# GE I Consultants , Inc . 5 "Perfun dRecord s Ceme r SITE : *"" * OTHtR :

SUPPOR T FO RSELECTIO N O F THE CONTINGENC Y CLEANU P PLAN SOURC E CONTRO L REMED Y O'CONNO RCOMPAN Y SUPERFUND SIT E AUGUSTA , MAIN E

Supervisin g Contractor : 

### GE I Consultants , Inc . Suffol k Buildin g 5 3 Regiona

l Driv e Concord , Ne w Hampshir e 03301-850 0 (603 ) 224-797 9 Jeffre y A . Klaiber , P.E . Senior Projec t Manager Settlin g Defendant : Central Main e Powe

r Compan y Technica l Service s Department 4 1 Anthon y Avenu e Augusta , Main e 0433 0 (207 ) 626-962

0 Terenc e R . Peacock, P.E . Technica l CoordinatorSupport fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 199 5 TABLE O F CONTENT S

TABL E O F CONTENT S LIS T O F TABLE S LIS T O F APPENDICE S PAG E NO . 1 . OVERVIE W AN D SUMMAR Y 1 2 . INFEASIBILIT Y O F SOLVEN T EXTRACTIO N 3 2. 1 Introductio n 3 2. 2 Implementabilit y 3 2.2. 1 Technica

l Infeasibility 3 2.2. 2 Administrativ e Infeasibility 6 2.2. 3 Availabilit y o f

Service s an dMaterial s 7 2. 3 Cos t

8 3 . SUMMAR Y O F EXPERIENC E A T OTHE RSUPERFUN D SITE S 1 0 3. 1 Introductio n 1 0 3. 2 Solvent

Extractio n Experienc e a

t Other Superfun dSite s 1 0 3. 3 Precedent

fo r Change s to Remedy a

t O'Conno r

Sit e 1 3 3. 4 Summary 1 4 4 . DETAILE D EVALUATIO N O F CONTINGENC Y CLEANU P PLA N 1 5 TABLE S APPENDICE SSupport fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 199 5 LIS T O F TABLE S 1 - Cos t

Compariso n Summary , Sourc e Contro l Remedy (Solven t Extraction ) 2 - Chronologica

l Cos t Compariso n Solven

t Extractio n Remed

y APPENDICE S A - Meetin g Minute s wit h Loca l Official s B - Evaluatio n o f

Alternative sSuppor t fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 199 5 Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Pag e 1 1 . OVERVIE

W AN D SUMMAR Y O n Septembe

r 27 , 198 9 th e U.S . Environmental Protectio n Agenc y (EPA) , wit h concurrenc e fro mth e Main e Departmen t o f Environmenta l Protectio n (MDEP) , issue d aRecord o f Decision (ROD ) fo r

th e O'Conno r

Superfun dSite selectin g solvent extractio n o f

contaminate d soil s greate

r than 1 pp mtota

l polychlorinate d biphenyl s (PCBs ) o r 1 part per millio n (ppm ) tota l carcinogeni c polycycli c aromati c hydrocarbon s (cPAHs) . Afte r thre e year s o f

pre-desig n studie s includin g benc h an dpilot-scal e treatability test s o f solven t extraction , th e EPA , wit h concurrenc e fro mth e MDEP , issue d a n Explanatio n o f Significan t

Difference s (ESD ) o n Jul y 11 , 1994 . Th e ES D retaine d solvent extractio n a s th e preferre d treatmen t

metho d fo r

material s contaminate d wit h PCB s an dcPAH s at th e Site , however , th e targe t

cleanu p goal s wer e adjuste d to 1 0 pp mtota l PCB s an d1 0 pp mtotal cPAHs . Th e ES D als o acknowledge d th e unprove n nature o f full-scal e solven

t extractio n an ddifficult y i n treatin g th e claye y soil s at th e Site an daContingenc y Cleanu p Plan wa s incorporate d h i th e ESD . Th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n specifie s excavatio n an d off-sit e landfillin g o f material s withou t

treatmen t i f EP A an dMain e DE P determin e full-scal e implementatio n o f th e solven

t extractio n sourc e contro l remed y i s no t feasible . Fro mJul y 29 , 199

4 throug h Jun e 28 , 1995 , CM P proceede d wit h Sourc e Contro l Remedial Desig n employin g solven t extractio n treatment . Desig n analyse s identifie d significan t technica l an dadministrativ e implementatio n difficultie s wit h anticipate d full-scal e implementatio n o f

solven t extractio n a

t th e Site . I n addition , i n Apri l 1995 , CM P receive d fina l bid s fro mtw o solvent extractio n vendor s whic h wer e significantl y highe r tha n cos t estimate s previousl y prepare d fo r th e project . Preliminary bid s wer e als o receive d i n Apri l 199 5 fro mremedial actio n contractors , waste disposal facilities , an d off-sit e laboratorie s whic h als o showed greate

r cos t estimate s hi man y o f

th e remedia l requirement s necessar y to support th e implementatio n o f

solvent extraction . I n Jun e 1995 , CM P transmitte d detaile d cos t estimat e informatio n t o EP A an d Main e DE P t o demonstrat

e th e significan t

escalatio n h i cos t

t o implemen t

th e solven t

extractio n remedy . O n Jun e 28 , 1995 , wit h EPA' s concurrence , CM P suspende d 9 5 percen t Remedial Desig n fo r th e solven t

extractio n remed y an daske d EP A t o conside r invokin g th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan . A s requeste d b y EP A o n Jun e 28 , 1995 , CM P present s thi s report t o provid e supportin g documentatio n whic h demonstrate s that full-scal e implementatio n o f solven t extractio n a

t th e

### Suppor t fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 199 5 Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Pag e 2 O'Conno r

Compan y Superfun dSite i s no t feasible . CM P request s EPA' s an dDEP' s concurrenc e wit h thi s determinatio n an dthat th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n fo r th e Site , i n accordanc e wit h th e Explanatio n o f Significan t

Difference s (BSD ) signe do n Jul y 11 , 1994 , b e invoked . Th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan i s consisten t wit h th e statutory requirement s i n th e Nationa l Contingenc y Pla

n (NCP ) sinc e i t

i s protectiv e o f

huma n healt

h an dth e environmen t

an dwil l mee t al l Applicabl e o r

Relevan t an dAppropriat e Requirement s (ARARs) . Thi s repor t comprise s th e followin g sections :

• Sectio n 2 - Infeasibilit y o f solven t extraction ; • Sectio n 3 - Summary o f experienc e at

other Superfun dsites ; an d • Sectio n 4 - Detaile devaluatio n o f th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan . Th e NCP , EPA' s Guidanc e o n conductin g Remedia l Investigatio n an dFeasibilit y Studie s under CERCLA , EPA/540/G-89/00 4 (RI/F S Guidance) , an dEPA' s Guidanc e o n Remedia l Action s fo r

Superfun dSite s wit h PC B Contamination , EPA/540/G-90/00 7 (PC B Guidance ) wer e use dh i preparin g thi s report .Support fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 199 5 Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Pag e 3 2 . INFEASmiLIT Y O F SOLVENT EXTRACTIO N 2. 1 Introductio n Th e BS D state d tha t

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan coul d b e invoke d i f EP A an dDE P determine d tha

t full-scal e implementatio n o f solven t extractio n wa s no t

feasible . Th e followin g subsectio n describe s ho w solven t extractio n treatmen t

o f contaminate d soil s a

t th e Sit e i s no t

feasibl e o n th e basi s o f

implementability an dcost . A s describe d i n th e RI/F S Guidance , implementabilit y i s evaluate d o n th e criteri ao f technica l feasibility , administrativ e feasibility , an davailabilit

y o f service s an dmaterials . Thi s evaluatio n i s base d o n desig n leve l datatha t wa s no t availabl e durin g formulatio n o f th e origina l RO D an dESD . A n evaluatio n o f th e criteri atha t

support th e determinatio n o f

infeasibilit y i s provide d below . 2. 2 Implementabilit

y 2.2. 1 Technica

l Infeasibility Durin g Remedia

l Desig n effort s fro mJul y 29 , 199 4 throug h Jun e 28 , 1995 , engineerin g analyse s wer e performe d t o determin e th e desig n detail s for :

• Soi l screenin g an d crushing ;

• Soi l drying ;

• Soi l blending ;

• Excavatio n sequencing ;

• Storag e an d treatmen t o f excavatio n an d stormwater ; an d

• Solvent

extractio n equipmen t

layout . Th e desig n detail s require d fo r th e abov e activitie s a

t thi s Site are extremel y complex , difficul t t o implemen t

an dinvolv e non-standard application s whic h hav e limite d full scal e demonstrations . Th e followin g problem s were identifie d whic h preven t full scale implementatio n o f

solven t extractio n a

t th e Site :

• Th e claye y Sit e soil i s difficul t t o dry , siev e an d crus h i n orde r t o attai n th e necessar y solven t extractio n pre-treatmen t

requirements .Suppor t fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 199 5 Sourc e Contro l Remedy

Pag e 4

• Claye y soil s ar e inherentl y difficul t t o treat vi asolven t

extractio n eve n i f pretreatment

requirement s are met .

• Limite dare aexist s on-site fo r soil dryin g operation s whic h requir e relativel y leve l groun dsurfac e an dsizabl e wor k areas .

• Al l Sit

e operation s are constraine d b y th e physica l Superfun dboundarie s an d th e requiremen t

t o minimiz e impact s t o an drestore on-site wetlands . Provide dbelo w i s adetaile dexplanatio n o f th e problem s state dabove :

• Soi

l Propertie s an d Pre-Treatmen t Requirement s Pretreatment

o f th e fee dmaterial t o remov e debris , homogenize , an dreduc e th e siz e o f th e soi l particulate s to les s than on e inc h i s require dfo r feedstoc k preparatio n prio r t o solvent extractio n treatmen t

b y Ionic s Resource s Conservatio n Compan y (RCC) . Fo r C F System s (CF) , th e feedstoc k mus t b e les s than 1/

4 inc h prio r

t o treatment . I n addition , i t

i s necessar

y t o dr y th e claye y soil i n orde r

t o separate , sieve , and , i n som e cases , crus h th e materia l t o mee t thes e pretreatmen t

requirements . Aeratio n an dforce ddryin g hav e been evaluate ddurin g th e desig n process . Aeratio n o f th e feedstock

soil s can b e accomplishe dwith afron t en dloader

fitte dwit h an auge r aerator . Thi s dryin g proces s i s slow , wit h highl y variabl e productio n rate s whic h are particularl y sensitiv e t o relativ e humidit y an dweathe r conditions . Operatio n unde r acoveredstructur e equippe dwit h ai r emission contro l equipmen t fo r fugitiv e dus t

an d potentia l VO C emission s may , therefore , b e necessary . Calculation s o f availabl e on sit e spac e reveale dthat

insufficien t

spac e i s availabl e fo r

aeration . Alternately , force ddryin g usin g acommercia l soi l drie r

i s als o no t

feasible . Mos t commercia

l soi l drier s are no t

designe dt o handl e debri s o f greater than 1-inch , no r ca n the y effectivel y dr

y claye y material . Onl y on e U.S . vendo r i s currentl y equippe d wit h apilot-scal e dryin g equipmen t designe dt o handl e claye y soils . Thi s vendo r cannot handl e debri s large r

than 9 niches . Batc h operation s o f thi s commercial drie r woul drequir e ai r

emissio n contro l equipmen t t o reduc e paniculat e an dVO C emissions . I n addition , th e energ y requirement s an dpotentia l uncontrolle dtherma l treatmen t o f Sit e soil s rende r

thi s optio n infeasible .Support fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 1995 Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Page S

