SUPERFUND RECORDS CTR

J4L Break - bull i

SDMS DocID 4 6 4 1

Superfund Program V ^ Region I New Englaqi^

EPA Pl9n9 Soil and Grotmefwater Cleanup Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site

The Cleanup Proposal

Based upon the detection of significant levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and volatile organic compounds in the soils at the Eastem Surplus Company Superfund site EPA proposes the following early cleanup plan to reduce risk from site contamination

bull Remove the contaminated soil that presents the highest risks to human health and the environment The excavated soil will be transported to an appropriate off site treatment andor disposal facility

bull Pump contaminated ground water from beneath the site remove contaminants from the water and re-infiltrate treated water to the ground

bull Move debrisjunk and sample areas of soils currently covered by debris and remove as needed

More on page 2

How would the cleanup affect the local area Find out about the proposed cleanup plan and how it compares with other cleanup options for the site at a public informational meeting on May 211998 At the meeting EPA will respond to your questions and concerns about the proposed cleanup and how it may affect you

You are invited to participate in evaluating a proposed

cleanup plan for the Eastern Surpltts Superfund Sitetl

Come to the public information ampession on

Thursday Mt^ 211998 at 70OpnLi

td leam-tnore abtout haw you caiiidmmeiU9nt)M^

proposed plian during the 30-day public comment

period

Meddybemps Conmiunity Center RT191

Medd545eraps ME

FormarConuaent Session Wednesday Jline 1019ijgt8

Meddybemps Community Center

Meddybemps Maine

For further information on the meeting call Erin Heskett EPA Community Involvement Coordinator at (617) 565-3033

What do you think EPA is accepting public comment on this proposal from May 22 1998 through June 221998 You dont have to be a technical expert to comment if you have a concem or preference then EPA would like to hear from you before making afinal decision on how to protect your conmiunity

To comment formally you can

bullSubmi t oral comments during the comment portion of the public information session on Wednesday June 101998 (see page 6 for details)

bull S e n d written comments postmarked no later than June 22 to

Edward Hathaway Remedial Project Manager USEPA Region 1 HBT JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203

bullE-mail comments to hathawayedepamailepago by June 22

lt t

A Closer Look at EPAs Proposal y ^ ERAS proposal involves the excavation and removal of contaminated sotis that represent a

threat to public health and the environment The PCBs In the soils represent a direct contact threat to humans and are a significant potential ecological threat The volatile organic compounds (VOCs) [tetrachloroethene (PCE) trichloroethane (TCE) and methylene chloride] represent a threat to future users of the groundwater

The goal of the EPAs proposed cleanup is to remove the source of contamination in the surface soils and groundwater An interim groundwater control system has also been included in this action to prevent offsite migration of contaminated groundwater The major cleanup activities are described below

Site clearing sampling and contamination 5 Pump and treat groundwater from beneath the delineation site (See Figure 2)

bull A Site office and mobile laboratory will be bull Pump contaminated groundwater from the area established to support the field activities of contamination in the northem portion ofthe

Site Approximately six bedrock extraction bull The Site will be stabilized to minimize any soil wells will be installed to withdraw groundwater

erosion into the Dennys River or Meddybemps The estimated flow rate would be 7 gallons per Lake minute

bull Debris and vegetation will be removed from bull Run the contaminated water through an on-Site excavation areas or from the groundwater carbon treatment unit to remove any organic extraction system location contamination in the water Two carbon filters

would be used to retum the groundwater to bull Soil sampling excavation (if needed) and drinking water standards The carbon will

removal will be performed in areas that were collect the contamination and when spent will formerly covered with debris be eventually sent off-Site for recycling or

disposal o bull Buildings on the Site will be removed to allow for

sampling and excavation beneath the foundations bull The clean (treated) groundwater will be discharged back into the ground through an

bull Traffic control and air monitoring programs will infiltration gallery (similar to a septic leach be established field)

2 Remove soil that presents the highest risks to bull The groundwater system would be operated until human health and the environment (See Figure 1) the long-term cleanup action is determined in a

Record of Decision which is expected to be bull Excavate soil wherever polychlorinated biphenyls signed in 1999

(PCBs) tetrachloroethylene (PCE) trichloroethane (TCE) or methylene chloride are Cost present at levels that could threaten public health

bull The total cost of this action is estimated to be bull Transport the soils to an appropriate off-Site $25 million

treatment andor disposal facility It is estimated that there are 1100 cubic yards of soils Schedule contaminated with PCBs and 3300 cubic yards of soils contaminated with VOCs bull The excavation and sampling work should be

completed in 1998 and the Site restoration and groundwater system would terminate by the end of 1999

L E G E N D

APPN0XMA1E 9 1 t BOUNDARY t ^ MEDDYBEMPS LAKE s o n s TO BE EXCAVATED DISPOSED OF AT A RCRA C FAOUTV

SOUS TO BE EXCAVATED DISPOSED OF AT A NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE FAOUTY

nSCRElE HOT SPOT LOCADONS TO BE EXCAVATED k DISPOSED OF AT A N O N shyHAZARDOUS WASTE FAOUTY

SITE LOCATION

FIGURE 1 SC2 - EXCAVATION amp OFF-SITE DISPOSAL EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY - NPL SITEj

^^raquoHi

p S p ^ p i i E A S T E R N SURPLUS COMPANY - NPL SITE

Scope and Role of Action

The Superfund law allows EPA to implement cleanup actions under the removal or remedial authorities specified in the statute The approach selected depends upon a variety of factors Removal actions are often used to respond to emergency or time critical situations

EPA may however perform a removal action at a site when prompt action is necessary but more than six months of planning and preparation time is available before on-Site cleanup work must begin Such a removal is called a non-time critical removal action (NTCRA)

EPA issued Information Update 9 to describe the generic NTCRA process The soil contamination at the Site qualifies for a NTCRA because rapid control ofthe source material is necessary to protect the surrounding environment and conmiunity and to prevent further contamination ofthe groundwater A study called the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis EECA has been prepared to evaluate different options for controlling the source of contamination

A NTCRA does not always result in an actual physical removal of contamination from a site for offsite disposal

Rather a NTCRA may involve various treatment or containment technologies to deal with the contamination on-Site

A common theme for NTCRAs is that EPA will generally use this authority to accelerate its response to address the source ofthe contamination at a site This is consistent with EPAs Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) EPA developed the SACM model to speed up Superfund cleanups and make them more timely and efficient In particular the SACM authorizes the use of removal and remedial authorities earlier in the Superfimd process to achieve rapid risk reduction as compared with more traditional Superfund cleanups

At the Eastem Surplus site EPA will use the NTCRA authority and the SACM approach to remove the source of contamination during the fall of 1998 Iftiie standard remedial Superfund approach had been followed at this Site the cleanup would not have been initiated until the summer of 2000

Cleanup Actions Beyond the NTCRA

While the proposed action will accelerate the overall site cleanup by eliminating the source ofthe PCB and groundwater contamination

it does not alone constitute the complete cleanup plan for the Site (See Figure 3) During the remainder of 1998 and into 1999 EPA will complete the remedial investigation and feasibility study for the entire Site The results of all ofthe investigations and the human health and ecological risk assessments will be used to determine the need for any additional cleanup actions beyond the NTCRA

The EPA will address the follovwng cleanup issues after the NTCRA is completed

bull long-term groundwater remediation to restore groundwater to drinking water standards or to control the movement of contaminants through the groundwater

bull sediment andor surface water cleanup and

bull controls on groundwater and land use in the vicinity ofthe Site

The Remedial Investigation Report Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment should all be available to the public by the end of 1998 The Feasibility Study should be available by early 1999 EPA plans to initiate public comment to resolve the remaining Site issues by late spring 1999

FIGURE 3 REMOVAL ACTION AND

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONFEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS

