ensure that the institutional

controls are being followed, that they are effective and protective, and that the Site is managed

properly. The O&M plan includes a schedule for monitoring the soil cover, resurveying of the

10
designated area, groundwater and sediment monitoring, and periodic sampling and analysis of the

soil cover over the designated area to ensure its integrity. This sampling will coincide with the

five-year reviews and will consist of a limited number of soil samples collected from about 6-8

inches below the ground surface and analyzed for PCBs.

8. Summary of Project Costs

The F. O'Connor site is a PRP-lead site. In January 1991, the United States and CMP entered

into a Consent Decree under which the PRPs agreed to reimburse the governments for certain

past and future response costs and for natural resource damages, and to perform the remedial

actions selected in the ROD.

The 1989 ROD estimated the source control components costs would be $13,319,000, the

management of migration costs $679,000 and the Riggs Brook component, $223,000.

Post-ROD sampling indicated that the volume of soil and sediment requiring treatment was

substantially greater than estimated in the ROD. This was projected to increase source control

costs by about 85%, or $24 million. With the change in target cleanup levels for PCBs and

cPAHs in the 1994 BSD, the source control component costs were estimated to be about $13.6

million. CMP has stated that the capital costs for SCRA were between $13 million and $14

million out of a total remediation expense of $18 million.

O&M costs for OU-1 include site inspections and site repairs. O&M costs were originally

estimated at approximately $15,000 for year 1 and $3,000 for years 2 through 10. According to

CMP's consultant, costs were initially lower than originally estimated in the O&M plan because

the Site has not yet been mowed (in order to allow the vegetation to establish itself; the TWA II

area has since been mowed ) and the only significant repair work was minor erosion and access

road repair conducted in 1999. These costs do not include the semi-annual site inspections

performed by CMP, CMP labor costs, or the wetland construction monitoring performed by The

Smart Associates.

O&M costs for OU-2 have been limited to the costs of groundwater monitoring. No maintenance

has been required to date for the wells. According to the CMP's consultant, groundwater

monitoring costs are approximately $50,000 per year. There are no O&M costs associated with

OU-3.

9. Observations and Lessons Learned

The Technical Impracticability guidance provides a well-sequenced framework for documenting

one of the six waivers allowed in the NCP. Once all parties recognized that it was technically

impracticable to restore the groundwater to drinking water quality within a reasonable timeframe,

then the necessary components for amending the ROD were all part of the TI evaluation. The

lesson learned was that the relative preciseness of the TI zone was less critical than setting up the

zone for easy long-term monitoring and inspection while still separating the area with free-phase

11
oil from the downgradient area where MCLs are expected to be consistently achieved within the

next ten years.

10. Contact Information

Contact information for the F. O'Connor Superfund Site include the following:

Terrence Connelly

EPA Remedial Project Manager

617918-1373

email: connelly.terry(g).epa.gov

Claudia Sail

Maine DEP Project Manager

207287-7714

email: Claudia.B.Sait@state.me.us

Roy Koster

Central Maine Power

207621-3887

rov.koster(a),cmpco.com

12
11. References

Maine Department of Environmental Protection and Central Maine Power Company, ''Restrictive

Covenant", September 13, 2002.

US Environmental Protection Agency, "Record of Decision Summary O'Connor Company

Superfund Site", September 27, 1989.

, "Consent Decree, United States of America, Plaintiff v. Central Maine Power,

Defendant", September 3, 1991

, "Explanation of Significant Differences for the F. O'Connor Company Superfund Site",

July 11, 1994.

, "Remedial Design/Remedial Action Revised Statement of Work, O'Connor Company

Superfund Site, Augusta, Maine", October 1994 (SOW is appendix A to CD)

, "Invocation of Contingency Remedy for the F. O'Connor Company Superfund Site",

October 10, 1995.

, "Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites - OSWER Directive 9320.2-

09A-P", January 2000.

, "First Five-Year Review Report F. O'Connor Superfund Site", September 2002.

, "Preliminary Close-Out Report F. O'Connor Superfund Site", September 2002.

, "Record of Decision Amendment F. O'Connor Superfund Site", September 2002.

Woodard & Curran, Inc., "Management of Migration Comprehensive Evaluation, O'Connor

Superfund Site", August 1997

, "Final Source Control Remedial Action Report" September 1, 1998.