• Soil Propertie s an d Solvent Extractio n Performanc e Pilot-scal e treatabilit y testin g b y C F i n 199 2 indicate dpoo r performanc e i n treatin g Sit e soil s t o th e 198 9 RO D cleanu p standardo f 1 pp mPCB s an dcPAH s du e t o inadequate mixing . Thi s informatio n wa s usedt o support th e ES D whic h adjuste dth e PC S an dcPA H treatmen t leve l t o 1 0 ppm . C F conducte dadditiona l pilot-scal e treatabilit y testin g i n Decembe

r 199 4 to demonstrat

e th e anticipate dbette r performanc e o f

thei r reconfigure dmixin g apparatu s usin g hig h shee r an dt o evaluate dewaterin g procedures . C F wa s successful i n improvin g PC B extractio n efficiencies ; however , th e hig h sheer mixe r wa s subjec t

t o hig h rate s o f

erosion . Th e mixe r

neede dt o b e replace dwit h ever y 50 0 pound s o f

soil t o complete pilot-scal e testing . Thi s repeate dmaintenanc e a t full-scal e implementatio n i s expecte dt o seriousl y imped e production . Solven t extractio n technolog y o f

toda y is , therefore , stil l no t

capabl e o f

producin g asyste m whic h efficientl y an deffectivel y mixe s soil . A s afurthe r

measure , C F evaluate dth e mixin g efficiencie s fo r variou s prepare d feedstocks ; dried , slurried , an das-received . Th e stud y showe dthat either dryin g o r producin g asoi l slurry prio r t o treatmen t

resulte di n an evenl y mixe dfeedstoc k withou t clumping . Subsequen t treatability testin g o f

thes e prepare dfeedstock s demonstrate dthat

th e drie dfeedstoc k

ha dth e bes t

treatmen t

efficiency . Th e slurr y als o ha dmoderatel y unprove dtreatmen t efficiency , bu t

no t a s hig h a s th e drie d feedstock . T o eliminat e screenin g an ddryin g th e soil a s apretreatmen t step , adesig n evaluatio n o f

producin g aslurry feedstoc k wa s performed . However , th e evaluatio n indicate dhighe r

cost s an dadditional soi l handlin g problem s a s wel l a s additiona l disposa l o f exces s water . Dryin g o f

th e soi l wa s identifie da s a

n important

pretreatmen t

requiremen t

fo r adequat e mixing . Th e necessit y o f dryin g fo r

mixin g woul drequir e extremel y consisten t moistur e content . Variability i n th e moisture conten t o f th e soil woul dlea

d t o variability i n mixin g (i.e. , clumping ) an dwoul dlikel y resul t i n variabilit y i n treatmen t efficiency . Thi s dryin g requiremen t i s mor e restrictiv e than th e dryin g necessar y t o siev e th e soil t o achiev e maximu mparticl e size . Thi s additiona l requiremen t

compound s full-scal e implementatio n o f solven t extraction . I n addition , fo r

th e C F solven

t extractio n technology , soi l propertie s o f th e treate dsoil are no t suitabl e fo r

backfil l du e to moistur

e content . Thi s wa s determine da s th e resul t o f adewaterin g stud y conducte di n December 1994 . Therefore , CF' s solven t extractio n technolog y wil l als o requir e dryin g o f th e soil post-treatmen t

a s wel l a sSuppor t fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 199 5 Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Pag e 6 dryin g o f th e soi l pre-treatment . Thi s additiona l requiremen t

furthe r contribute s t o th e infeasibilit y o f

full-scal e solven t

extraction , a s adequat e on-sit e spac e i s no t availabl e an dsignificantl y increase dcost s wil l b e incurred . I n summary , applicatio n o f solvent extractio n technolog y to claye y soil s ha s no t bee n demonstrate dt o b e effectiv e o r feasible . T o date , th e curren t availabl e solven t extractio n technolog y canno t overcome th e physica l problem s associate dwit h preparin g o r

treatin g claye y soils . T o compoun dmatters , h i some cases , th e treate d soi l produce db y suc h system s i s no t suitabl e fo r

backfill .

• Physica

l Sit e Constraint s Du e t o th e larg e are aneede dt o dr y th e soil sufficientl y t o allo w fo r screenin g an d crushin g eve n asmal l chang e i n th e averag e dryin g rat e coul dresul t i n alarg e cos t impact . I n addition , th e Site topograph y i s no t conduciv e t o easil y o r

economicall y increasin g th e dryin g area . Th e Sit e utilizatio n requirement s fo r thi s remed y make i t nearl y impossibl e t o economicall y ad danothe r dryin g are ao n th e Sit

e shoul di t

b e necessar y fo r additiona l dryin g o f

soil s prio r

t o treatmen t

o r fo r dryin g o f

soil s post treatment . T o furthe r

complicate th e matter , base do n final solven t extractio n bid s receive di n Apri l 1995 , th e solven t extractio n treatmen t

are a(whic h wa s base d o n preliminary vendo r

information ) prove s t o b e inadequat e an dwil l no t accommodat

e th e additiona

l equipmen t

recentl y identifie db y th e vendor s suc h a s flar e stack , boile r an dcoolin g tower . Du e t o Sit e constraint s includin g th e norther n clea n access , easter n Superfun dSit

e boundary , norther

n propert y lin e an drequire dsetbacks , i t wil l no t b e possibl e t o accommodat e thi s additiona l equipmen t withi n th e Site boundaries .

• Wetland s Constraint s Th e remed y call s fo r

mitigatio n an drestoratio n o f an y impacte dwetland . Specifi c negotiation s with th e U.S . Fis h an dWildlif e Servic e hav e place dan emphasi s o n minimizin g impact s t o th e so-called "Uplan dMarsh" . Thi s ha s place daconstrain t o n th e locatio n o f

th e solven t

extractio n treatmen t

area , support

areas , an d acces s roads . A n are aneede dfo r dryin g an dsolven t

extractio n treatmen t

canno t b e expanded , i n part , du e t o wetlan dimpacts . 2.2. 2 Administrativ e Infeasibilit y Activitie s requirin g coordinatio n with agencie s o n th e loca l leve l are als o contributin g t o th e difficult y i n implementin g th e remedy , thereb y makin g full-scal e solven t extractio n infeasible . A s indicate di n th e documentatio n provide d h i Appendi x A ,Support fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingency Cleanu p Pla n Sourc e Contro l Remed y

. Augus t 4 , 1995 Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Pag e 7 loca l official s hav e indicate dreservation s abou t th e abilit y o f

th e loca l fire departmen t • t o handl e explosio n an d fir e concern s a t th e Site . Independen t

self-sufficien t

fir e protectio n fo r

th e solven t

extractio n equipmen t

wil l b e needed . Loca

l official s ar e als o concerne d wit h th e typ e an d reliabilit y o f fire protectio n tha

t wil l b e proposed . • " Thoug h require di n th e 6 0 percen t desig n specification s (par t o f th e reques t

fo r bid) , solven t extractio n vendor s wer e unresponsiv e h i thei r bid s an ddi dno t

specif y ho w the y woul dmee t

fir e protectio n requirements . Estimation s o f th e availabl e potabl e mwate r suppl y an d potentia l flo w rate s t o th e Sit e indicate that publi c wate r

supplie s necessar y fo r fire protectio n wil l b e inadequate . Unles s alarg e volum e o f fire wate r i s store d on-site either

i n lagoon s o r

h i separate facilities , aself-sufficien t fire protectio n syste mi s no t feasible . Additiona l wate r storag e i s unlikel y give n th e physica l Site constraints . Loca l emergenc y plannin g official s are als o concerne dtha t the y d o no t

hav e adequate trainin g o r

experienc e to respondto explosio n and/o r fire hazard s a

t th e Sit e give n th e • potentia l material s t o b e use db y th e solven t extractio n technologie s (flammabl e triethy l amin e an dexplosiv e propane) .

• 2.2. 3 Availabilit y o f Service s an d Material s The solven

t extractio n bids , receive d b y CM P i n Apri l 199 5 based o n the 6 0 percent * * remedia l design , hav e confirme dth e unavailability o f service s an dmaterial s an dth e lac k o f competition . Basedo n informatio n i n th e EP A VISIT T databas e an dothe r literature available , 1 1 potential vendor s o f solven t extractio n wer e issue daReques t fo r Qualification s (RFQs ) durin g th e 3 0 percent design . Onl y tw o (RC C an dCF ) ou t o f 1 1 potential vendor s were identifie dhavin g a t leas t ademonstrate dcapability a t

—th e pilot-scal e level o n PCBs . Request s fo r bid s wer e issue dt o RC C an dC F at th e completio n o f

6 0 percen t

design . Th e bid s receive dfro mRC C an dC F wer e significantl y front-en dloade d(requirin g CM P t o fun dalarg e portio n o f th e capita

l mcos t withou t asuccessfu l full-scal e performanc e test) indicatin g alac k o f confidenc e b y th e pre-qualifie dvendor s that completio n o f

th e remed y wit h solvent extractio n treatmen t i s feasible . Furthermore , RC C objecte dto receivin g feedstoc k • concentration s greate r than 15 0 pp mPCBs , contrar y to th e specification s whic h calle d fo r feedstock t o astartin g concentratio n o f 20 0 pp mPCBs . Thi s agai n indicate dth e lack o f vendo r confidenc e that

solvent extractio n treatmen t

o f thes e soil s i s feasible . RCC' s bi dwa s wholl y contingen t upo n constructio n an dsuccessfu l implementatio n o f thei r technolog y a

t th e Norwoo dPC B site hi Norwood , Massachusetts . RC C i s • currentl y h i contrac t negotiation s fo r

th e Norwoo dPC B site . Eve n i f th e Norwoo d PC B sit e proceed s wit h RC C a s th e selecte dvendor , schedul e an dresultan t cos t

### Support fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 1995 Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Page S impact s t o th e O'Conno r

Site wil l b e likely . Initiatio n o f th e Sourc e Contro l remed y at th e O'Conno r

Site woul db e delaye dfo r at leas t tw o t o thre e years . Difficultie s i n implementatio n at

th e Norwoo dsit e may exten dthi s schedule . C F als o provide dabi dwholl y contingen t o n constructio n an dimplementatio n o f a treatmen t uni t fo r th e Unite dCreosotin g site i n Conroe , Texas . A t leas t thre e year s ar e estimate dunti l completio n o f that projec t whe n th e equipmen t

wil l become available . Difficultie s i n implementatio n may exten dthi s schedule . C F provide dan alternat e bi do f

$18,965,00 0 (twic e th e cost) i f ane w treatmen t

uni t i s buil t exclusivel y fo r

th e O'Conno r

Site . I n summary , ther e i s n o existin g equipmen t that i s availabl e withi n th e nex t thre e year s t o implemen t

th e Sit e remedy . 2. 3 Cos t O n Jun e 30 , 199

5 CM P transmitte dt

o EPA an dMain e DEP cos t estimate informatio n relate d t o th e solven t

extractio n sourc e contro l remedy . Thi s informatio n illustrate dth e significan t escalatio n hi cos t

estimate s sinc e th e 198 9 RO D cos t estimate . Tabl e 1 represent s acomparativ e summar y o f cos t estimate s whic h wa s include di n th e Jun e 30 , 199 5 submittal . A s show n i n Tabl e 1 th e total estimate dcos t fo r th e solven t extractio n remed y ha s increase dover th e cours e o f

th e projec t

a s follows : 198 9 RO D $13,319,00 0 1992/199 4 BS D $13,622,00 0

• February , 1995 6 0 percen t $24,155,00 0 Remedial Desig n phas e Jun e 1995 Supplementa l 6 0 $28,505,00 0 - $38,335,00 0 percen t Remedia l Desig n phas e A s described i n Section 2.2 , desig n effort s fro mJul y 199 4 throug h Jun e 1995 an dbid s fro m solvent extractio n vendor s an dremedia l contractor s (preliminary bids ) i n Apri l 1995 identifie d an dconfirme dinsurmountabl e difficultie s wit h full-scal e implementatio n o f solven t extraction . Despit e an increas e i n soil cleanup standard s fro m1 pp mt o 1 0 ppm , reducin g th e amount

o f soil.requirin g treatmen t

fro m31,50

0 cubi c yard s (cy ) to 14,52 0 cy , th e overal l uni t cos t employin g solven t

extractio n ha s rise n fro m$330/to n (198 9 RO D estimate ) an d $790/c y (199 4 ES D estimate ) to $2,000/to n (Jun e 199 5 supplementa l 6 0 percen t Remedial

### Suppor t fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 199 5 Sourc e Contro l Remedy

Pag e 9 Desig n phas e estimate) . Tabl e 2 provide s acomparativ e summar y o f soil treatmen t

levels , volumes , an dsolven t

extractio n treatmen t

cost s at variou s projec t

stages . Thes e escalatin g cos t

estimate s reflec t

th e lac k o f commercializatio n o f

solvent extractio n technolog y an dth e misapplicatio n o f atechnolog y wit h extremel y hig h fixe dcost s t o asite with relativel y lo w volum e o f soi l t o b e treated . Th e NC P state s that "cost s that

are grossl y excessiv e compare dt o th e overal l effectivenes s o f alternative s ma

y b e considere da s on e o f severa l factor s use dto eliminat e alternatives " (4 0 CFRPart 300.43 0 (e)(7)(iii) . Further , a s w e mov e forwar dt

o 10 0 percen

t desig n completion , thes e cost s ma y still continu e t

o increase .