NPL Listing June 1996

RIFS Start August 1996 ]

RiFS Process Phase I A Sampling Program

Spring 1996

NTCRA

USFWS Fish Sampling Report

May 1998

Approval Memorandum January 1998

USGS Hydrogeology Report

July 1998

T Human Health Risk

Assessment August 1998

A Remedial

Investigation Report December 1998

T Ecological Risk Assessment

Feasibility Study Report Spring 1999

T 1

EECA May 1998

Fact Sheet May 1998

Public Comment Period

May-June 1998

Action Memo July 1998

Design and Construction

July-December 1998

1 1

1

Final ROD for Site (Groundwaterriver NPL - National Priorities List

lake) RIFS - Remedial InvestigationFeasibility Study EECA - Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis NTCRA - Non-Time-Critical Removal Action

Site History

The Eastem Surplus Company Superfund site is a 4 to 5 acre former salvagejimk yard located at the edge of Meddybemps Lake and the Dennys River

1946 Eastern Surplus Company to operated a salvagejunk yard 1973 accepting materials mostly from

the Department of Defense (DOD)

1985 The Maine DEP initiated an emergency action to stabilize the Site A fence was installed and over 100 transformers with PCBs were removed

1986 EPA took over emergency to cleanup Thousands of cans 1990 drums and other containers were

^ bull bull removed Analysis of surface soil samples showed high levels of VOCs and PCBs

1988 DOD removed approximately 2500 compressed gas cylinders

1996 EPA added the site to tiie National Priorities List of Superfund sites

1996 EPA conducted a detailed investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site and the risks posed by site contamination to public health and the environment

1997 EPA performed treatability studies

1998 EPA proposes early cleanup and continues site characterization

Why is cleanup nee(Jed

The Eastem Surplus Company Superfund site is contaminated with dangerous levels of contaminants The contaminants of most concem to EPA are PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and VOCs (volatile organic chemicals) which are present in areas ofthe site at levels that could harm human health and the environment from frequent or long-term exposure to the contaminants (See Table 1) To protect neighboring residents EPA recommends reducing through appropriate cleanup measures the chances that people and animals could be exposed to the current site contaminants

Currently the major pathways of exposure are

bull Contact with contaminated soils by site visitors or by future residential users ofthe property PCBs are the major concem with respect to direct contact and incidental ingestion of soil The PCBs in the soil also represent a threat to the Dennys River if this contamination was to be washed into the River

bull Groundwater beneath the northem end ofthe Site and groundwater from the southem portion ofthe

Site extending across Rt 191 (See Figure 4) A future user of on-Site groundwater would be exposed to unacceptably high levels of methylene chloride tetrachloroethene trichloroethene and PCBs The highly contaminated groundwater beneath the source area could potentially migrate to groundwater beyond the site

After reviewing the infomiation collected during the fall 1996 spring 1997 and fall 1997 investigations EPA determined that the levels of PCBs and VOCs in die soils on-Site represented a hazard that should be addressed as quickly as possible The urgency was based upon the need to avoid the possibility that the PCB contaminated soils could be washed into the Dennys River creating a significant environmental hazard In addition the concentrations of PCBs in surface soils are above those considered acceptable for contact by visitors with the Site

mJDYBBUPSLAKE

FIGURE 4 GROUNDWATER VOCs PLUMES

EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY - NPL SITE

The solvents in the soils also represent a source of groundwater contamination unless they are controlled or removed Given the close proximity of residential water supplies to the site EPA determined that rapid control of the source ofthe groundwater contamination and ofthe groundwater already contaminated was necessary

^ ^

EPA has determined in recent studies that none ofthe residential wells located near the Site are contaminated EPA will continue to monitor these wells over time to ensure that residents are not exposed to unsafe levels of contaminants should the contaminated groundwater beneath the site unexpectedly migrate

Under this NTCRA only contamination in the northem groundwater plume will be addressed Risks to human health and the environment related to the southem plume will not be addressed until fiirther tests are conducted These tests will better define theflow direction and extent ofthe southem

Table 1 Levels of Contaminants Found Onsite Compared to Acceptable State and Federal Levels

SjfftCotttaidinants i laquorDniccrtilltHr$oiI ^r^^k

i

PCBs 2 12000

y ^ Tetrachloroethene 3 320 S ^

Trichloroethene 19 25

Chromiiun 400 13800

Cadmium 27 416

Lead 375 594

Metiiylene Chloride 13 40000

Site Contaminants of Federal Maximum Maximum Concentration found Concem in the Contaminant Level on Site (parts per million) Groundwater

Tetrachloroethene 0005 670

Trichloroethene 0005 038

Methylene Chloride 0005 044

PCBs 00005 0003

OWhats a Formal Comment During the 30-day public comment period EPA will accept formal written comments

and hold a public hearing at the end of the vmtten comment period to accept formal verbal comments EPA

uses public comments to improve the cleanup proposal

To make a formal comment you need only speak during the public hearing on June 10 1998 or submit a written comment during the 30-day comment period

Federal regulations require EPA to distinguish between formal and informal comments While EPA uses your cominents throughout site investigations and cleanup EPA is required to respond to formal comments in writing only EPA will not respond to your comments dvuing the formal hearing portion of the Jime 101998 information session

For More Detailed Information

The fact that EPA responds to formal comments only in writing does not mean that EPA can not answer questions Once the meeting moderator announces that the formal hearing portion of the meeting is closed EPA can respond to informal questions

EPA will review the transcript of all formal comments received at the hearing and all written comments received during the formal comment period before making a final cleanup decision EPA will then prepare a written response to all formal written and oral comments

Your formal comments will become part of the official public record The transcript of comments and EPAs written responses will be issued in a document called a Responsiveness Summary when EPA releases the final cleanup decision

To help you understand and comment on the proposal for the site this publication summarizes a number of reports and studies All ofthe technical and public information publications prepared to date for the site are available at the at these Eastem Surplus Company site information repositories

Calais Public Library Ms Marylin Diffin Reference Librarian Calais Free Library Union Street Calais Maine 04619

EPA Records Center 90 Canal Street Boston MA 02114 (617) 573-5729 Hours 1000 am-noon

200pm-500pm

The Three Criteria fo r Choosing a Cleanup

EPA uses three criteria to balance the pros and cons of cleanup altematives EPA has already evaluated how well each ofthe cleanup altematives developed for the Eastem Surplus Company Superfund Site meet these criteria (See Table 3) Once comments from the state and the community are received EPA will select the cleanup plan

A EfTectiveness This criteria evaluates five specific subcriteria

(1) Overall protection of human health and the environment Will it protect you and the plant and animal life on and near the site EPA will not choose a plan that does not meet this basic criterion

(2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Does the altemative meet all federal and state environmental statutes regulations and requirements on-Site

(3) Long-term effectiveness and permanence Will the effects of the cleanup plan last or could contamination cause future risk

(4) Reduction of toxicity mobility or volume through treatment Does the altemative reduce the harmful effects ofthe contaminants the spread of contaminants and the amount of contaminated material

(5) Short-term effectiveness How soon will site risks be adequately reduced Could the cleanup cause short-term hazards to workers residents or the environment

B Implementability Is the alternative technically and administratively feasible Are the right goods and services (ie treatment machinery space at an approved disposal facility) available for the plan What are the administrative barriers to proceeding

C Cost What is the total cost of an altemative over time EPA must find a plan that gives necessary protection for a reasonable cost

EPA also strongly considers state and community input prior to finalizing tbe selection ofthe cleanup altemative

Four Kinds of Cleanup

EPA looks at numerous technical approaches to determine the best way to reduce the risks presented by a Superfund site The EPA then narrows the possibilities to approaches that would protect human health and the environment Although reducing risks often involves combinations of highly technical processes there are really only four basic options