. "Oil Study in the Upland Marsh Area at the CMP O'Connor Site in Augusta, Maine,"

January 1999

, "1999 Riggs Brook Sediment and Biota Monitoring Report, O'Connor Company

Superfund Site", February 2000

, "2000 Riggs Brook Sediment and Biota Monitoring Report, O'Connor Company

Superfund Site", July, 2001

13
, "Management of Migration Sampling and Analysis Quarterly Report, O'Connor

Company Superfund Site", October 26, 2001

, "2001 Riggs Brook Sediment and Biota Monitoring Report, O'Connor Company

Superfund Site", December 13, 2001

, "Technical Impracticability Evaluation for OU-2 Management of Migration, O'Connor

Company Superfund Site", June 7, 2002

14
F. O'Connor Superfund Site, Augusta, Maine

Interim Remedial Action Report

Table 1: Gallons of Oil Recovered From TWA II Area Wells

Period

Pump Test -

VER

VER Phases I &

II

Source Control

Passive

Collection

VER Phase III

Passive

Collection

Post-ROD

Amendment

VER

Post-ROD

Amendment

VER

Total

1992-1994

1996-1997

1997

1997-2001

2001

2001-2002

2003

2004

OW202B

15.8

0.0

0.0

2.1

1.9

0.1

0.52

NA

20.4

OW204B

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

NA

0.1

ow301B

8.3

0.0

0.0

0.2

4.6

0.0

0.04

NA

13.1

OW-302B

5.7

0.0

0.0

2.3

10.1

1.7

1.67

NA

21.5

RW101

«

26.6

NA

2.4

3.2

0.1

0.19

NA*

32.5

Total

29.8

26.6

0.0

7.1

19.8

1.9

2.4

0.3

87.9

* data for individual wells not yet available
F. O'Connor Superfund Site, Augusta, Maine

Interim Remedial Action Report

Figures
xs^s

t ^«WL *-"'11**£ « . k' J^V • .

^•^£>*33^

52, X.' I***

14^?''^. ** •

1 / o^'* ,

• -VlSITE LOCATION * * Hi .r in nil -i i .MI ... - - 11III mm In mill - --, —t

2500

SCALE

SOURCE USGS TOPOGRAPHIC WAP

AJGUSTA, MAINE / TOGUS POND MAINE

7 5 MIN SERIES, 1988 LAND INFO INTERNATIONAL LTD

2500 5000

FEET

Original includes "oloj- coding

A WOODAPD & CURR ^ f.

SITE LOCATION MAP

CENTRAL MAINE POWER

AUGUSTA MAINE

0 CONNOR COMPANY

SUPERFUND SITE

FIGURE 1
Zn-poj-roi29SOZ 31U

W31 A9 Q3>I03H3

JJd AS N»vaa

AS Q3NOIS3a

NVId 31IS

31IS

ANVdkNOO yONNOOO.O

CM

LU

a:

'visnonv

iJBMOd

5

o

D.

(H

~

o

: ° ! a

Uw I
31 IS QNnjM3dnS

ANVdNOO yONNOOO.O

3NIVN visnonv

y3MOd 3NIVN 1VHLN3D
392^-921^-008-

1 3NIVYN 'dNVTJJdOd

eouaios • BuueeuiSug

H3TI Q3X03H

O

38P

W31 US Q3NOIS3a

1NVN3AOD 3AIJLOmiS3a

QNV AavaNnoa BUS QNnja3dns

3iis

ANVdWOO yONNOOO.O

'visnonv

LUa:
F. O'Connor Superfund Site, Augusta, Maine

Interim Remedial Action Report

Appendix A

Restrictive Covenant
STATE OF MAINE

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ANGUS S. KING, JR. MARTHA KIRKPATRICK

GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER

September 26, 2002

Mr. Terry Connelly

US EPA

Office of Site Remediation and Restoration

ME/VT/CT Superfund Section

One Congress Street

Suite 1100 - HBT

Boston, MA. 02114-2023

RE: Declaration of Restrictive Covenant

O'Connor Junkyard Superfund Site

Augusta, Maine

Dear Terry,

Attached please find a recorded copy of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenant for the O'Connor

Junkyard Superfund Site in Augusta, Maine. This Declaration of Restrictive Covenant was filed

with the Kennebec County Registry of Deeds on September 13, 2002. It was recorded on Book

7058, page 42.

One copy is being provided, as I trust you will make further copies available needed to other US

EPA staff at their request. The original will remain on file here at the Maine Department of

Environmental Protection's main office in Augusta.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me.