.Support fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan Sourc e Contro l Remedy Augus t 4 , 1995 Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Pag e 1 0 3 . SUMMAR Y O F EXPERIENC E AT OTHERSUPERFUND SITE S 3. 1 Introductio n A s describe d i n Sectio n 2 , solven t extractio n ha s experience d difficultie s i n demonstratin g effectiv e treatmen t

durin g ever

y phas e o f stud y o r desig n conducte d a

t th e Site . Whil e i t

ma y b e anticipate d tha

t innovativ e technologie s wil l caus e som e unpredictabl e delay s o r problems , th e difficultie s associate d wit h solven t extractio n hav e becom

e more intractabl e an d mor e costl y a s th e remedia

l effor t ha s move d close

r to completio n o f

design . A s addresse d below , th e poo r performanc e o f

solven t extractio n identifie d throug h th e studie s performe d fo r th e Sit e i s no t atypica l o f Superfun d site s aroun d th e country . 3. 2 Solven

t Extractio n Experienc e a t Othe r Superfun d Site s Solven t extractio n technolog y ha s bee n successfull y employe d onl y twic e a t Superfun d site s a s th e full-scal e treatmen t proces s fo r

treatin g material s containin g PCB s bu t neithe r site i s comparabl e t o O'Connor: 1 Genera l Refiner y Site , Garde n City , Georgi a A full-scal e solven t

extractio n treatmen t

uni t (RCC' s technology ) wa s use d i n 198 6 an d 198 7 t o trea t approximatel y 3,40 0 cubi c yard s o f oil y sludge . The initia

l PC B concentratio n i n th e raw sludg e wa s reportedl y 13. 5 ppm . Th e treate d residual s containe d les s than 0.1 3 pp mPCBs . The typ e o f materia l and concentratio n level s ar e no t comparabl e t o thos e at

th e O'Conno r

Site . Trahan dSite , Tnlsa , Oklahom a A full-scal e solven

t extractio n uni t

manufacture d b y Terra-Klee n Corporatio n treate d concret e rubbl e (estimate d volum e o f les s than 1,00

0 cubi c yards ) containin g 5 t o 10,00 0 pp mPCBs . Afte r

cleaning , PC B concentration s wer e reporte d to b e i n th e rang e o f 0.0 4 t o 10 0 ppm . Again , th e material treate d wa s differen t fro mthat

foun d a t th e O'Conno r

Sit e an d aportio n o f

th e materia

l wa s treate d to standard s greate r than thos e require d b y th e ESD . I n orde r t o trac k th e progres s o f

solvent extractio n at

other Superfun dsite s whic h hav e ha d ROD s issue d fo r

solvent extractio n bu t

whic h hav e no t

begu n remedia l actio n usin g solven t 'EP A "Vendo r Informatio n Syste

mfo r Innovativ e Treatmen

t Technology (VISITT) , "Versio n 3.0 , Databas e Searc

h o n Jun e 5 , 1995 .Suppor t fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 199 5 Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Pag e 1 1 extraction , tw o edition s o f th e EP A Innovativ e Treatmen t Technologies : Annua l Statu s Repor t fo r 199 3 an d 199

4 wer e reviewed . A total o f onl y fiv e site s appear s i n th e 199 3 editio n i n Tabl e 1- 1 fo r

solven t extraction , ou t

o f atota l o f 1,20 7 ROD s signed : * ' • Norwoo d PCBs , M A

• O'Conno r

Co. , M E

• Ewan Property , N J

• Carolin aTransformer , N C

• Unite d Creosoting , T X A sixt h site , Pinette' s Salvag e Yard , wa s formerl y selected fo r solvent extractio n b y EPA . Onl y on e solvent

extractio n RO D ha s bee n issue d sinc e 198 9 - Carolin aTransformer , i n 1991 . A s discusse d i n detai l below , non e o f thes e site s ha s successfull y gon e t o full-scal e remediation . Norwoo d PCB s Based o n a6 0 percen t

design , cost s fo r

solven t extractio n a

t th e Norwoo d site hav e increased fro m$1 6 millio n (198 9 ROD ) to $6 5 millio n (estimate d 9 5 percen t desig n costs) . Rwa n Propert

y Th e Ewa n Propert y site wa s delete d fro mth e Statu s Repor t betwee n 199 3 an d 1994 . Conversatio n with EPA' s remedia l projec t manage r indicate d that

an BS D wa s issue d t o eliminate solvent

extraction , becaus e soi l contaminatio n wa s more localize d tha n wa s though t

whe n th e RO D wa s issue d i n 1989 . Carolin aTransforme r Althoug h th e Remedia

l Desig n i s complete , th e Carolin atransformer , afund-finance d site , ha s n o selecte d treatmen t vendo r an d th e implementatio n o f th e remedy i s o n hold . Th e EP A communit y relation s contac t indicate d that

reques t fo r bid s hav e no t gon e ou t t o vendor s an d that

fundin g fo r

th e projec t

i s uncertain .Suppor t fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 1995 Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Pag e 1 2 Pinette' s Salvag e Yar d Th e Pinette' s Salvag e Yardsite di dno t appea r i n th e Statu s Repor t

fo r 199 3 o r 1994 , becaus e solven t

extractio n faile dt o perfor madequatel y at th e site . A RO D Amendmen t

i n 1993 change dth e remed y fro msolven t extractio n t o acombinatio n o f off-sit e incineratio n an doff-sit e disposal withou t treatment . Unite dCrensntin g Unite dCreosotin g i s alarg e industria l facilit y o f particula r relevanc e t o O'Conno r becaus e th e bi d fro mon e solven t extractio n vendor

for O'Connor , C F System s (CF) , wa s dependent

o n successfu l executio n o f th e remed

y a t Unite dCreosotin g i n Conroe , Texas . Discussio n wit h th e EP A remedia l projec t manage r

reveale d some dissimilaritie s betwee n th e tw o site s whic h coul dsubstantiall y affec t CF' s abilit y t o adequatel y treat

th e O'Conno r

soils :

• Soi l Type : Soi l a t Unite dCreosotin g i s describe da s aclaye y sand , wit h abou t

6 0 percen t

san dan d4 0 percen t

fines . Thi s grai n siz e distributio n woul db e muc h les s susceptibl e to difficultie s i n fee dstock preparatio n than th e clay an dsilt y clay at th e O'Conno r

Site .

• Rati o between Require dFee dStock Concentration s an dTarge t Cleanu p Goals : A t

Unite dCreosoting , require dremoval efficiencie s ar e substantially lower

tha n th e require dremoval efficienc y at O'Connor : Chemica l

cPAH s Dioxi n Non-carcinogeni c PAH s 

### PC P Maximu m Fee d Stoc k Concentratio n 

### 8 0 pp m SOpp b 5,000pp m 

### 42 5 pp m Cleanup

Goa l 

### 4 0 pp m 20pp b 2,00 0 

### pp m 15 0 pp m Require d

Remova l Efficien c 

## y 50 % 75 % 60 % 65 %Suppor t fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 199 5 Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Pag e 1 3 Wit h amaximu mfee dstoc k concentratio n a t

O'Conno r

o f 20 0 pp m PCBs , th e 1 0 pp mtarge t

cleanup goa

l a t O'Conno r

require s 9 5 percen t remova l efficiency ; i f

th e 50-7 5 percen t

remova l efficiencie s fro m Unite dCreosotin g ar e more typical , the n th e 20 0 pp mfee dstock woul donl y b e treate dt o onl y 50-100 pp mPCBs . Othe r Superfun dsite s wher e solven t extractio n ha s bee n selecte dan dabandone dinclud e th e Wid e Beach Sit e i n western Ne w Yor k an dth e Alco aPlan t

site i n Massena , Ne w York . 3. 3 Preceden

t fo r Change s to Remedy a

t O'Conno r

Sit e Tent h Stree t

Dump/Junkyard , Oklahom aCity , O K I n 1993 , EP A issue dan amendmen t t o th e 199

0 RO D fo r

th e Tent h Stree t site followin g submitta l o f a6 0 percen

t desig n cos t

estimate . The 6 0 percent desig n indicate dtha

t the cos t o f th e Remedia l Actio n increase dfro man estimate d$ 4 millio n t o an estimate d$8.12 5 million . EP A state di n th e Amende dRO D that th e actual cos t

"woul dlikel y exceed$1 0 million. " EP A cite dsevera l reason s wh y cost s ha dincrease ds o dramatically , severa l o f whic h ar e comparabl e t o th e situatio n at O'Connor :

• In 1989 , EPA estimate dtha t approximatel y 7,500 cubi c yard s o f soi l containe d greate r than 2 5 pp mPCBs , th e site cleanup standard . Thi s numbe r increased followin g desig n studie s t o an estimate d9,80 0 cubi c yards , a3 1 percen t increase .

• Th e predominan t

soi l typ e at

th e sit e i s clay .

• A n innovativ e treatment technolog y - i n thi s case , KPE G dechlorinatio n - wa s selectedfo r

on-site treatmen t

o f soi l containin g greater

tha n 2 5 pp mPCB s whic h wa s demonstrate dt o perfor mpoorly .

• Substantia

l difficultie s i n implementin g th e innovativ e treatment technolog y wer e encountere ddurin g treatability testing , includin g a"soupy " post treatmen t soi l whic h require dstabilizatio n t o rende r i t suitabl e fo r

backfill. Th e amende dremed y fo r th e Tent h St . Dump/Junkyar di s t o ca p th e soi l i n plac e wit h an improve dca

p consistin g o f

ageomembrane , 3 fee t

o f clay , an davegetate dsoi l layer . Base d o n th e increased costs an d poo r performanc e o f

KPE G dechlorinatio n a

t thi s site , there appear s t o b e precedenc e t o support th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n at th e O'Conno r

Site .

### Suppor t fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n Sourc e Contro l Remedy Augus t 4 , 199 5 

### Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Pag e 1 4 3. 4 Summar

y Solven t extractio n ha s ye t

t o perfor msuccessfull y a t ful l scal e a t

an y Superfun dsit e comparabl e t o th e O'Conno r Site , an dn o solven t

extractio n ROD s hav e bee n writte n sinc e 1991 . I n 198

9 (whe n th e remedy wa s selecte dan dth e RO D wa s writte n fo r th e Site) , EPA may hav e reasonabl y assume dthat solven t extractio n technolog y woul db e full y develope d an dcommerciall y availabl e b y th e earl y 1990s ; thi s predictio n seem s incorrect . Recen t Superfun dprecedent s exis t fo r selectio n o f

non-treatmen t

remedie s whe n previousl y selecte dtreatmen t

technologie s fai l t o perfor ma s anticipated . Th e conclusio n fro mthes e sites ' historie s i s tha t

solven t extractio n i s difficul t

t o implement .