Take limited or no action Leave the site as it mmgt is or just restrict access and monitor it

Contain contamination Leave contamination where it is QVlaquo and cover or contain it in some way to prevent exposure to or spread of contaminants This method reduces risks from exposure to contamination but does not destroy or reduce it

Move contamination off site Remove contaminated material (soil groundwater etc) and dispose of it or treat it elsewhere

Treat contamination onsi te Use a chemical or physical process on the site to destroy or remove the contaminants Treated material can be left on-site Contaminants capmred by the treatment process are disposed in an off-site hazardous waste facility

Cleanup Alternatives for the Eastern Surplus Superfund Site

The Eastem Surplus Site Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis (EECA) report reviewed the options EPA considered for cleanup as well as the EPAs proposed cleanup plan The options referred to as cleanup altematives are different combinations of plans to contain remove or treat contamination to protect public health and the environment

EPA developed separate sets of options to deal with soil contamination (the source of contamination at the site) and on-Site groundwater contamination (which allows contamination to spread away from the site)

During the upcoming comment period EPA welcomes your comments on the proposed cleanup plan as well as the other technical approaches EPA evaluated These altematives are siunmarized below Please consult the Eastem Surplus Company Site EECA for more detailed information

Soil Cleanup Alternatives

Altemative SC2 Off-site disposal at a chemical waste landfill This altemative described in more detail on pages 1 and 2 is the EPA preferred altemative

bull Remove soil with concentrations of PCBs that could threaten public health (more than 2 parts per million of PCB contamination) and VOCs

above the specified cleanup levels to remove the hot spots of contamination (See Table 2)

bull Send excavated soil off-site to an approved hazardous waste landfill andor treatment facility

bull Cover excavated areas with clean fill

Alternative SC3 Thermal desorption This altemative uses thermal blankets to heat soils containing elevated levels of VOCs andor PCBs to heat the soil (in-place) to a temperature that will destroy the contamination on-Site

Altemative SC4 Soil vapor extraction This altemative involves the installation of either overtical wells or trenches to allow for the collection of VOC contaminated soil vapor A vacuum is applied to accelerate the transfer ofthe VOCfrom the soils to the air The collected vapor would be treated to remove the VOCs prior to releasing the vapor into the air Condensate would be collected and treated along v^th the groimdwater

Table 2 Proposed Soil Cleanup Levels

Contaminant Soil Cleanup Level (mgkg)

21 PCBs

1 PCE 006

1 TCE 006

002 Methylene Chloride

Source Control Groundwater Cleanup

Alternative The NTCRA will include a groimdwater source control system This system will involve the installation of sufficient groundwater extraction wells to contain the groundwater contamination on-Site and treat the collected groundwater for re-infiltration into the ground The water will be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards prior to discharge The groundwater source control system will be included in each ofthe soil cleanup altematives

Groundwater Alternative 1 bull Pump contaminated groundwater from

several site locations in the northem plume to a central treatment unit on site

bull Filter the ground water using granular activated carbon Chemicals cling to the surface ofthe carbon material removing contaminants from the water The used carbon is sent offsite for recycling or disposal

bull Discharge treated groundwater to the ground surface using an infiltration gallery The groundwater would be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards

Since groundwater altemative 1 is an interim action no cleanup levels are being proposed The final decision document for the Site will contain the cleanup levels for groundwater

What impacts would the cleanup have on the local

community

bull Any actions that disturb the contamination during cleanup could present short-term risks during excavation As a result EPA will monitor air and other emissions to ensure that unsafe levels of contaminants are not released beyond the Site boundary

bull The off-site disposal options would require the use ofthe a large portion ofthe Site to provide space to manage and store the contaminated and clean soil

bull For both on-site and off-site treatment options careful traffic management will be required to ensure the safe transport of contaminated soil off-site or for treatment within the site

bull Scarce space at off-site hazardous waste landfills and hazardous waste incinerators could require stockpiling of excavated soil and linut implementability of off-site options

Table 3 Comparison of Removal Cleanup Alternatives

Kine Criteria

Effectiveness (l)Protects human health and environment

(2)Meets federal and State requirements

(3)Provides long-term protection

(4)Reduces mobility toxicity and volume

(5)Provides short-term protection

Implementable (Can it be done)

Costs Million

Time to reach cleanup goal

2 bull ^ ^

Off-Site Disposal with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

^

bull

bull 25

^ H

mmmgt ^

Thermal Desorption with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

34

3-5 months

EPAs preferred alternative ^ Meets or exceeds criterion c Partially meets criterion ^ Does NOT meet criterion

Vapor Extraction with groundwater control

bull bull m

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

22

up to one year

10

N^Hi

Why Does EPA Recommend thte Plara

The EPA recommends a cleanup plan that uses excavation and crfllite disposal for cleanup of contaminated soil and extraction and graniilar activated carbotj tb tt^t groufidwater at the site becausetiiese teaehnologi^

Me6t|he3 criteria of cost effectiveness bull prbwde the liibist cost- effeetive balance of andimplementabflity including protecting effectiveness and implementaLbility puMic hetdth and the emvironment

bull Provide interim control of the conteuninated Result in a permanent removal of the on-Site groundwater during the time colUb^mated soilfrom the Site required to complete the remaining RIFS

studies 1 e mosr protection fbr the cost

Any delists in leaning the source materMls could

r bull 5 ^ bull bull ^ M result in ^j^ed^ costs particularlytfPCSts were

bullD^M^Riper

June 1998 EPA expects to have reviewed all coirnnentsri^ Action Memorat ^NEl ^^uftib(i^^^ciibing flie chosen cleanup plan the Actioit^siioir^ fpd a aipmai iy of respofliiamp S to

eht5 ill then be made available tp-the public ate Cl lalpm^ or other na iil|^1I^A Sjec^dslt^lir- In Bostoh EPA wninannounc^TiQ dec ion to the communi^|Nt^ugh

MM

Completion of RIFS

EPA will continue to evaluate the data collected during the 1996 and 1997 investigations to develop a comprehensive Remedial Investigation Report for the Site The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments will be based upon the data in the Remedial Investigation Report The risk assessments will determine the need for any additional cleanup actions at the Site If there are any areas that represent a potential threat to human health or the environment then a Feasibility Study will be developed to evaluate a set of cleanup altematives At a minimum a feasibility study will be prepared to determine the long-term strategy to address contaminated groundwater and any remaining contamination in on-Site soils

The need for a cleanup of Lake Meddybemps or the Dennys River will not be known until the completion ofthe risk assessments The final decision regarding the long-term cleanup and management ofthe Site will be described in a Proposed Plan which is expected to be released in the spring or fall of 1999 Thefinal decision will be documented in a Record of Decision

11

Use This Space to Write Your Comments or to be added to the mailing list

EPA wants your written comments on the options under consideration for dealing with the contamination at the Eastem Surplus Superfund site You can use the form below to send written comments Ifyou have questions about how to comment please call EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Erin Heskett at 617 565-3033 This form is provided for your convenience Please mail this form or additional sheets of written comments postmarked no later than date year to

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region I (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203-0001

or send E-mail to hathawayed epamailepagov

(Attach sheets as needed) Comment Submitted bv June 221998

Mailing list additions deletions or changes

I would like to o be added to the site mailing list n note a change of address n be deleted from the mailing list

Name Address

L E G E N D

APPN0XMA1E 9 1 t BOUNDARY t ^ MEDDYBEMPS LAKE s o n s TO BE EXCAVATED DISPOSED OF AT A RCRA C FAOUTV

SOUS TO BE EXCAVATED DISPOSED OF AT A NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE FAOUTY

nSCRElE HOT SPOT LOCADONS TO BE EXCAVATED k DISPOSED OF AT A N O N shyHAZARDOUS WASTE FAOUTY

SITE LOCATION

FIGURE 1 SC2 - EXCAVATION amp OFF-SITE DISPOSAL EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY - NPL SITEj