Sincerely,

Wilkes B. Harper

Division of Remediation

Bureau of Remediation & Waste Management

cc: Roy Koster, CMP

Dennis Harnish, ME Atty General's Office

AUGUSTA

17 STATE HOUSE STATION BANGOR PORTLAND PRESQUE ISLE

AUGUSTA, MAINE D4333-0017 106 HOGAN ROAD 312 CANCO ROAD 1235 CENTRAL DRIVE, SKYWAY PARK

(207) 287-7688 BANGOR, MAINE 04401 PORTLAND, MAINE 04103 PRESQUE ISLE, MAINE 04769-2094

RAY BLDG., HOSPITAL ST. (207) 941-4570 FAX: (207) 941-4584 (207) 822-6300 PAX: (207) 822-6303 (207) 764-0477 PAX: (207) 764-1507

web site: www.state.me.us/dep printed on recycled paper
0K7058PGOI+ 2

DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT

«*

029592

THE STATE OF MAINE )

) KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT:

COUNTY OF KENNEBEC )

WHEREAS, Central Maine Power Company/ a Maine corporation ("CMP"), is

record owner of two parcels of property located on Eastern Avenue, so-called (State

Route 17) in Augusta, Kennebec County, Maine. Parcel #1 is described in a Deed

from William R. O'Connor to the F. O'Connor Company, dated April 1, 1977 and

recorded in the Kennebec County Registry of Deeds in Book 1987, Page 44. Parcel #2

is described in a Deed from Carroll E. Theriault and Mary J. Theriault to Robert L.

Hussey and Jean C. Hussey, dated August 31,1973 and recorded in the Kennebec

County Registry of Deeds in Book 1670, Page 165; and

WHEREAS, a portion of the aforesaid parcels has been designated as an

Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Site pursuant to 38 M.R.S.A. §§1364 and 1365 by

the Maine Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") and has been listed on

the National Priorities List as a "Superfund Site" by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and is subject to remediation pursuant

to a Consent Decree entered between CMP and EPA; and

WHEREAS, an Agreement, Release and Stipulation entered into by CMP and

DEP requires CMP to file a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant in the Kennebec

County Registry of Deeds in order to ensure the integrity of certain remedial

measures;

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree that the following covenant

shall run with the land and be binding upon CMP and its successors and assigns,

and shall apply to the portion of the CMP parcels described in Attachment A, which

is attached hereto arid made a part hereof, and which affected portion shall

hereinafter be referred to as the "Property" and shall be effective upon the

"completion of the remedial action" by CMP as that phrase is defined and used in

the above-referenced Consent Decree:

X.1*)

-* m 1. Any use of the groundwater beneath the Property shall be prohibited without

^ £ the prior written approval of the DEP.

4 0

-^ 2. Any activity which might disrupt remedial or monitoring measures installed

^ U) pursuant to the Consent Decree shall be prohibited without the prior written

, ^ approval of the DEP.

*•!/

, ^i-S 3. CMP or subsequent owner shall maintain the Property in a condition

o ^ adequate to ensure the continued compliance with all applicable cleanup

31* <4 standards prescribed in, and to ensure the ongoing adequacy of the
8K7G58PGOi» 3

-2-

remediation implemented under the Consent Decree. By way of example,

and not by way of limitation, CMP or subsequent owner shall maintain all

drainage ways, berms, monitoring wells, permeable or impervious caps or

covers (including paved portions of the property and areas covered by topsoil

or other clean fill), piping, pumps and electrical equipment constructed or

installed under the Consent Decree.

4. The parties hereto agree that the restrictive covenant herein shall be

perpetually binding upon the Property, however, if conditions on the

Property change, CMP or any subsequent owner of the Property may petition

DEP for consent to the removal of the restriction on the Property created

hereby and the termination of this Declaration of Restrictive Covenant.

5. The restriction contained herein shall only inure to the benefit of and shall

only be enforceable by DEP. No owner of any property or other third party

shall benefit from the restriction contained herein or have any right or

standing to enforce same.

6. By its execution hereof, DEP acknowledges and agrees mat it has reviewed

and approved of the matters contained herein and that this Declaration of

Restrictive Covenant, upon being filed in the Kennebec County Registry of

Deeds, will satisfy the applicable provisions of the Agreement, Release and

Stipulation it has entered with CMP regarding the Property.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Declaration of

Restrictive Covenant as of the 8th day of . June , 1994.