### Suppor t fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 199 5 Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Pag e 1 5 4 . DETAILE D EVALUATIO NO F CONTINGENC

Y CLEANU

P PLA N Th e Jul y 11 , 199

4 BS D provide s fo r

tw o sourc e contro l approaches : 1 . Treatmen t

usin g solvent

extraction ; an d 2 . A Contingenc y Cleanup Plan o f excavatio n an doff-sit e landfillin g withou t treatment . Sectio n 2 describe dth e infeasibilit y o f sourc e contro l usin g solven t extraction . T o support th e selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan , GE I evaluate dsi x alternative s includin g th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan , h i accordanc e wit h criteri aestablishe dh i th e NCP . Thes e si x alternative s were :

• Alternativ e 1 Off-Sit e Landfil l Disposa l o f Soi l wit h Greate

r than 1 0 pp mPCB s (Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan )

• Alternativ e 2 Stabilizatio n

• Alternativ e 3 Vitrificatio n

• Alternativ e 4 Thermal Desorptio n



### • Alternativ e 5 Ca p On-Site

• Alternativ e 6 Off-Sit e Landfil l Disposa l o f Soi l wit h Greater

tha n 5 0 pp mPCB s T o addres s th e statutory preferenc e fo r treatment , tw o alternative s employin g on-sit e treatmen t o f contaminate dsoils/sediment s wer e evaluated . Th e result s o f th e evaluatio n o f thes e alternative s i s provide dh i Appendi x B . Th e resul t o f th e evaluatio n i s tha t

th e Contingenc y Cleanup Plan appear s t o b e th e mos t feasible . Implementabilit y complexitie s an dhig h cos t

estimate s d o no t

suppor t th e applicatio n o f

atreatmen t

remed y t o thi s Site . T o furthe r confir mth e feasibilit y an dpreferenc e fo r th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan over th e curren t solven t extractio n treatment

approach , adetaile devaluatio n o f th e tw o approache s wa s performe dusin g th e nin e evaluatio n criteri aestablishe di n EPA' s RI/F S Guidance . A n expande dcomparativ e evaluatio n b y th e nin e criteri afurthe r supportin g th e Contingenc y Cleanup Pla

n i s provide dbelow . The Stat e acceptanc e an dcommunit y acceptanc e evaluation s wer e approximate dbase do n historical communication s wit h th e State an dcommunity .

### Support fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n Sourc e Contro l Remedy Augus t 4 , 199 5 Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Pag e 1 6 Overall protectio n o f

human healt

h an d th e environment : Th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan woul dresul t i n asimilar

sit e configuration , includin g th e typ e o f residua l material s lef

t on-site . However , th e volum e o f materia l lef

t on-sit e woul ddecreas e becaus e soi l that woul dhav e bee n previousl y treate dan d backfille don-sit e wil l b e dispose doff-sit e withou t treatment . Th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n wil l protec t th e environmen t

b y remediatin g wetlands , usin g acombinatio n o f excavatio n o f

minimall y contaminate darea , wetland s restoration , an dwetland s compensation . Th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan meet s remedia

l respons e objective s previousl y identifie db y EP A fo r th e Site , providin g equivalen t

o r bette r protectio n a s di e curren t

remedy . EPA' s previou s ris k

calculation s fo r

th e ES D indicate dthat

material s lef

t on-sit e wit h les s tha n 1 0 pp mPCB s an d1 0 pp mcPAH s woul dprovid e a n incremental lifetim e cance

r ris k o f les s than 10"* , whic h i s withi n th e limit s o f acceptabl e risk . Complianc e with ARARs : Th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan wil l attai n al l ARARs . CM P acknowledge s that th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan mus t meet al l ARARs . Th e EP A an dMain e DE P hav e previousl y acknowledge dth e acceptability o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan throug h it s incorporatio n int o th e Jul y 11 , 199

4 ESD . Long-ter meffectivenes s an d permanence : Th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan provide s better

long-termeffectivenes s an dpermanenc e du e t o th e smalle r quantity o f

contaminate d( 1 to 1 0 ppm ) soi l remainin g on-site . Th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan wil l reduc e long-term , residual risk s associate d wit h PCB s an dcPAH s a s aresul t o f excavatio n an dtransportatio n o f th e material s exceeding 1 0 pp mt o secur e landfil l facilities . The remainin g cappe d soi l ( < 1 0 ppm ) consolidate di n th e designate dare ai s no t expecte dto resul t i n long-term , advers e impact s to on-sit e groun dwater . Long-ter mmonitorin g an dmaintenanc e requirements , suc h a s periodi c inspectio n o f

ca p integrity , groun dwate r samplin g fro mmonitorin g well s located downgradien t

o f th e cap , an dafive-yea

r revie w o f

di e effectivenes s o f th e selecte dremedy , woul db e unchange dfro mth e curren t ESD . Reductio n o f

toxicity , mobility , o r

volume throug h treatment : Th e Contingenc y Cleanup Pla

n wil l remov e avolum e o f approximatel y 12,70

0 c y o f PCB - an dcPAH - contaminate dmateria l abov e 1 0 pp mi n concentratio n fro mth e Site . Thi s materia l wil l b e transporte dan ddispose da t off-sit e secure landfills . An estimate d9,20 0 c y o f PCB - an dcPAH - contaminate dmateria l

### Support fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 1995 Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Pag e 1 7 betwee n 1 an d1 0 pp mwil l b e consolidate di n th e designate darea , on-site . Thes e quantitie s wer e estimate dusin g in-situ quantitie s includin g debri s an d cobbles , an dincludin g th e quantit y anticipate dt o b e excavate dbeyon dth e delineate dexcavatio n limit s (ove r excavation) . Placemen t

o f soi l beneath th e ca p wil l greatl y reduc e th e mobilit y o f residua l PCB s an dcPAH s (at concentration s o f

les s than 1 0 ppm) , sinc e soi l wil l b e isolate dfro mwind , human derma

l exposur e or ingestion , an dburrowin g animals . Thi s i s the sam e approac h a s th e curren t

solven t extractio n sourc e contro l remedy , wit h th e exceptio n tha

t al l material currentl y abov e 1 0 pp mwoul db e dispose d off-sit e rather than treate dan dbackfille don-site . Therefore , th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n achieve s th e sam

e relativ e amoun t

o f reductio n o f

toxicity , mobility , an d volum e bu t

no t throug h th e NC P preferenc e fo r treatment . Stabilizatio n o f

soi l an dsediment

containin g hig h concentratio n o f lea dshoul d permanentl y reduc e th e mobility o f th e lead . Thi s elemen t

o f th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan i s th e same a s fo r th e solvent

extractio n remedy . Short-ter meffectiveness : Th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan wil l b e effectiv e i n th e short-term . Th e remed y can b e implemente drapidly , wit h appropriat e protectio n o f

worker s an dth e communit y durin g construction . Th e solven t extractio n remedy woul drequire asignificantl y longe r timefram e t o implemen t an dwoul dlikel y pos e mor

e ris k to worker s an dth e community . A s indicate d i n th e documentatio n i n Appendi x A , loca l officials ar e ver

y concerne dabou t fir e an dexplosio n hazardpose db y solven t extraction . Impact s fro m additiona l truc k

traffi c coul db e minimize db y contro l measures . Potential contro l measure s suc h a s contro l o f wor k hour s wil l b e discusse dwit h loca l official s an dwil l b e designe dt o mee t loca l ordinances . Implementability : Th e implementatio n o f th e Contingenc y Cleanup Plan i s technicall y feasibl e an dsignificantl y les s comple x than th e solvent extractio n remedy . Administratively , CM P couldimmediatel y an dquickl y procee d wit h th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan desig n an dimplementatio n upo n EP A an d Main e DE P authorizatio n a s provide dh i th e existin g ESD . A significan t amount o f th e 9 5 percen t

Remedial Desig n fo r

th e solven t

extractio n remed y couldb e readil y incorporate dint o th e desig n o f th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan . B y directl y proceedin g t o th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan curren t desig n an d constructio n resource s couldb e retaine dto efficientl y procee dwit h th e project . Th e anticipate dduratio n o f th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan i s nin e month s to tw o year s compare dt o th e thre e t o fou r year s fo r th e curren t

remed y design .

### Suppor t fo r Selectio n o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n Sourc e Contro l Remed y Augus t 4 , 199 5 Sourc e Contro l Remed y

Pag e 1 8 Cost : Th e cos t

estimat e t o implemen t

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n i s moderate whe n compare dt o th e solven t extractio n remedy . Stat e acceptance : Th e State activel y participate di n th e Jul y 11 , 199 4 ESD , an dcontribute dt o th e developmen t o f th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan optio n i n th e ESD . Basedo n verba l communication s wit h Main e DEP i n Jun e 1995 , CM P believe s Main e DE P support s th e implementatio n o f th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan a

t th e Site . Bot

h EP A an dMain e DE P mus t make th e determinatio n that

full-scal e implementatio n o f th e solvent

extractio n sourc e contro l remed y i s no t

feasibl e at

th e Sit e i n order

t o procee d wit h th e Contingenc y Cleanup Plan . Th e State' s forma l concurrenc e wit h thi s positio n wil l confir mState acceptanc e o f th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan . Communit

y acceptance : Communit

y acceptanc e o f

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n i s anticipate dto b e preferre dto th e curren t solvent extractio n remed y du e to : 

### 1 ) potential fo r

ai r emissio n release s unde r

th e solvent

extractio n remedy ; 2 ) potential fo r

fires/explosion s unde r

th e solven t

extractio n remedy ; an d 3 ) duratio n o f

remedial actio n associate dwit h th e solven t extractio n remedy . Appropriate traffi c control s woul db e neede dt o minimiz e th e additiona l truc k traffi c expecte dunde r

th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan .TABL E 1 - COS T COMPARISO N SUMMAR Y Sourc e Contro l Remed y (Solven t Extraction ) O'Conno rCompan y Superfun d Sit e Augusta , Main e COS T ESTIMAT E (I N THOUSAND S O F DOLLARS ) Pa y Ker n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 Descriptio n Site Wate rTreatmen t Buildin g Genera l Sit e Preparatio n Bar n Demolitio n Lagoo n Modifications , Pumpin g Station , Stor m Wate rControl s Soi l Treatmen t Excavatio n Soi l Handlin g an d Preparatio n Soi l Treatmen t Site Closur e an d Wetland s Off-Sit e Wast e Disposa l Independen t Qualit

y Assuranc e Tea m Healt h an d Safety Verificatio n Testin g Operatio n an d Maintenanc e o f Sourc e Control , Wetland s TOTA L ESTIMAT E 1989 RO D Cos t Estimate" ' Origina l Estimat e

0 1,49 0 5. 6 23 8 176 1,26 9 5,63 5 20 5 2,15 0 0 0 2,15 0 0 $13,31 9 Adjuste d fo r

Inflation 19 1 0 1,75 3 6. 6 28 0 20 7 1,49 3 6,62 9 24 1 2,52 9 0 0 2,52 9 0 $15,66 8 1992/199

4 ES D Cos t Estimate TM Origina l Estimat e

24 9 8 4 4 7 41 5 33 9 44 3 6,35 8 1,166 1,90 3 0 0 2,61 8 0 $13,62 2 Adjuste d fo r

Inflation* " 26 5

9 0 5 0 44 1 36 0 47 1 6,75 7 1,24 0 2,02 3 0 0 2,78 2 0 $14,47 8 Februar

y 199 5 6 0 Percen t Desig n Cos t Estimate' 1 '

1,89 4 1,67 9 4 9 1,21 8 42 1 2,23 4 9,78 7 84 4 2,25 4 8 4 11 4 3,23 1 34 6 $24,15 5 Jun e 199 5

Supplementa l 6 0 Percen t Desig n Cos t Estimate 14 '