^^raquoHi

p S p ^ p i i E A S T E R N SURPLUS COMPANY - NPL SITE

Scope and Role of Action

The Superfund law allows EPA to implement cleanup actions under the removal or remedial authorities specified in the statute The approach selected depends upon a variety of factors Removal actions are often used to respond to emergency or time critical situations

EPA may however perform a removal action at a site when prompt action is necessary but more than six months of planning and preparation time is available before on-Site cleanup work must begin Such a removal is called a non-time critical removal action (NTCRA)

EPA issued Information Update 9 to describe the generic NTCRA process The soil contamination at the Site qualifies for a NTCRA because rapid control ofthe source material is necessary to protect the surrounding environment and conmiunity and to prevent further contamination ofthe groundwater A study called the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis EECA has been prepared to evaluate different options for controlling the source of contamination

A NTCRA does not always result in an actual physical removal of contamination from a site for offsite disposal

Rather a NTCRA may involve various treatment or containment technologies to deal with the contamination on-Site

A common theme for NTCRAs is that EPA will generally use this authority to accelerate its response to address the source ofthe contamination at a site This is consistent with EPAs Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) EPA developed the SACM model to speed up Superfund cleanups and make them more timely and efficient In particular the SACM authorizes the use of removal and remedial authorities earlier in the Superfimd process to achieve rapid risk reduction as compared with more traditional Superfund cleanups

At the Eastem Surplus site EPA will use the NTCRA authority and the SACM approach to remove the source of contamination during the fall of 1998 Iftiie standard remedial Superfund approach had been followed at this Site the cleanup would not have been initiated until the summer of 2000

Cleanup Actions Beyond the NTCRA

While the proposed action will accelerate the overall site cleanup by eliminating the source ofthe PCB and groundwater contamination

it does not alone constitute the complete cleanup plan for the Site (See Figure 3) During the remainder of 1998 and into 1999 EPA will complete the remedial investigation and feasibility study for the entire Site The results of all ofthe investigations and the human health and ecological risk assessments will be used to determine the need for any additional cleanup actions beyond the NTCRA

The EPA will address the follovwng cleanup issues after the NTCRA is completed

bull long-term groundwater remediation to restore groundwater to drinking water standards or to control the movement of contaminants through the groundwater

bull sediment andor surface water cleanup and

bull controls on groundwater and land use in the vicinity ofthe Site

The Remedial Investigation Report Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment should all be available to the public by the end of 1998 The Feasibility Study should be available by early 1999 EPA plans to initiate public comment to resolve the remaining Site issues by late spring 1999

FIGURE 3 REMOVAL ACTION AND

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONFEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS

NPL Listing June 1996

RIFS Start August 1996 ]

RiFS Process Phase I A Sampling Program

Spring 1996

NTCRA

USFWS Fish Sampling Report

May 1998

Approval Memorandum January 1998

USGS Hydrogeology Report

July 1998

T Human Health Risk

Assessment August 1998

A Remedial

Investigation Report December 1998

T Ecological Risk Assessment

Feasibility Study Report Spring 1999

T 1

EECA May 1998

Fact Sheet May 1998

Public Comment Period

May-June 1998

Action Memo July 1998

Design and Construction

July-December 1998

1 1

1

Final ROD for Site (Groundwaterriver NPL - National Priorities List

lake) RIFS - Remedial InvestigationFeasibility Study EECA - Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis NTCRA - Non-Time-Critical Removal Action

Site History

The Eastem Surplus Company Superfund site is a 4 to 5 acre former salvagejimk yard located at the edge of Meddybemps Lake and the Dennys River

1946 Eastern Surplus Company to operated a salvagejunk yard 1973 accepting materials mostly from

the Department of Defense (DOD)

1985 The Maine DEP initiated an emergency action to stabilize the Site A fence was installed and over 100 transformers with PCBs were removed

1986 EPA took over emergency to cleanup Thousands of cans 1990 drums and other containers were

^ bull bull removed Analysis of surface soil samples showed high levels of VOCs and PCBs

1988 DOD removed approximately 2500 compressed gas cylinders

1996 EPA added the site to tiie National Priorities List of Superfund sites

1996 EPA conducted a detailed investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site and the risks posed by site contamination to public health and the environment

1997 EPA performed treatability studies

1998 EPA proposes early cleanup and continues site characterization

Why is cleanup nee(Jed

The Eastem Surplus Company Superfund site is contaminated with dangerous levels of contaminants The contaminants of most concem to EPA are PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and VOCs (volatile organic chemicals) which are present in areas ofthe site at levels that could harm human health and the environment from frequent or long-term exposure to the contaminants (See Table 1) To protect neighboring residents EPA recommends reducing through appropriate cleanup measures the chances that people and animals could be exposed to the current site contaminants

Currently the major pathways of exposure are

bull Contact with contaminated soils by site visitors or by future residential users ofthe property PCBs are the major concem with respect to direct contact and incidental ingestion of soil The PCBs in the soil also represent a threat to the Dennys River if this contamination was to be washed into the River

bull Groundwater beneath the northem end ofthe Site and groundwater from the southem portion ofthe

Site extending across Rt 191 (See Figure 4) A future user of on-Site groundwater would be exposed to unacceptably high levels of methylene chloride tetrachloroethene trichloroethene and PCBs The highly contaminated groundwater beneath the source area could potentially migrate to groundwater beyond the site

After reviewing the infomiation collected during the fall 1996 spring 1997 and fall 1997 investigations EPA determined that the levels of PCBs and VOCs in die soils on-Site represented a hazard that should be addressed as quickly as possible The urgency was based upon the need to avoid the possibility that the PCB contaminated soils could be washed into the Dennys River creating a significant environmental hazard In addition the concentrations of PCBs in surface soils are above those considered acceptable for contact by visitors with the Site

mJDYBBUPSLAKE

FIGURE 4 GROUNDWATER VOCs PLUMES

EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY - NPL SITE

The solvents in the soils also represent a source of groundwater contamination unless they are controlled or removed Given the close proximity of residential water supplies to the site EPA determined that rapid control of the source ofthe groundwater contamination and ofthe groundwater already contaminated was necessary

^ ^

EPA has determined in recent studies that none ofthe residential wells located near the Site are contaminated EPA will continue to monitor these wells over time to ensure that residents are not exposed to unsafe levels of contaminants should the contaminated groundwater beneath the site unexpectedly migrate

Under this NTCRA only contamination in the northem groundwater plume will be addressed Risks to human health and the environment related to the southem plume will not be addressed until fiirther tests are conducted These tests will better define theflow direction and extent ofthe southem

Table 1 Levels of Contaminants Found Onsite Compared to Acceptable State and Federal Levels

SjfftCotttaidinants i laquorDniccrtilltHr$oiI ^r^^k

i

PCBs 2 12000

y ^ Tetrachloroethene 3 320 S ^

Trichloroethene 19 25

Chromiiun 400 13800

Cadmium 27 416

Lead 375 594

Metiiylene Chloride 13 40000

Site Contaminants of Federal Maximum Maximum Concentration found Concem in the Contaminant Level on Site (parts per million) Groundwater

Tetrachloroethene 0005 670

Trichloroethene 0005 038

Methylene Chloride 0005 044

PCBs 00005 0003

OWhats a Formal Comment During the 30-day public comment period EPA will accept formal written comments

and hold a public hearing at the end of the vmtten comment period to accept formal verbal comments EPA

uses public comments to improve the cleanup proposal

To make a formal comment you need only speak during the public hearing on June 10 1998 or submit a written comment during the 30-day comment period