CENTRAL MAINE POWER COMPANY

By: _

Name: Gerald C. Poulin

Title: Vice President, Generaion

and Technical Support

STATE OF MAINE

KENNEBEC, ss.

June

Personally appeared before me this 8th day of April,- 1994, the above-named

Gerald C , Poulin

 and made oath that the foregoing is true and

correct and based upon his/her personal knowledge.

NOTARY PUBLIC

KARUV E. SWASEY

Notary Public, Maine

My Commission Expires April T, 2007
8K7058PGOU1 4

-3-

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO:

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

By:

Name: Alan T. Prysunka

Title: Director, Bureau of Hazardous Materials & Solid Waste Control

STATE OF MAINE

KENNEBEC, ss.

Personally-appeared before me this f day of April, 1994, the above-named

Mfrn J^Scxn/<£*_. and made oath that the foregoing is true and correct

and based upon his/ke^ personal knowledge.

SEAL

&o

NOfARY PUBLIC /

', tS97
Attachment A

DEED DESCRIPTION

The following described parcel, situated on the Northeasterly side

of State Route 17, locally known as Eastern Avenue, in the City of

Augusta, Kennebec County, particularly bounded and described as

follows:

Beginning at a 1" iron pipe found at an angle point in the

Northeasterly sideline of Eastern Avenue (Bk 4089-p. 269), as

shown on a plan entitled, "Standard Boundary Survey for

Central Maine Power Company, F. O'Connor Superfund Site" by

Coffin Engineering, Revision dated March 22, 1994. Said point

of beginning is also situated S 47°24'45" E of and 52.78 feet

from a 3/4" iron pipe found at the most Southerly corner of

Henry R. & Lillian W. Cox (Bk 1554-p. 126).

Thence N 47°42'03" E a distance of 623.68 feet to a 5/8" rebar

set in a stone wall in the Southwesterly line of Lionel J. &

Raymond A. Rodrigue (Bk 2857-p.34). Said rebar is also

situated S 60°26'23" E of and 251.05 feet from a 5/8" rebar

set in a drill hole at the most Easterly corner of Donald S.

Rodrigue (Bk 4164-p. 336).

Thence Southeasterly along the Southwesterly line of Ridrigue,

and partially following said stone wall, to a 5/8" rebar set

at the Northwesterly sideline of a 100 foot wide transmission

line corridor designated Section #19 (Bk 1117-p. 314) . The

tie line between the two last mentioned rebars is S 60046'07"

E and 1,354.72 feet.

Thence S 35012"18" W along the Northwesterly line of said

transmission corridor, a distance of 386.82 feet to a 5/8"

rebar set.

Thence S 79°45'02" W along the Northerly line of said

transmission corridor, a distance of 824.70 feet to a 5/8"

rebar set in the Northeasterly sideline of Eastern Avenue.

Thence N 40°50'03" W along the Northeasterly side of Eastern

Avenue, a distance of 822.31 feet to a 5/8" rebar set at the

most Southerly corner of land conveyed from Jean E. & Robert

L. Hussey to Central Maine Power Company (Bk 3507-p. 195).

Thence continuing N 40°50'03" along the Northeasterly side of

Eastern Avenue, a distance of 109.00 feet back to the point of

beginning.

Meaning and intending to describe 23.36 acres of land, as

shown on a plan entitled, "Standard Boundary Survey for
8K7058PGOt*6

Central Maine Power Company F. O'Connor Superfund Site" by

Coffin Engineering & Surveying, revision dated March 22, 1994.

All directions are Magnetic 1987, based on a survey entitled,

"Proposed Sale to Augusta Water District" by Coffin

Engineering & Surveying, dated November 9, 1987.

Reserving an easement granted to the State of Maine, recorded

in the Kennebec County Registry of Deeds in Book 3343-p. 221.

Excepting the old Field burial ground which contains about one

eighth of an acre.

The herein described parcel is a portion of land conveyed from

F. O'Connor Co. to Central Maine Power Co., recorded in the

Kennebec County Registry of Deeds in Book 4089-p. 269, and

also a portion of land conveyed from Jean E. & Robert L.

Hussey to said CMPCo., recorded in Book 3507-p. 195.

X:\LHR\DEEDDES.CRN

RECEIVED KENNEBEC SS.

E082SEP 13 PH I* 02