2,20 8 3,60 2 10 7 89 8 24 4 96 7 (7) 1 2,928-22,75 8

99 1 2,16 4 8 4 11 4 3,85 2 34 6 $28,505-38,33 5 Notes : 1 . Contingenc

y applie d t o eac h pay ite m wa s 25% . 2 . Contingenc

y applie d t o eac h pay ite m wa s 25% . Costin g wa s provide d t o EP A i n Novembe r1 99 2 an d wa s use d i n suppor t o f th e 199 4 ESD . 3 . Contingenc

y applie d t o eac h pa y ite m wa s 20% . 4 . Contingenc

y applie d t o eac h pa

y ite m wa s 20% . 5 . Adjuste d fo rinflatio n t o 1995 dollar s (17.6 % increase) . Costin g wa s performe d i n 1988 . Sourc e Mean s (1995 ) historica l an d cit y cos t indexes . 6 . Adjuste d fo rinflatio n t o 199 5 dollar s (6.27 % increase) . Costin g wa s performe d i n 1992 . Sourc e Mean s (1995 ) historica l an d cit y cos t indexes . 7 . Lo w numbe rreflects C F System s bi d whic h assume d a schedul e extensio n t o th e O'Conno rprojec t an d us e o f thei runi t fro m Conrail , Texa s project . Th e hig h numbe rreflect s a n alternate bi d fro m C F System s t o buil d an d provid e a uni t fo rth e O'Conno rproject . RCC' s bid s wer e contingen t o n th e Norwoo d project an d wer e withi n th e rang e o f C F System' s bids . GE I Consultants , Inc . Project 9511 2 Augus t 4,199 5TABL E B. I - EVALUATIO N SUMMARY Sourc e Contro l Remedie s O'Conno rCompan y Superfun d Sit e Augusta , Main e Evaluatio n Criteri a

Overal l protectio n of huma n healt h an d th e environmen t Complianc e wit h ARAR s

Long-ter m effectivenes s an d permanenc

e Reductio n of toxicity , mobility , o r volum e throug h treatmen t

Short-ter m effectivenes s

Implementabilit

y

Estimate d Cos

t (Millions o

f Dollars ) Curren t Remed y Solven t Extractio n >1 0 pp m Residua l risk

s minimize d throug h treatmen t an d containment . Satisfie s ARARs .

Moderate . Mino rmanagemen t of Designate d Are a needed . High . Mos

t PCBs an d cPAH s destroyed . Mobilit

y o f remainde risolate d i n Designate d Area .

Low . Extensiv

e stor m wate r control s currentl y scope d t o avoi d impacts t o Rigg s Brook . Lon g projec

t duration . Extensiv e feedstoc k

preparation . Technolog y relativel y undemonstrated . Limite d availabilit

y o f service s t o obtai n competitive (and/o rresponsive ) bids . Confidentia l Busines s Ittfofmotio n Alternative 1 Off-sit e Landfil l (Contingenc

y Remedy ) >10pp m Secur e landfil l wil l minimiz e opportunit

y fo rexposures . Satisfie s ARARs .

Moderate . Mino r managemen t of Designate d Are a needed . Moderate . PCB s an d cPAH s not treated . Mobilit y reduce d b

y placemen t i n a secure landfill . Soi l remainin g on-sit e isolate d i n Designate d Area . Moderate . Shorte r perio d of remediatio n woul d reduc

e impacts . Truckin g risk

s coul d b e minimize d wit h contro l measures . High . Simpl e technology .

11. 3 Alternativ e 2

Stabilizatio n >1 0 pp m Hig h Ksoi l remain s stabilized . Ma y nee d t o demonstrat e that groundwate r ARAR s wil l b e attained . Unknown . Stabilizatio n o f PCB s i s no

t demonstrated . Unknown . No

t demonstrate d tha t PC B mobilit

y ca n b e reduced .

Moderate . Remediatio n coul d procee d rapidly .

Unknown . Whil e physica l stabilizatio n o f clay ca n b e accomplishe d insitu , PCBs ma

y b e unaffected . 11.5 Alternative 3

vitrificatio n >1 0 pp m Residua l risk

s minimize d throug h treatmen t an d containment . Woul d probabl y satisfy ARARs . Ai remission s woul d nee d evaluation . Moderate . Mino r managemen t of Designate d Are a needed . High . Mos

t PCB s an d cPAH s destroyed . Mobilit y of remainde risolate d i n Designate d Area .

Moderate . Consolidatio n o f soi l int o treatmen t cell s wil l minimiz e run-off . Ai r emission s control s necessary . Lo w t o Moderate . Sit e gradin g wil l b e needed . Soi l treatmen t are a preparatio n relativel y unimportant . Limite d full scal e operations . Limite d availability . 17. 9 Alternativ e 4 Therma l Desorptio n >10pp m Residua l risk

s minimize d throug h treatmen t an d containment . Woul d satisf y ARARs . Ai remission s woul d nee d evaluation . Moderate . Mino r managemen t o f Designate d Are a needed . High . Mos

t PCB s an d cPAH s destroye d followin g desorption . Mobilit y o f remainde r isolate d i n Designate d Area . Low . Extensiv e stor m wate rcontrol s necessar y t o avoi d impact s t o Rigg s Brook . Lon g project duration . Low-Moderate . Demonstrate d technology , bu t no t wel l demonstrate d o n clays . Feedstoc k

preparatio n required . 20. 3 Alternativ e 5 Ca p On-sit e > 1 pp m Wil l depen d o n long ter m integrity o f th e cap . ARAR s fo rchemica l wast e landfil l ma

y nee d t o b e met . Low . Lon g ter m ca p integrit y essentia l t o exposur e reduction . Low . N o PCB s o r cPAH s treated . Erosio n mobilit

y reduce d b y cap . High . Remediatio n woul d procee d rapidl y wit h fewe rshort-ter m impacts . High . Simpl e technology .

7. 6 Alternativ e 6

Off-sit e Landfil l >5 0 pp m Secur e landfil l wil l minimiz e opportunity fo rexposures . Satisfie s ARARs .

Moderate . Mino r managemen t o f Designate d Are a needed . Moderate . PCB s an d cPAH s no t treated . Mobilit y reduce d b

y placemen t i n a secur e landfill . Soi l remainin g on-sit e isolate d i n Designate d Area . Moderate . Shorte r perio d o f remediatio n woul d reduce impacts . Truckin g risk

s coul d b e minimize d wit h contro l measures . High . Simpl e technology .

11. 2 Notes : 1 ) Concentration s I n alternativ e description s refe rt

o porychlorinate d biphenyl s (PCBs ) an d carcinogeni c polycycli c aromati c hydrocarbon s (cPAHs) . 2 ) Estimate

d costs obtaine

d fro m Tabl e A.2 . Al l costs includ e a 2 0 percent contingency .

GE I Consultants . Inc . Projec t 9511 2 Augus t 4,199 5TABL E B. 2 - COS T ESTIMAT E COMPARISO N SUMMAR Y Evaluatio n Summar

y Sourc e Contro l Remedie s O'Conno rCompan y Superfun d Site Augusta , Main e Cost Estimat

e (I n Thousand s o

f Dollars ) Cos t Componen t

Site Wate rTreatmen t Buildin g Genera l Sit e Preparatio n Ba m Demolitio n Lagoo n Mod. , Pum p Station , Stor m Soi l Excavatio n Soi l Handlin g an d Preparatio n Soi l Treatmen t Site Closur

e an d Wetland s Off-Sit e Wast e Disposa l Interna l Qualit

y Assurance Tea m Healt h an d Safet

y Verificatio n Testin g O& M o f Sourc e Control , Wetland s Additiona l Desig n Clea n Backfil l Treatabilrt y Testin g Miscellaneou s Additiona l Cost s ESTIMATE D SUBTOTA L Continaenc

v(20% ) ESTIMATE D TOTA L Curren t Remed y Solven t Extractio n >1 0 pp m (Jun e 199 5 Estimate ) 1,839 3,002 8 9 74 8 20 3 80 7 10,60 1 -18,96 5

82 7 1,803 7 0 9 5 3,21 0 28 8

23,582-31,94 6 4.716-6.38 9 28.29 8 - 38.33 S Alternative 1

Off-Sit e Landfil l (Contingenc

y Remedy ) > 1 0 pp m 61 3 1,50 1 8 9 37 4 20 3 0 0 82 7 3,51 9 1 8 4 8 1,070 28 8 300 334 0 200 9,38 4 1.87 7 11.26 1 Alternative 2

I n sit u Stabilizatio n > 1 0 pp m 61 3 1,50 1 8 9 24 9 12 0 0 2,85 0 82 7 45 1 3 5 4 8 1,07 0 28 8 40 0 0 2 5 0 8,56 6 1.91 3 10.479 Alternativ e 3 Vitrificatio n > 1 0 pp m 61 3 1,50 1 8 9 24 9 17 5 0 7,98 0 82 7 45 1 3 5 4 8 1,070 28 8 500 0 6 0 0 13,88 6 2.977 16.86 3 Alternative 4

Therma l Desorptio n > 1 0 pp m 1,83 9 3,00 2 8 9 74 8 20 3 80 7 4,29 4 82 7 1,50 3 7 0 9 5 1,60 5 28 8 500 0 5 0 0 15,92 0 3.38 4 19.30 4 Alternative 5

Ca p On-Srt e > 1 pp m 61 3 1,50 1 8 9 24 9 12 0 0 31 8 41 4 45 1 3 5 4 8 80 3 28 8 40 0 0 0 0 5,32 9 1.26 6 6.59 5 Alternativ e 6

Off-Sit e Landfil l > 5 0 pp m 61 3 1,50 1 8 9 37 4 20 3 0 0 82 7 2,69 4 1 8 4 8 1,070 28 8 300 12 7 0 20 0 8,35 2 1 87 0 10.22 2 Notes :

GE I Consultants , Inc . Pag e 1o f 2 Projec t 9511 2 Augus t 4 , 199 5TABL E B. 2 - COS T ESTIMAT E COMPARISO N SUMMAR Y Evaluatio n Summar

y Sourc e Contro l Remedies O'Conno rCompan y Superfun d Site Augusta , Main e 1 . Th e costs provide d i n thi s tabl e were generate d b y estimatin g th e relativ

e effor t fo reac h tas k

i n compariso n wit h th e curren t remed y an d ar e intended to b e used onl y i n compariso n t

o th e curren t remedy . Th e costs fo rth e curren t remed y ar e based o n preliminar

y contracto rbid s (Apri l 1995 ) an d fina l solvent extractio n vendo rbids . A 2 0 percen t contingenc

y has bee n adde d to th e tota l fo reac h option . 2 . Soi l treatmen t costs includ e mobilization , treatmen t residu e disposa l an d soi l treatment . 3 . Fo ral l Alternatives , an y soi l whic h remains on-st

e an d contain s betwee n 1 part s pe rmillio n (ppm ) an d 1 0 pp m polychlorinate d biphenyl s (PCBs ) an d carcinogeni c polycycli c aromati c hydrocarbon s (cPAHs ) woul d b e moved t o a n on-sit

e Designated Area . 4 . Cos

t o f off-sit e wast e disposa l fo rAlternativ e 1 assume s tha

t soi l contaminate d wit h PCB s les s tha n 5 0 pp m ca n b e classifie d as a specia l wast e an d disposed i n a specia l wast e landfil l (Subtitl e D) . 5 . Th e treatabilrt y testin g cost s fo rAlternative s 2 , 3 , an d 4 ar e base d o n vendo restimates . 6 . Th e soi l treatmen t cos t fo rAlternativ

e 2 i s based o n a vendo restimat e an d actua l remedia l costs fo rothe rsites . 7 . Soi l excavatio n cos t fo rAlternativ

e 2 an d 5 i s fo rmovin g soi l wit h PC B an d cPAH s concentration s betwee n 1 pp m an d 1 0 pp m int o a Designate d Area . 8 . Th e soi l treatmen t cos t fo rAlternativ

e 3 i s a vendo restimate . 9 . Th e soi l excavatio n cos t fo rAlternativ

e 3 i s fo rconsolidatin g soi l prio rto treatmen t an d movin g soi l containin g PCB s an d cPAH s betwee n 1 pp m an d 1 0 pp m int o a Designate d Area . 10 . Landfillin g cost s ar e based o n specia l wast e an d chemica l wast e landfil l transportatio n an d disposa l vendo restimate s o f $70/to n an d $336/ton , respectively . 11 . Th e soi l handlin g an d preparatio n cos t fo rAlternativ

e 4 i s assume d t

o b e th e sam e as th e curren t remedy . 12 . Th e miscellaneou s costs fo rAlternativ e 1 an d 6 ar

e fo rroa d improvement s to Rout e 1 7 to accommodat e additiona l truc k traffic . 13 . Soi l treatmen t cos t fo rAlternativ

e 5 i s fo rstabilizatio n o f soi l containin g greate rtha n 24 8 pp m lead . 14 . Additiona l desig n cost s ar e estimate s fo rcompariso n purposes onl y an d woul d need to b e refine d fo reac h alternative . 15 . Alternativ

e 6 include

s cost s fo rconsolidatin g an d cappin g of soi l containin g betwee n 1 pp m an d 5 0 pp m PCB s an d cPAHs .