Federal regulations require EPA to distinguish between formal and informal comments While EPA uses your cominents throughout site investigations and cleanup EPA is required to respond to formal comments in writing only EPA will not respond to your comments dvuing the formal hearing portion of the Jime 101998 information session

For More Detailed Information

The fact that EPA responds to formal comments only in writing does not mean that EPA can not answer questions Once the meeting moderator announces that the formal hearing portion of the meeting is closed EPA can respond to informal questions

EPA will review the transcript of all formal comments received at the hearing and all written comments received during the formal comment period before making a final cleanup decision EPA will then prepare a written response to all formal written and oral comments

Your formal comments will become part of the official public record The transcript of comments and EPAs written responses will be issued in a document called a Responsiveness Summary when EPA releases the final cleanup decision

To help you understand and comment on the proposal for the site this publication summarizes a number of reports and studies All ofthe technical and public information publications prepared to date for the site are available at the at these Eastem Surplus Company site information repositories

Calais Public Library Ms Marylin Diffin Reference Librarian Calais Free Library Union Street Calais Maine 04619

EPA Records Center 90 Canal Street Boston MA 02114 (617) 573-5729 Hours 1000 am-noon

200pm-500pm

The Three Criteria fo r Choosing a Cleanup

EPA uses three criteria to balance the pros and cons of cleanup altematives EPA has already evaluated how well each ofthe cleanup altematives developed for the Eastem Surplus Company Superfund Site meet these criteria (See Table 3) Once comments from the state and the community are received EPA will select the cleanup plan

A EfTectiveness This criteria evaluates five specific subcriteria

(1) Overall protection of human health and the environment Will it protect you and the plant and animal life on and near the site EPA will not choose a plan that does not meet this basic criterion

(2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Does the altemative meet all federal and state environmental statutes regulations and requirements on-Site

(3) Long-term effectiveness and permanence Will the effects of the cleanup plan last or could contamination cause future risk

(4) Reduction of toxicity mobility or volume through treatment Does the altemative reduce the harmful effects ofthe contaminants the spread of contaminants and the amount of contaminated material

(5) Short-term effectiveness How soon will site risks be adequately reduced Could the cleanup cause short-term hazards to workers residents or the environment

B Implementability Is the alternative technically and administratively feasible Are the right goods and services (ie treatment machinery space at an approved disposal facility) available for the plan What are the administrative barriers to proceeding

C Cost What is the total cost of an altemative over time EPA must find a plan that gives necessary protection for a reasonable cost

EPA also strongly considers state and community input prior to finalizing tbe selection ofthe cleanup altemative

Four Kinds of Cleanup

EPA looks at numerous technical approaches to determine the best way to reduce the risks presented by a Superfund site The EPA then narrows the possibilities to approaches that would protect human health and the environment Although reducing risks often involves combinations of highly technical processes there are really only four basic options

Take limited or no action Leave the site as it mmgt is or just restrict access and monitor it

Contain contamination Leave contamination where it is QVlaquo and cover or contain it in some way to prevent exposure to or spread of contaminants This method reduces risks from exposure to contamination but does not destroy or reduce it

Move contamination off site Remove contaminated material (soil groundwater etc) and dispose of it or treat it elsewhere

Treat contamination onsi te Use a chemical or physical process on the site to destroy or remove the contaminants Treated material can be left on-site Contaminants capmred by the treatment process are disposed in an off-site hazardous waste facility

Cleanup Alternatives for the Eastern Surplus Superfund Site

The Eastem Surplus Site Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis (EECA) report reviewed the options EPA considered for cleanup as well as the EPAs proposed cleanup plan The options referred to as cleanup altematives are different combinations of plans to contain remove or treat contamination to protect public health and the environment

EPA developed separate sets of options to deal with soil contamination (the source of contamination at the site) and on-Site groundwater contamination (which allows contamination to spread away from the site)

During the upcoming comment period EPA welcomes your comments on the proposed cleanup plan as well as the other technical approaches EPA evaluated These altematives are siunmarized below Please consult the Eastem Surplus Company Site EECA for more detailed information

Soil Cleanup Alternatives

Altemative SC2 Off-site disposal at a chemical waste landfill This altemative described in more detail on pages 1 and 2 is the EPA preferred altemative

bull Remove soil with concentrations of PCBs that could threaten public health (more than 2 parts per million of PCB contamination) and VOCs

above the specified cleanup levels to remove the hot spots of contamination (See Table 2)

bull Send excavated soil off-site to an approved hazardous waste landfill andor treatment facility

bull Cover excavated areas with clean fill

Alternative SC3 Thermal desorption This altemative uses thermal blankets to heat soils containing elevated levels of VOCs andor PCBs to heat the soil (in-place) to a temperature that will destroy the contamination on-Site

Altemative SC4 Soil vapor extraction This altemative involves the installation of either overtical wells or trenches to allow for the collection of VOC contaminated soil vapor A vacuum is applied to accelerate the transfer ofthe VOCfrom the soils to the air The collected vapor would be treated to remove the VOCs prior to releasing the vapor into the air Condensate would be collected and treated along v^th the groimdwater

Table 2 Proposed Soil Cleanup Levels

Contaminant Soil Cleanup Level (mgkg)

21 PCBs

1 PCE 006

1 TCE 006

002 Methylene Chloride

Source Control Groundwater Cleanup

Alternative The NTCRA will include a groimdwater source control system This system will involve the installation of sufficient groundwater extraction wells to contain the groundwater contamination on-Site and treat the collected groundwater for re-infiltration into the ground The water will be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards prior to discharge The groundwater source control system will be included in each ofthe soil cleanup altematives

Groundwater Alternative 1 bull Pump contaminated groundwater from

several site locations in the northem plume to a central treatment unit on site

bull Filter the ground water using granular activated carbon Chemicals cling to the surface ofthe carbon material removing contaminants from the water The used carbon is sent offsite for recycling or disposal

bull Discharge treated groundwater to the ground surface using an infiltration gallery The groundwater would be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards

Since groundwater altemative 1 is an interim action no cleanup levels are being proposed The final decision document for the Site will contain the cleanup levels for groundwater

What impacts would the cleanup have on the local

community

bull Any actions that disturb the contamination during cleanup could present short-term risks during excavation As a result EPA will monitor air and other emissions to ensure that unsafe levels of contaminants are not released beyond the Site boundary

bull The off-site disposal options would require the use ofthe a large portion ofthe Site to provide space to manage and store the contaminated and clean soil

bull For both on-site and off-site treatment options careful traffic management will be required to ensure the safe transport of contaminated soil off-site or for treatment within the site

bull Scarce space at off-site hazardous waste landfills and hazardous waste incinerators could require stockpiling of excavated soil and linut implementability of off-site options

Table 3 Comparison of Removal Cleanup Alternatives

Kine Criteria

Effectiveness (l)Protects human health and environment

(2)Meets federal and State requirements

(3)Provides long-term protection

(4)Reduces mobility toxicity and volume

(5)Provides short-term protection

Implementable (Can it be done)

Costs Million

Time to reach cleanup goal

2 bull ^ ^

Off-Site Disposal with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

^

bull

bull 25

^ H

mmmgt ^

Thermal Desorption with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

34

3-5 months

EPAs preferred alternative ^ Meets or exceeds criterion c Partially meets criterion ^ Does NOT meet criterion

Vapor Extraction with groundwater control

bull bull m

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

22

up to one year

10

N^Hi

Why Does EPA Recommend thte Plara

The EPA recommends a cleanup plan that uses excavation and crfllite disposal for cleanup of contaminated soil and extraction and graniilar activated carbotj tb tt^t groufidwater at the site becausetiiese teaehnologi^

Me6t|he3 criteria of cost effectiveness bull prbwde the liibist cost- effeetive balance of andimplementabflity including protecting effectiveness and implementaLbility puMic hetdth and the emvironment

bull Provide interim control of the conteuninated Result in a permanent removal of the on-Site groundwater during the time colUb^mated soilfrom the Site required to complete the remaining RIFS

studies 1 e mosr protection fbr the cost

Any delists in leaning the source materMls could

r bull 5 ^ bull bull ^ M result in ^j^ed^ costs particularlytfPCSts were

bullD^M^Riper

June 1998 EPA expects to have reviewed all coirnnentsri^ Action Memorat ^NEl ^^uftib(i^^^ciibing flie chosen cleanup plan the Actioit^siioir^ fpd a aipmai iy of respofliiamp S to

eht5 ill then be made available tp-the public ate Cl lalpm^ or other na iil|^1I^A Sjec^dslt^lir- In Bostoh EPA wninannounc^TiQ dec ion to the communi^|Nt^ugh

MM

Completion of RIFS

EPA will continue to evaluate the data collected during the 1996 and 1997 investigations to develop a comprehensive Remedial Investigation Report for the Site The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments will be based upon the data in the Remedial Investigation Report The risk assessments will determine the need for any additional cleanup actions at the Site If there are any areas that represent a potential threat to human health or the environment then a Feasibility Study will be developed to evaluate a set of cleanup altematives At a minimum a feasibility study will be prepared to determine the long-term strategy to address contaminated groundwater and any remaining contamination in on-Site soils

The need for a cleanup of Lake Meddybemps or the Dennys River will not be known until the completion ofthe risk assessments The final decision regarding the long-term cleanup and management ofthe Site will be described in a Proposed Plan which is expected to be released in the spring or fall of 1999 Thefinal decision will be documented in a Record of Decision

11

Use This Space to Write Your Comments or to be added to the mailing list

EPA wants your written comments on the options under consideration for dealing with the contamination at the Eastem Surplus Superfund site You can use the form below to send written comments Ifyou have questions about how to comment please call EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Erin Heskett at 617 565-3033 This form is provided for your convenience Please mail this form or additional sheets of written comments postmarked no later than date year to

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region I (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203-0001

or send E-mail to hathawayed epamailepagov

(Attach sheets as needed) Comment Submitted bv June 221998

Mailing list additions deletions or changes

I would like to o be added to the site mailing list n note a change of address n be deleted from the mailing list

Name Address

^^raquoHi

p S p ^ p i i E A S T E R N SURPLUS COMPANY - NPL SITE

Scope and Role of Action

The Superfund law allows EPA to implement cleanup actions under the removal or remedial authorities specified in the statute The approach selected depends upon a variety of factors Removal actions are often used to respond to emergency or time critical situations

EPA may however perform a removal action at a site when prompt action is necessary but more than six months of planning and preparation time is available before on-Site cleanup work must begin Such a removal is called a non-time critical removal action (NTCRA)

EPA issued Information Update 9 to describe the generic NTCRA process The soil contamination at the Site qualifies for a NTCRA because rapid control ofthe source material is necessary to protect the surrounding environment and conmiunity and to prevent further contamination ofthe groundwater A study called the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis EECA has been prepared to evaluate different options for controlling the source of contamination

A NTCRA does not always result in an actual physical removal of contamination from a site for offsite disposal

Rather a NTCRA may involve various treatment or containment technologies to deal with the contamination on-Site

A common theme for NTCRAs is that EPA will generally use this authority to accelerate its response to address the source ofthe contamination at a site This is consistent with EPAs Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) EPA developed the SACM model to speed up Superfund cleanups and make them more timely and efficient In particular the SACM authorizes the use of removal and remedial authorities earlier in the Superfimd process to achieve rapid risk reduction as compared with more traditional Superfund cleanups

At the Eastem Surplus site EPA will use the NTCRA authority and the SACM approach to remove the source of contamination during the fall of 1998 Iftiie standard remedial Superfund approach had been followed at this Site the cleanup would not have been initiated until the summer of 2000

Cleanup Actions Beyond the NTCRA

While the proposed action will accelerate the overall site cleanup by eliminating the source ofthe PCB and groundwater contamination

it does not alone constitute the complete cleanup plan for the Site (See Figure 3) During the remainder of 1998 and into 1999 EPA will complete the remedial investigation and feasibility study for the entire Site The results of all ofthe investigations and the human health and ecological risk assessments will be used to determine the need for any additional cleanup actions beyond the NTCRA

The EPA will address the follovwng cleanup issues after the NTCRA is completed

bull long-term groundwater remediation to restore groundwater to drinking water standards or to control the movement of contaminants through the groundwater

bull sediment andor surface water cleanup and

bull controls on groundwater and land use in the vicinity ofthe Site

The Remedial Investigation Report Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment should all be available to the public by the end of 1998 The Feasibility Study should be available by early 1999 EPA plans to initiate public comment to resolve the remaining Site issues by late spring 1999

FIGURE 3 REMOVAL ACTION AND

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONFEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS

NPL Listing June 1996

RIFS Start August 1996 ]

RiFS Process Phase I A Sampling Program

Spring 1996

NTCRA

USFWS Fish Sampling Report

May 1998

Approval Memorandum January 1998

USGS Hydrogeology Report

July 1998

T Human Health Risk

Assessment August 1998

A Remedial

Investigation Report December 1998

T Ecological Risk Assessment

Feasibility Study Report Spring 1999

T 1

EECA May 1998

Fact Sheet May 1998

Public Comment Period

May-June 1998

Action Memo July 1998

Design and Construction

July-December 1998

1 1

1

Final ROD for Site (Groundwaterriver NPL - National Priorities List

lake) RIFS - Remedial InvestigationFeasibility Study EECA - Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis NTCRA - Non-Time-Critical Removal Action

Site History

The Eastem Surplus Company Superfund site is a 4 to 5 acre former salvagejimk yard located at the edge of Meddybemps Lake and the Dennys River

1946 Eastern Surplus Company to operated a salvagejunk yard 1973 accepting materials mostly from

the Department of Defense (DOD)

1985 The Maine DEP initiated an emergency action to stabilize the Site A fence was installed and over 100 transformers with PCBs were removed

1986 EPA took over emergency to cleanup Thousands of cans 1990 drums and other containers were

^ bull bull removed Analysis of surface soil samples showed high levels of VOCs and PCBs

1988 DOD removed approximately 2500 compressed gas cylinders

1996 EPA added the site to tiie National Priorities List of Superfund sites

1996 EPA conducted a detailed investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site and the risks posed by site contamination to public health and the environment

1997 EPA performed treatability studies

1998 EPA proposes early cleanup and continues site characterization

Why is cleanup nee(Jed

The Eastem Surplus Company Superfund site is contaminated with dangerous levels of contaminants The contaminants of most concem to EPA are PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and VOCs (volatile organic chemicals) which are present in areas ofthe site at levels that could harm human health and the environment from frequent or long-term exposure to the contaminants (See Table 1) To protect neighboring residents EPA recommends reducing through appropriate cleanup measures the chances that people and animals could be exposed to the current site contaminants

Currently the major pathways of exposure are

bull Contact with contaminated soils by site visitors or by future residential users ofthe property PCBs are the major concem with respect to direct contact and incidental ingestion of soil The PCBs in the soil also represent a threat to the Dennys River if this contamination was to be washed into the River

bull Groundwater beneath the northem end ofthe Site and groundwater from the southem portion ofthe

Site extending across Rt 191 (See Figure 4) A future user of on-Site groundwater would be exposed to unacceptably high levels of methylene chloride tetrachloroethene trichloroethene and PCBs The highly contaminated groundwater beneath the source area could potentially migrate to groundwater beyond the site