Projec t 9511 2 GE I Consultants , Inc . Pag e 2o f 2 Augus t 4,199 5TABL E 2 - CHRONOLOGICA L COS T COMPARISO N SOLVEN T EXTRACTIO N REMED Y Sourc e Contro l Remedie s O'Conno rCompan y Superfun d Sit e Augusta , Main e

Cleanu p standar d Estimate d quantit

y of soi l abov e cleanu p standar d (cy

) Estimate d quantit

y o f soi l abov e cleanu p standard s i n ton s Cos t estimat e - Sourc e Contro l ($) (5

) Estimate d Sourc e Contro l uni t treatmen t cos t ($/ton)^^^^^ ^ 198 9 RO D

1 pp m - PC B 1 pp m - cPA H 24 8 pp m - Lea d 31,500cy< 1X2 > 47,25 0 tons w $15,668,00 0 $33 0 1992/ 1 99 4 ES D 1 0 pp m -PC B 1 0 pp m - cPA H 24 8 pp m - lea d 1 2,26 0 cy" x2 ) 18,39 0 tons 14 ' $14,478,00 0 $79 0 199 5 Jun e Supplementa l

6 0 Percen t Desig n 1 0 pp m -PC B 10ppm-cPA H 24 8 pp m - lea d 14,52 0 cy< 3 > 19,00 0 tons' 5 ' $38,335,00 0 $2,00 0

4 . 5 . Cubi c yard s (cy ) ar e base d o n th e in-sit u soi l volume s plu s th e EPA-develope d factors of 2 0 percen t fo rswel l an d 5 0 percen t fo roverexcavation . Quantit y o f soi l i s highe rtha n tha t estimate d i n 198 9 a s a resul t o f pre-desig n soi l samplin g an d subsequen t revise d estimate s o f exten t o f contamination . C y ar e base d o n in-sit u soi l volume s minu s cobble s an d debri s an d a swel l facto ro f 2 0 percent . Overexcavatio n wa s accounte d fo rb y identifyin g an d estimatin g volume s fo rspecifi c area s anticipate d t o b e excavate d beyon d th e delineate d excavatio n limits . Thi s calculatio n o f quantit y o f soi l abov e cleanu p standard s wa s use d t o b e comparabl e t o th e metho d use d i n th e 198 9 Recor d o f Decisio n (ROD ) an d 199 4 Explanatio n o f Significan t Difference s (ESD) . Assume s a n approximat e facto ro f 1. 5 tons/c y in-situ . Conversio n t o ton s wa s base d o n desig n dat a an d in-sit u uni t weigh t of 12 2 pound s pe rcubi c feet , in sit u wate rconten t o f 25.2 % an d a dryin g t o a plasti c limi t o f 20.2% . Se e Jun e 30,199 5 CM P submittal . Cost s ar e adjuste d fo rinflatio n t o reflect 199 5 dollars .

GE I Consultants , Inc . Projec t 9511 2 Augus t 4,199 5

### APPENDIX A Meetin g Minute s wit

h Loca l Official s

# GE I Consultants , Inc . 5 3 Regiona l Driv e Concord , N H 03301-850 0 603-224-797 9 MEMORANDUM TO : Charle s R . Nickerson , P.E .

Centra l Main e Powe r

Compan y FROM : Boy dP . Smith , C.G . " ' SUBJECT : Meetin g Minute s - Apri l 12,199 5

Emergenc y Respons e Community Relation s Suppor t Plan s O'Conno r

Compan y Superfun dSit e Augusta , Main e Projec t 9435 9 DATE : Apri l 24 , 199 5 Th e purpos e o f

thi s memorandu mi s t o summariz e th e discussion s an daction s resultin g fro ma meetin g hel dat

th e Central Main e Powe r Compan y (CMP) , Anthon y Avenu e offic e i n Augusta , Main e o n Apri l 12 , 1995 . Th e purpos e o f th e meetin g wa s to develo p th e strateg y fo r completio n o f th e Emergenc y Respons e Plan (ERP ) sectio n o f th e Sit e Managemen t

Plan (SMP) fo r

th e O'Conno r

Compan y Superfun dSit

e (Site) . Th e SM P i s containe di n Volum e I o f th e Sourc e Contro l Projec t

Operation s Plan (POP) being prepare da s part o f th e 9 5 percent

Remedia l Desig n fo r th e Site . I n addition , preparatio n o f th e Communit

y Relation s Pla

n (CRP ) an dth e Communit y Relation s Suppor

t Pla n (CRSP ) sectio n o f

th e SM P wa s als o discussed . Th e followin g person s were i n attendance : Central Main e Powe r

Co . (CMP ) • Charle s Nickerso n • Norman dMichau d • Ti mVrabe l GE I Consultants , Inc . • Boy dSmit

h • Lorett aSanfor d

DO C 08 2 AT D31 B Winchester , M A Raleigh , N C Englewood , C O Carlsbad , C A Chicago , I LMemorandu m

Apri l 24 , 199 5 Pag e 2 Emergenc y Respons e Pla n Th e primar y purpos e o f

th e meetin g wa s t o decid e ho w t o addres s concern s raise db y City o f August a(City ) official s concernin g Cit y respons e t o potentia l Sit e emergencies . Primar y concern s o f Cit y official s appea

r t o includ e th e ris k

o f respondin g t o emergencies , suc h a s fir e and/o r seriou s injurie s t o personnel , at ahazardou s wast e sit e wher e contaminatio n exists . However , i t i s unclea r a t thi s tim e wha t

th e exac t natur e an dexten t

o f th e City' s concern s are . I n amemorandu mt o Danie l Spauldin g o f CM P date dMarc h 27 , 1995 , GE I propose dastrateg y whic h include didentifyin g an dcontactin g loca l emergenc y respons e official s fo r inpu t durin g th e developmen t

o f th e ERP . A propose dschedul e fo r meetin g with loca

l official s wa s als o provide d i n th e Marc h 27 , 199 5 memorandum . Thi s schedul e wa s designe dt o mee t th e overal l projec t schedul e fo r

th e submirta l o f

th e 9 5 percen t

Remedia l Design . Th e desirabilit y o f

establishin g aproactiv e positio n wit h regar dt o involvemen t o f th e local communit y wa s agree dupo n durin g th e meeting . I t wa s als o note dtha t

th e potential hazard s durin g th e Remedia l Actio n ar e simila r t o thos e fo r

othe r type s o f existin g industria

l facilities . However , i f

th e Cit y i s unabl e o r

unwillin g t o provid e emergenc y respons e support , CM P ma y expan dit s existin g contract s fo r emergenc y respons e suppor t t o provid e coverag e durin g th e Remedia l Action . CM P i s preparin g th e CR P at th e reques t

o f th e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA) . CM P i s als o preparin g th e CRSP , whic h wil l b e provide dt o GE I fo r inclusio n i n th e SM P fo r submirta l wit h th e 9 5 percen t Remedia l Design . ACTION S Emergenc y Respons e Pla n

• CM P wil l contac t

th e loca l emergenc y respons e plannin g coordinato r t o determin e wh o shoul d b e involve di n emergenc y respons e planning , an dho w t o contac t suc h persons .

• CM P wil l determin e ho w t o establis h communication s wit h th e loca l medi at o distribut e informatio n concernin g Sit e activities . Currentl y anticipate involvin g loca l medi aa t publi c presentatio n o f

final ERP t o local emergenc y responders .

• CM P wil l prepar e aletter to loca l emergenc y respons e official s whic h will include Site backgroun dinformatio n an dareques t fo r ameetin g t o provid e specifie dinpu t to th e ERP . Preparatio n o f thi s letter , i f

necessary , will follo w conversation s with th e loca l emergenc y respons e plannin g coordinator .

• CM P wil l establis h an d maintai n contac t wit h th e loca l community , with suppor t fro mGEI , a s needed .Memorandu m

Apri l 24 , 199 5 Page S Community Relations/Communit y Relation s Support Plan s

• CM P wil l develo p th e CRP an dth e CRSP . Th e CRS P wil l b e submitte dt o GE I fo r inclusio n i n th e 9 5 percen t Remedia l Desig n POP .

• Th e CR P wil l la g behin d th e ER P schedul e t o allo w resolutio n o f majo r loca l hazardconcern s prio r

t o CRP/CRS P publi c meetings . 

### EPS : ca b cc : Nor mMichaud , CM P Ti mVrabel , CM P Lorett aSanford , GE I Jef f Klaiber , GE I

# GE I Consultants , Inc . iMEMORANDU M 5 3 Regiona l Driv e Concord , N H 03301-350 0 603-Z24-797 9 

### TO : Charle s R . Nickerson , P.E .

Centra l Main e Powe r

Compan v , »4H>' M FROM : Jeffre y A . Klaiber , P-E. ^

Boy dP . Smith , C.G . "f? f ; 

### ' ^ -,- , Lorett aM . Sanford , C.E.T . f' , SUBJECT : Meetin g Minute s - Ma y 16 , 199 5 Emergenc y Respons e Plan Sourc e Contro l Projec t

Operation s Pla

n 9 5 Percen t Remedia l Desig n O'Conno r Compan y Superfun dSite Augusta , Main e Projec t 9435 9 DATE : Ma

y 18 . 

### 199 5 Th e purpos e o f

thi s memorandu mi s t o provid e minute s o f ameetin g hel do n May 16 , 199 5 betwee n Centra l Main e Powe r Compan y (CMP) , GE I Consultants , Inc . (GEI ) an dCity o f August a (City ) personnel . Th e purpos e o f th e meetin g wa s t o initiate discussion s betwee n CM P an dth e City with regar dt o th e preparatio n o f th e Emergenc y Respons e Pla n sectio n o f th e Sourc e Contro l (SC ) Projec t

Operation s Pla n (POP) . Th e PO P i s bein g develope dfo r submittal with th e 9 5 percen t Remedia l Desig n fo r

th e O'Conno r

Compan y Superfun dSite (Site) . Th e followin g person s wer e i n attendance : CM P

GEI 

### Charle s Nickerso n

Joan Deerin g Boy dSmit h Lorett aSanfor d

Winchester , M A Raleigh , N C Englewood , C O DO C 08 8 ATD31 B Carlsbad . C A Chicago , I LMemorandu m

Ma y 18 , 199 5 Pag e 2 Cit y

• Richar dDolb y (Director , Cod e Enforcement ) • Nor mArbou r

(Chief , Fir e Department ) A cop y o f

th e meetin g agend ai s attache dan dasummary o f ke y issue s i s presente dbelow :

• C . Nickerso n presente dasummar y o f projec t background , curren t

an dfutur e Sit e conditions , an dprojec t

schedule .

• R . Dolb y an dN . Arbou r state dthat

th e Cit y doe s no t

hav e th e technical trainin g o r equipmen t

necessar y t o respon dt o an emergenc y involvin g hazardou s materials . However , the y d o hav e foa mfir e suppressan t capability .

• Du e t o curren t

liabilit y issues , Cit y personne l ar e forbidde n fro menterin g a n are a wher e hazardou s material s ar e know n t o b e located . R . Dolb y als o indicate dthat Cit y personne l woul dno t

provid e emergenc y service s t o injure dperson s unti l afte r an y necessar y decontaminatio n procedure s ha dbee n performed .

• B . Smit

h an dL . Sanfor dnote dthat ther e ar e severa l level s o f contamination , rangin g fro mdirt

t o polychlorinate dbipheny l (PCS ) oils , tha t risk s t o respons e personne l woul dvary accordingly , an dthat differen t level s o f personne l protectio n an ddecontaminatio n are anticipated . N . Arbou r indicate dthat

thi s issu e shoul db e discusse ddirectl y with ke y personne l i n hi s department .

• R . Dolb y indicate dthat i f additional trainin g wa s provide db y CMP , emergenc y respons e personne l coul dpotentiall y ente r th e Site durin g an emergency . Main e Yanke e currentl y provide s site-specifi c trainin g t o loca l respons e personnel .

• N . Arbou r

indicate dthat

ther e are 3 9 fir e fighters , o f who m2 2 are traine d a s paramedics . Th e curren t leve l o f Fir e Departmen t

trainin g i s throug h th e "operations " level . Additiona l trainin g throug h th e "technician " level o r higher woul db e require dfo r

personne l t o respon dt o ahazardou s materials-relate d emergency . N . Arbou r

als o indicate dthere are severa l Fir e Department

personne l intereste di n furthe r

trainin g fo r

respondin g t o hazardou s material s emergencies , an dthat E dCharle s o f

th e Fir e Department

i s developin g apilo t

programfo r decontaminatin g injure dperson s prio r t o treatment .

• R . Dolb y an dN . Arbou r provide dinformatio n regardin g traffi c contro l an d emergenc y respons e contacts . Traffi c contro l shoul db e coordinate dthroug h Wayn e McCamis h (Chief

, City Polic e Department) . Emergenc y respons e fo r fire an dambulanc e servic e i s coordinate dthroug h central dispatc h (9-1-1) .Memorandu m

Ma y 18 , 199 5 Page 3 I t

i s unclea r

at thi s tim e ho w th e medi awoul db e contacte di n th e even t tha t isolatio n o f

th e Sit e o r

evacuatio n o f

th e surroundin g are ai s required . N . Arbou r indicate dthat

informatio n woul dlikel y b e provide db y central dispatch , o r directl y throug h th e respondin g personnel . R . Dolb y indicate dthat

CM P shoul dpresen t

informatio n t o othe r

Cit y department s durin g on e o f

th e schedule dbi-weekl y staf f meetings . Th e bi-weekl y staf f meetin g i s coordinate db y Kathlee n Fulle r o f th e Cit y Plannin g Department . Th e purpos e o f th e meetin g i s t o discus s upcomin g constructio n an dothe r relate dproject s t o coordinate logistic s an dinpu t fro mvariou s City departments , includin g water , fire , police , planning , school , an dpubli c works . ACTION S Th e followin g action s wer e agree dupon : CM P



### GEI Contac t

th e Cit y t o presen t

Sit e backgroun dinformatio n an dabrie f overvie w o f projec t requirement s that

coul dimpac t

th e City . Th e presentatio n i s tentativel y schedule do n Jun e 7 , 199 5 fro m10:0 0 - 10:3 0 a.m. , immediatel y followin g th e regular bi-weekl y staf

f meeting . CM P wil l contac t th e City o n May 25 , 199 5 t o confir mth e Jun e 7 meetin g time an dlocation . Schedul e afollow-u p meetin g with ke y emergenc y respons e personne l immediatel y followin g th e Jun e 7 , 1995 meeting . Attendee s woul db e identifie da s a n actio n itemo n th e Jun e 7 meetin g agenda . Th e follow-u p meetin g woul db e hel dwithi n approximatel y on e wee

k afte r th e bi-weekly staf

f meetin g to provid e more detaile d informatio n an dreceiv e inpu t fro mke y City respons e personne l o n th e Emergenc y Respons e Plan . Prepar e meetin g minute s fro mMa y 16 , 199 5 meeting . Prepar e draf t agendas , outlin e o f

issues , draf

t informationa l packages , an doutlin e o f presentatio n graphic s fo r bot h meetings . Provid e t o CM P b y Ma y 24 , 199 5 (Desig n Teammeeting) . BPS:ca b Attachmen t

### Centra l Main e Powe rCompan y Meetin g Agend a Ma y 16,199 5 8:0 0 a.m . August a Cit

y Cente r Subject : O'Conno rSit e - Emergenc y Respons e Pla n Attendees : Nor m Arbour , Cit y o f August a Joa n Deering , CM P Dic k Dolby , Cit

y o f August a Charli e Nickerson , CM P Lorett a Marin o Sarrford , G.EJ . Boy d Smith , G.E.I . I . Projec t Backgroun d II . Curren t & Future Sit e Condition s HI . Project Schedul e 

### IV . Emergenc

y Respons e Plannin g A . Regulator

y Overvie w B . Coordinatio n of Service s & Suppor t • Traffi c contro l • Medi a contact • Fir e • Ambulanc e -Contac t (911 ) • Specialist s • Acces s (vehicula r& personnel ) • Contaminan t Informatio n • Safet y equipment • Contac t lis t V . Disseminatio n & Presentatio n o f Emergenc

y Respons e Pla nCentra l Main e Powe rCompan y O'Conno rSite - Projec t Schedul e Anticipate d Yea rPrefec t Statu s 199 5 n o schedule d wor k 199 6 & . 199 7 constructio n sit e wit h activ e earthwor k

( 5 days/week , regula r hours ) 1998 solven t extractio n sit e ( 7 days/week , 2 4 hours/day ) 199 9 passive sit e

u:\jwd\oconnor.sc hAPPENDI X B Evaluatio n o f

Alternative s

### EVALUATIO NO F ALTERNATIVE S The Jul y 11 , 199

4 BS D specifie s excavatio n an doff-sit e disposa l a s the Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan . T o confir mth e appropriatenes s o f thi s Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n an dt o addres s th e statutor y preferenc e fo r

treatment , GE I evaluate dth e genera l feasibility an dcos t

effectivenes s o f si x sourc e contro l alternative s to th e existin g solvent extractio n remedy . GEI' s evaluation s als o considere dother

remedia l activitie s associate dwithi n th e sourc e contro l suc h a s bar n demolition , debri s handling , surfac e wate r management , an dinterfac e requirement s wit h th e Managemen t

o f Migratio n (MOM ) componen t o f th e project . GEI' s evaluations , unles s otherwis e noted , retai n th e curren t soi l cleanu p level s o f

1 0 pp mPCBs , 1 0 pp mcPAHs , an d 24 8 pp mlead . Fo r

th e purpos e o f

subsequent

discussions , remedia

l approache s fo r

PCB s wil l als o addres s th e presenc e o f cPAH s a t th e Site , an dcontinual referenc e to cPA H remediatio n ha s bee n excluded . Th e si x alternative s follow :

Alternativ e 1 - Off-Site Landfil l Disposa l o f Soi l wit h Greater

tha n 1 0 pp mPCB s (Contingenc y Cleanup Plan) : Transpor t th e soil containin g greate r than 1 0 pp mPCB s to landfill s fo r disposal . Th e soil woul db e dispose da s aspecia

l waste (PCB s les s than 5 0 ppm) , a s achemica l waste (PCB s greater

than 5 0 ppm ) o r

a s achemical/hazardou s wast e requirin g stabilizatio n for

lea d(PCB s greate

r than 5 0 pp man dleachabl e lead) . Th e soi l containin g betwee n 1 an d1 0 pp mPCB s woul db e consolidate dinto a Designate dAre aon-site . • Alternativ e 2 - I n Sit u Stabilization : Us e i n sit u stabilizatio n t o immobiliz e th e soi l containin g greate r than 1 0 pp mPCBs . Th e soi l containin g betwee n 1 an d1 0 pp mPCB s woul db e consolidate dinto th e Designate dArea . Soil failin g t o b e adequatel y stabilize dwoul db e dispose dat an off-sit e landfill . I n situ stabilizatio n i s conducte db y mixin g th e soi l wit h Portlan dcemen t and/o r othe r admixture s t o fi x th e contaminant s an dreduc e mobility . T o adequatel y reduc e th e mobility o f th e contaminants , thoroug h mixin g i s required . Th e metho dusedto mi x th e soil wit h th e admixture s wil l determin e ho w unifor mth e resultin g mixtur e is . Base do n th e estimate ddept h o f contaminate dsoi

l a t th e Site , th e soil mixin g coul db e performe dwit h asingl e larg e diameter

auge r ( 6 to 1 2 fee t

i n diameter ) o r

agan g o f

smalle r inter meshe daugers .

• Alternativ e 3 - Vitrification : Us e i n situ vitrificatio n t o trea t th e soi l containin g greater

than 1 0 pp mPCBs . Th e soil containin g betwee n 1 an d 1 0 pp mPCB s woul db e consolidate dinto th e Designate dArea . Soil failin g t o b e vitrifie dwoul db e dispose d at an off-sit e landfill . I n sit u vitrificatio n transmit s hig h voltag e electricity t o th e contaminate dsoi l throug h electrodes . Hea

t generate db y th e resistanc e o f th e soil to th e flo w o f electricity betwee n th e electrode s raise s th e temperatur e o f th e soi l abov e it s

- 1 -

### meltin g point . Whe n cooled , th e resul t i s aglass-lik e materia l whic h i s resistan t t o leachin g an dfurthe r

chemical action . Th e hig h temperature s create db y th e proces s an dth e off-ga s treatmen t syste mdestro y th e PCBs .

• Alternativ e 4 - Therma l Desorption : Us e thermal desorptio n t o treat th e soi l containin g greate r

tha n 1 0 pp mPCBs . Th e soi l containin g betwee n 1 an d 1 0 pp mPCB s woul db e consolidate dint o aDesignate dArea . Soi l whic h faile dt o b e treate dt o 1 0 pp mwoul db e dispose dat an off-sit e landfill . Thermal desorptio n use s hea t t o separat e th e organic s fro mth e soi l i n avapo r form . Th e residual gasse s are coole dt o allo w th e organic s t o condense . Th e condensat e i s the n dispose dat alicense dchemica l waste incinerator .

• Alternativ e 5 - Ca p On-Site : A containmen t measur e whic h woul dinclude i n sit u stabilizatio n o f

th e soi l containin g greate r tha n 24 8 pp mlead , followe d b y consolidatio n an dcappin g o f soi l containin g greate r

tha n 1 pp mPCBs .