After reviewing the infomiation collected during the fall 1996 spring 1997 and fall 1997 investigations EPA determined that the levels of PCBs and VOCs in die soils on-Site represented a hazard that should be addressed as quickly as possible The urgency was based upon the need to avoid the possibility that the PCB contaminated soils could be washed into the Dennys River creating a significant environmental hazard In addition the concentrations of PCBs in surface soils are above those considered acceptable for contact by visitors with the Site

mJDYBBUPSLAKE

FIGURE 4 GROUNDWATER VOCs PLUMES

EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY - NPL SITE

The solvents in the soils also represent a source of groundwater contamination unless they are controlled or removed Given the close proximity of residential water supplies to the site EPA determined that rapid control of the source ofthe groundwater contamination and ofthe groundwater already contaminated was necessary

^ ^

EPA has determined in recent studies that none ofthe residential wells located near the Site are contaminated EPA will continue to monitor these wells over time to ensure that residents are not exposed to unsafe levels of contaminants should the contaminated groundwater beneath the site unexpectedly migrate

Under this NTCRA only contamination in the northem groundwater plume will be addressed Risks to human health and the environment related to the southem plume will not be addressed until fiirther tests are conducted These tests will better define theflow direction and extent ofthe southem

Table 1 Levels of Contaminants Found Onsite Compared to Acceptable State and Federal Levels

SjfftCotttaidinants i laquorDniccrtilltHr$oiI ^r^^k

i

PCBs 2 12000

y ^ Tetrachloroethene 3 320 S ^

Trichloroethene 19 25

Chromiiun 400 13800

Cadmium 27 416

Lead 375 594

Metiiylene Chloride 13 40000

Site Contaminants of Federal Maximum Maximum Concentration found Concem in the Contaminant Level on Site (parts per million) Groundwater

Tetrachloroethene 0005 670

Trichloroethene 0005 038

Methylene Chloride 0005 044

PCBs 00005 0003

OWhats a Formal Comment During the 30-day public comment period EPA will accept formal written comments

and hold a public hearing at the end of the vmtten comment period to accept formal verbal comments EPA

uses public comments to improve the cleanup proposal

To make a formal comment you need only speak during the public hearing on June 10 1998 or submit a written comment during the 30-day comment period

Federal regulations require EPA to distinguish between formal and informal comments While EPA uses your cominents throughout site investigations and cleanup EPA is required to respond to formal comments in writing only EPA will not respond to your comments dvuing the formal hearing portion of the Jime 101998 information session

For More Detailed Information

The fact that EPA responds to formal comments only in writing does not mean that EPA can not answer questions Once the meeting moderator announces that the formal hearing portion of the meeting is closed EPA can respond to informal questions

EPA will review the transcript of all formal comments received at the hearing and all written comments received during the formal comment period before making a final cleanup decision EPA will then prepare a written response to all formal written and oral comments

Your formal comments will become part of the official public record The transcript of comments and EPAs written responses will be issued in a document called a Responsiveness Summary when EPA releases the final cleanup decision

To help you understand and comment on the proposal for the site this publication summarizes a number of reports and studies All ofthe technical and public information publications prepared to date for the site are available at the at these Eastem Surplus Company site information repositories

Calais Public Library Ms Marylin Diffin Reference Librarian Calais Free Library Union Street Calais Maine 04619

EPA Records Center 90 Canal Street Boston MA 02114 (617) 573-5729 Hours 1000 am-noon

200pm-500pm

The Three Criteria fo r Choosing a Cleanup

EPA uses three criteria to balance the pros and cons of cleanup altematives EPA has already evaluated how well each ofthe cleanup altematives developed for the Eastem Surplus Company Superfund Site meet these criteria (See Table 3) Once comments from the state and the community are received EPA will select the cleanup plan

A EfTectiveness This criteria evaluates five specific subcriteria

(1) Overall protection of human health and the environment Will it protect you and the plant and animal life on and near the site EPA will not choose a plan that does not meet this basic criterion

(2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Does the altemative meet all federal and state environmental statutes regulations and requirements on-Site

(3) Long-term effectiveness and permanence Will the effects of the cleanup plan last or could contamination cause future risk

(4) Reduction of toxicity mobility or volume through treatment Does the altemative reduce the harmful effects ofthe contaminants the spread of contaminants and the amount of contaminated material

(5) Short-term effectiveness How soon will site risks be adequately reduced Could the cleanup cause short-term hazards to workers residents or the environment

B Implementability Is the alternative technically and administratively feasible Are the right goods and services (ie treatment machinery space at an approved disposal facility) available for the plan What are the administrative barriers to proceeding

C Cost What is the total cost of an altemative over time EPA must find a plan that gives necessary protection for a reasonable cost

EPA also strongly considers state and community input prior to finalizing tbe selection ofthe cleanup altemative

Four Kinds of Cleanup

EPA looks at numerous technical approaches to determine the best way to reduce the risks presented by a Superfund site The EPA then narrows the possibilities to approaches that would protect human health and the environment Although reducing risks often involves combinations of highly technical processes there are really only four basic options

Take limited or no action Leave the site as it mmgt is or just restrict access and monitor it

Contain contamination Leave contamination where it is QVlaquo and cover or contain it in some way to prevent exposure to or spread of contaminants This method reduces risks from exposure to contamination but does not destroy or reduce it

Move contamination off site Remove contaminated material (soil groundwater etc) and dispose of it or treat it elsewhere

Treat contamination onsi te Use a chemical or physical process on the site to destroy or remove the contaminants Treated material can be left on-site Contaminants capmred by the treatment process are disposed in an off-site hazardous waste facility

Cleanup Alternatives for the Eastern Surplus Superfund Site

The Eastem Surplus Site Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis (EECA) report reviewed the options EPA considered for cleanup as well as the EPAs proposed cleanup plan The options referred to as cleanup altematives are different combinations of plans to contain remove or treat contamination to protect public health and the environment

EPA developed separate sets of options to deal with soil contamination (the source of contamination at the site) and on-Site groundwater contamination (which allows contamination to spread away from the site)

During the upcoming comment period EPA welcomes your comments on the proposed cleanup plan as well as the other technical approaches EPA evaluated These altematives are siunmarized below Please consult the Eastem Surplus Company Site EECA for more detailed information

Soil Cleanup Alternatives

Altemative SC2 Off-site disposal at a chemical waste landfill This altemative described in more detail on pages 1 and 2 is the EPA preferred altemative

bull Remove soil with concentrations of PCBs that could threaten public health (more than 2 parts per million of PCB contamination) and VOCs

above the specified cleanup levels to remove the hot spots of contamination (See Table 2)

bull Send excavated soil off-site to an approved hazardous waste landfill andor treatment facility

bull Cover excavated areas with clean fill

Alternative SC3 Thermal desorption This altemative uses thermal blankets to heat soils containing elevated levels of VOCs andor PCBs to heat the soil (in-place) to a temperature that will destroy the contamination on-Site

Altemative SC4 Soil vapor extraction This altemative involves the installation of either overtical wells or trenches to allow for the collection of VOC contaminated soil vapor A vacuum is applied to accelerate the transfer ofthe VOCfrom the soils to the air The collected vapor would be treated to remove the VOCs prior to releasing the vapor into the air Condensate would be collected and treated along v^th the groimdwater

Table 2 Proposed Soil Cleanup Levels

Contaminant Soil Cleanup Level (mgkg)

21 PCBs

1 PCE 006

1 TCE 006

002 Methylene Chloride

Source Control Groundwater Cleanup

Alternative The NTCRA will include a groimdwater source control system This system will involve the installation of sufficient groundwater extraction wells to contain the groundwater contamination on-Site and treat the collected groundwater for re-infiltration into the ground The water will be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards prior to discharge The groundwater source control system will be included in each ofthe soil cleanup altematives