• Alternativ e 6 - Off-Sit e Landfil l Disposa l o f Soi l wit h Greate r tha n 5 0 pp mPCBs : Transpor

t th e soi l containin g greate r than 5 0 pp mPCB s t o a chemica l wast e landfil l fo r disposal . Lead-contaminate dsoil requirin g stabilizatio n woul db e dispose da t ahazardou s wast

e landfil l afte r

stabilization . Soi l containin g betwee n 1 an d5 0 pp mPCB s woul db e consolidate dinto th e Designate dArea . Tw o alternative s (Alternativ e 3 - Vitrification , Alternativ e 4 - Thermal Desorption ) coul db e considere dtechnologie s whic h addres s th e statutory preferenc e o f th e Comprehensiv e Environmenta l Response , Compensation , an dLiabilit y Ac t (CERCLA) , at

§121 , (b ) t o permanentl y an dsignificantl y reduc e th e volume , toxicit y o r mobility o f

hazardou s substance s throug h treatment . However , i t shoul db e note dthat

CERCL A §121 , (b ) add s furthe r clarificatio n tha

t thi s i s t o b e don e t o th e maximu mexten t practicable . A s furthe r

discusse d i n thi s subsection , similar

site-specifi c an dtechnology-specifi c limitation s exis t fo r full-scal e implementatio n o f

Alternative s 3 an d4 at

th e Sit e whic h mak e thes e alternative s infeasibl e a s well . Whil e CERCL A §12 1 note s preferenc e fo r treatment , implementatio n ove r th e pas t si x year s o f innovativ e treatmen t

approache s t o PCB-contaminate dmaterial s hav e generall y no t bee n successful . Numerou s solven t extraction , thermal desorption , an dincineratio n project s hav e seen significantl y escalatin g costs , an di n some case s abandonmen t to mor e standard(an d implementable ) remedies . Thes e treatmen t technologie s hav e no t

evolve dt o acommercia

l leve l fo r hazardou s wast e site s a s wa s hope di n th e late 1980s . GE I performe dan evaluatio n o f th e si x alternative s t o determin e th e relativ e feasibilit y an d approximat

e cost s o f implementation . Th e evaluation s wer e performe dusin g seve n o f th e nin e criteri aspecifie di n th e NC P a s follows :

• Complianc e wit h ARARs ; 

### - 2 -

### • Overal l protectio n o f huma n healt

h an dth e environment ;

• Long-termeffectivenes s an dpermanence ;

• Reductio n o f

toxicity , mobility , o r

volum e throug h treatment ;

• Short-termeffectiveness ;

• Implementability ; an d

• Cost . Th e result s o f

th e screenin g are provide dh i Tabl e B-l . Cos t estimate s are provide di n Tabl e B-2 . Whil e initial screenin g o f alternative s are typicall y base do n thre e criteri a (effectiveness , implementability , cost) , th e us e o f th e seven criteri afo r

thi s evaluatio n provide dabette

r mean s to compare alternatives . Fo r discussio n purpose s th e effectiveness , implementability , an dcos t (NC P initial screenin g criteria ) fo r each o f th e si x alternative s i s provide dbelow :

• Alternativ e 1 - Off-site Landfil l (Contingenc y Cleanup Plan ) Th e excavatio n an doff-sit e landfillin g alternativ e (Contingenc y Cleanup Plan ) i s anticipate dto b e effectiv e an dreliable . Short-ter mrisk s to worker s woul db e minima l du e t o th e straightforwar dnatur e o f thi s remedy . Precaution s coul db e take n t o promote safet

y to th e communit

y du e to th e expected additiona l truc k traffic . Th e tim e to implement

thi s remedia

l alternativ e woul dpotentiall y b e significantl y les s than othe r alternatives . Long-ter

meffectivenes s woul db e promote dthroug h th e relocatio n o f th e contaminate dmaterial s t o secur e off-sit e landfil l facilitie s whic h compl y wit h regulatory requirement s fo r containment . Th e excavatio n an doff-sit e landfillin g alternativ e i s readil y implementable . Th e remedia l action couldb e easil

y undertaken . The approac h i s reliabl e andconsistently demonstrate do n other

projects . Administratively , th e curren t ES D provide s th e mechanis mb y whic h EP A an dDE P can determin e that full-scal e implementatio n o f solven t extractio n sourc e contro l remedial actio n a t th e O'Conno r

Sit e i s no t feasibl e an dinvok e th e Contingenc y Cleanup Plan . Thi s woul dminimiz e administrativ e delay s to remediatio n o f

thi s Sit e whic h ma

y hav e occurre d unde r

RO D amendment s o r other avenue s t o chang e th e remedy fo r thi s project . CMP , throug h it s previou s desig n effort s fo r

thi s project , ha s direc t

ongoin g communicatio n wit h numerou s remedia l contractor s wh o coul dimplemen t thi s remedy . Off-sit e landfil l facilitie s exis t that meet curren t regulatory standard s an dhav e sufficien t capacity . 

### - 3 -

### Th e cos t fo r thi s remedia l alternativ e i s moderat e a s compare dt o othe r alternatives .

• Alternativ e 2 - I n Sit u Stabilizatio n Stabilizatio n ma y b e effectiv e a t th e O'Conno r

Superfun dSite . Precedenc e i n successfu l i n sit u o r

e x situ stabilizatio n o f

PCB-contaminate dsoi l i s limited . Th e likelihoo do f

successfu l implementatio n o f stabilizatio n at

th e Sit e i s difficul t

t o predict , especially fo r

clayey soils . Wit

h regardt o technical feasibility , th e reliabilit y o f th e technolog y to fi x PCB s i s relativel y undemonstrate do n other sites . Wit h regar d t o constructability , thi s technolog y couldb e relativel y easil y implemented . A bulkin g o f th e Site soi l volum e woul dneedto b e considere di n fina l Site us e an dgrades . Thi s woul dlikely complicat

e on-sit e wetlan drestoratio n an doff-sit e wetland s replacemen t issues . Fro man administrativ e feasibility standpoint , aRO D amendmen t woul dlikel y b e required , requirin g publi c comment an dextensiv e coordinatio n wit h local , stat e an d federal agencies . Thi s woul dlikel y exten dth e overal l implementatio n schedul e fo r th e project . Thi s alternativ e woul dresul t i n amoderate cos t

a s compare dto other

alternatives . • Alternativ e 3 - Vitrificatio n I n sit u vitrificatio n woul dlikel y b e effectiv e i n reducin g th e toxicity an dmobility o f hazardou s constituent s on-site . Th e reliabilit y o f thi s technolog y t o addres s th e site specifi c contaminant s an dcondition s i s questionabl e du e t o th e unprove n natur e o f full-scal e vitrification . I t i s anticipate dtha t

th e full-scal e implementatio n o f i n situ vitrificatio n woul db e moderatel y difficult . Th e technolog y ha s no t bee n reliabl y demonstrate dfull-scale . Numerou s technical difficultie s woul db e expecte ddu e t o th e unknown s associate d wit h th e technology . Du e t o th e substantia l deviatio n fro mth e curren t remedia l approach fo r

th e Site , aRO D amendmen t wit h an associate dpubli c commen t perio d an dsignifican t

interfac e betwee n local , state , an dfedera l agencie s woul db e expected . Th e resul t woul db e alikel y substantial dela y i n implementatio n o f remedial actio n a

t th e O'Conno r

Site . Th e availability o f service s an dmaterial s t o suppor t an i n situ vitrificatio n implementatio n remed y i s extremel y limited . Th e cos t o f i n situ vitrificatio n i s moderate t o hig h a s relate dt o othe r remedia l alternatives . I n addition , asignifican t contingenc y woul db e expecte dbeyon dvendo r quotation s t o addres s ancillary cost s i n implementin g atechnolog y wit h limite dfull scal e application .

- 4 -

### • Alternativ e 4 - Therma l Desorptio n Therma l desorptio n woul db e marginall y effectiv e fo r thi s Site . I t

woul drequir e an extensiv e perio do f

tim e t o implemen t

du e t o th e claye y natur e o f th e Sit e materials . Materia l bulkin g b y addin g granular materia l woul dlikel y b e require dt o promot e treatment . Extensiv e stor mwate r control s woul db e require ddu e t o th e expecte d duratio n o f

th e project . Additional consideration s woul dnee dto b e mad e wit h regar d t o ai r emissions . Problem s simila r t o thos e fo r

th e curren t

remedy relate dt o soi l pretreatment

handlin g an dspac e restriction s woul db e expected . Therma l desorptio n o f

th e O'Conno r

Sit e material s woul db e difficul t t o implement . Preceden t o n th e fe w thermal desorptio n project s o n cla y material s (Wid

e Beach , Anderso n Developmen t

Company ) ha s no t

show n goo dresult s fro man implementability standpoint . Fro man administrativ e feasibility standpoin t additional coordinatio n effort s wit

h local , stat

e an dfedera

l agencies , woul db e required . A RO D amendment

woul dlikel y b e require dwit h publi c oppositio n t o therma l unit s typical . Th e cos t o f athermal desorptio n remed y woul db e hig h compare dto othe r alternatives , a s support

an dpre-treatmen t

cost s woul db e simila

r t o th e solven t extractio n remedy .

• Alternativ e 5 - Ca p On-Sit e Greater Tha n 1 pp m On-sit e cappin g woul dlikel y b e effective . Protectio n o f worker s an dtimeframe s to implemen t

woul db e positive , an dlong-termeffectivenes s i n term s o f reductio n o f mobility o r

containmen t

woul db e moderate . Thi s alternativ e coul db e readil y implemented . I t coul db e easily constructed . Th e alternativ e woul db e reliabl e t o minimiz e derma l contac t an dinfiltratio n o f

rainfall . Som e restriction s o n futur e Sit

e us e woul db e needed . Lon g ter mmonitorin g woul d b e require ddu e t o leavin g th e wast e material s i n place . Administratively , aRO D amendmen t

an dsignifican t

interfac e wit h local , state , an dfedera l agencie s an dth e community woul db e anticipated . Constructio n service s an d material s ar e readil y available . Th e cost o f thi s alternativ e i s lo w a s relate dto other alternatives . • Alternativ e 6 - Off-sh e Landfil l Disposa l o f Soi l wit h Greater

tha n 5 0 pp m PCB s Thi s alternativ e woul db e relativel y effectiv e wit h highe r concentratio n material s goin g off-sit e t o secur

e landfil l facilities . PC S material s les s tha n 5 0 pp mwoul db e consolidate dan dplace don-site . - 5 -

### Implementabilit y o f thi s remedia l alternativ e fro matechnical standpoin t i s good . Administratively , raisin g th e curren t cleanu p leve l fro m1 0 pp mt o 5 0 pp mwoul d likel y requir e additiona l ris k assessmen

t evaluation s an dpotential reclassificatio n o f futur e Sit e use . Thi s remedia l alternativ e woul dlikel y als o requir e aRO D amendmen t

an dsignifican t

interfac e wit h local , state , an dfedera l agencie s an dth e community . Th e cos t o f thi s remedia l alternativ e i s moderat e a s compare dt o othe r alternatives . Basedo n thi s screenin g leve l evaluatio n o f thes e alternatives , th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan remedy (excavatio n an doff-sit e disposal) i s preferred . Treatmen t alternative s (Alternativ e 4 - Therma l Desorptio n an dAlternativ e 3 - Vitrification ) posses s man y simila r technica l an d implementatio n problem s du e t o Sit e conditions , lac k o f successfu l full-scal e demonstration s an dadministrativ e hurdles . On-site containmen t (Alternativ e 5 - Cappin g > 1 ppm ) an d immobilizatio n (Alternativ e 2 - Stabilization) , whil e technicall y feasibl e an dimplementable , woul dno t

b e a s protectiv e a s th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Pla n an dwoul dlikel y pos e administrativ e challenges . Alternativ e 6 - Off-Sit e Landfillin g o f Material s >5 0 pp man d cappin g th e remainder

o f materia l abov e 1 pp mwoul db e more protectiv e than Alternativ e 5 (Cappin g > 1 ppm) , bu t

woul drequir e raisin g th e cleanu p leve l fro m1 0 pp mt o 5 0 pp mfo r PCB s an dcPAHs . A t

asimilar cos t estimate , th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan i s more protectiv e than Alternativ e 6 . Fo r thes e reasons , onl y Alternativ e 1 - th e Contingenc y Cleanu p Plan ha s bee n carrie d throug h fo r

detaile devaluatio n (se e Sectio n 4 o f report) .

-6 -Dat e ROUTIN G AN D TRANSMITTA L SLI P 

# -1 4 

# - TO : (Name.^ttlc

e symbol , roo m number , " bulldjn g Agenc

y /Post ) /

? 2 . 

## ' f J U 3 . 4 . 5 . —" j Initial s 

# !(? * Dat e 

# * L

Actio n Fil e Not e an d Retur n Approva l Fo rClearanc e Pe rConversatio n A s Requeste d Fo rCorrectio n Prepar e Repl y Circulat e Fo rYou rInformatio n Se e M e Commen t Investigat e Signatur e Coordinatio n Justif y REMARK S

D O NO T us e thi s for m e s a RECOR D o f approvals , concurrences , disposals , clearances , an d simila raction s FROM : (Name . org . symbol , Agency/Post ) Roo m No.—Bldg . Phon e No . 5041-10 2 ' U.S . nrO : 1990-25.'i-31 3 OPTIONA L FOR M 4 1 (Rev . 7-76 ) Piucribtt f b y BS A FPMRI4 1 CFR)101-11.20 6