Groundwater Alternative 1 bull Pump contaminated groundwater from

several site locations in the northem plume to a central treatment unit on site

bull Filter the ground water using granular activated carbon Chemicals cling to the surface ofthe carbon material removing contaminants from the water The used carbon is sent offsite for recycling or disposal

bull Discharge treated groundwater to the ground surface using an infiltration gallery The groundwater would be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards

Since groundwater altemative 1 is an interim action no cleanup levels are being proposed The final decision document for the Site will contain the cleanup levels for groundwater

What impacts would the cleanup have on the local

community

bull Any actions that disturb the contamination during cleanup could present short-term risks during excavation As a result EPA will monitor air and other emissions to ensure that unsafe levels of contaminants are not released beyond the Site boundary

bull The off-site disposal options would require the use ofthe a large portion ofthe Site to provide space to manage and store the contaminated and clean soil

bull For both on-site and off-site treatment options careful traffic management will be required to ensure the safe transport of contaminated soil off-site or for treatment within the site

bull Scarce space at off-site hazardous waste landfills and hazardous waste incinerators could require stockpiling of excavated soil and linut implementability of off-site options

Table 3 Comparison of Removal Cleanup Alternatives

Kine Criteria

Effectiveness (l)Protects human health and environment

(2)Meets federal and State requirements

(3)Provides long-term protection

(4)Reduces mobility toxicity and volume

(5)Provides short-term protection

Implementable (Can it be done)

Costs Million

Time to reach cleanup goal

2 bull ^ ^

Off-Site Disposal with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

^

bull

bull 25

^ H

mmmgt ^

Thermal Desorption with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

34

3-5 months

EPAs preferred alternative ^ Meets or exceeds criterion c Partially meets criterion ^ Does NOT meet criterion

Vapor Extraction with groundwater control

bull bull m

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

22

up to one year

10

N^Hi

Why Does EPA Recommend thte Plara

The EPA recommends a cleanup plan that uses excavation and crfllite disposal for cleanup of contaminated soil and extraction and graniilar activated carbotj tb tt^t groufidwater at the site becausetiiese teaehnologi^

Me6t|he3 criteria of cost effectiveness bull prbwde the liibist cost- effeetive balance of andimplementabflity including protecting effectiveness and implementaLbility puMic hetdth and the emvironment

bull Provide interim control of the conteuninated Result in a permanent removal of the on-Site groundwater during the time colUb^mated soilfrom the Site required to complete the remaining RIFS

studies 1 e mosr protection fbr the cost

Any delists in leaning the source materMls could

r bull 5 ^ bull bull ^ M result in ^j^ed^ costs particularlytfPCSts were

bullD^M^Riper

June 1998 EPA expects to have reviewed all coirnnentsri^ Action Memorat ^NEl ^^uftib(i^^^ciibing flie chosen cleanup plan the Actioit^siioir^ fpd a aipmai iy of respofliiamp S to

eht5 ill then be made available tp-the public ate Cl lalpm^ or other na iil|^1I^A Sjec^dslt^lir- In Bostoh EPA wninannounc^TiQ dec ion to the communi^|Nt^ugh

MM

Completion of RIFS

EPA will continue to evaluate the data collected during the 1996 and 1997 investigations to develop a comprehensive Remedial Investigation Report for the Site The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments will be based upon the data in the Remedial Investigation Report The risk assessments will determine the need for any additional cleanup actions at the Site If there are any areas that represent a potential threat to human health or the environment then a Feasibility Study will be developed to evaluate a set of cleanup altematives At a minimum a feasibility study will be prepared to determine the long-term strategy to address contaminated groundwater and any remaining contamination in on-Site soils

The need for a cleanup of Lake Meddybemps or the Dennys River will not be known until the completion ofthe risk assessments The final decision regarding the long-term cleanup and management ofthe Site will be described in a Proposed Plan which is expected to be released in the spring or fall of 1999 Thefinal decision will be documented in a Record of Decision

11

Use This Space to Write Your Comments or to be added to the mailing list

EPA wants your written comments on the options under consideration for dealing with the contamination at the Eastem Surplus Superfund site You can use the form below to send written comments Ifyou have questions about how to comment please call EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Erin Heskett at 617 565-3033 This form is provided for your convenience Please mail this form or additional sheets of written comments postmarked no later than date year to

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region I (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203-0001

or send E-mail to hathawayed epamailepagov

(Attach sheets as needed) Comment Submitted bv June 221998

Mailing list additions deletions or changes

I would like to o be added to the site mailing list n note a change of address n be deleted from the mailing list

Name Address

Scope and Role of Action

The Superfund law allows EPA to implement cleanup actions under the removal or remedial authorities specified in the statute The approach selected depends upon a variety of factors Removal actions are often used to respond to emergency or time critical situations

EPA may however perform a removal action at a site when prompt action is necessary but more than six months of planning and preparation time is available before on-Site cleanup work must begin Such a removal is called a non-time critical removal action (NTCRA)

EPA issued Information Update 9 to describe the generic NTCRA process The soil contamination at the Site qualifies for a NTCRA because rapid control ofthe source material is necessary to protect the surrounding environment and conmiunity and to prevent further contamination ofthe groundwater A study called the Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis EECA has been prepared to evaluate different options for controlling the source of contamination

A NTCRA does not always result in an actual physical removal of contamination from a site for offsite disposal

Rather a NTCRA may involve various treatment or containment technologies to deal with the contamination on-Site

A common theme for NTCRAs is that EPA will generally use this authority to accelerate its response to address the source ofthe contamination at a site This is consistent with EPAs Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) EPA developed the SACM model to speed up Superfund cleanups and make them more timely and efficient In particular the SACM authorizes the use of removal and remedial authorities earlier in the Superfimd process to achieve rapid risk reduction as compared with more traditional Superfund cleanups

At the Eastem Surplus site EPA will use the NTCRA authority and the SACM approach to remove the source of contamination during the fall of 1998 Iftiie standard remedial Superfund approach had been followed at this Site the cleanup would not have been initiated until the summer of 2000

Cleanup Actions Beyond the NTCRA

While the proposed action will accelerate the overall site cleanup by eliminating the source ofthe PCB and groundwater contamination

it does not alone constitute the complete cleanup plan for the Site (See Figure 3) During the remainder of 1998 and into 1999 EPA will complete the remedial investigation and feasibility study for the entire Site The results of all ofthe investigations and the human health and ecological risk assessments will be used to determine the need for any additional cleanup actions beyond the NTCRA

The EPA will address the follovwng cleanup issues after the NTCRA is completed

bull long-term groundwater remediation to restore groundwater to drinking water standards or to control the movement of contaminants through the groundwater

bull sediment andor surface water cleanup and

bull controls on groundwater and land use in the vicinity ofthe Site

The Remedial Investigation Report Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment should all be available to the public by the end of 1998 The Feasibility Study should be available by early 1999 EPA plans to initiate public comment to resolve the remaining Site issues by late spring 1999

FIGURE 3 REMOVAL ACTION AND

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONFEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS

NPL Listing June 1996

RIFS Start August 1996 ]

RiFS Process Phase I A Sampling Program

Spring 1996

NTCRA

USFWS Fish Sampling Report

May 1998

Approval Memorandum January 1998

USGS Hydrogeology Report

July 1998

T Human Health Risk

Assessment August 1998

A Remedial

Investigation Report December 1998

T Ecological Risk Assessment

Feasibility Study Report Spring 1999

T 1

EECA May 1998

Fact Sheet May 1998

Public Comment Period

May-June 1998

Action Memo July 1998

Design and Construction

July-December 1998

1 1

1

Final ROD for Site (Groundwaterriver NPL - National Priorities List

lake) RIFS - Remedial InvestigationFeasibility Study EECA - Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis NTCRA - Non-Time-Critical Removal Action

Site History

The Eastem Surplus Company Superfund site is a 4 to 5 acre former salvagejimk yard located at the edge of Meddybemps Lake and the Dennys River

1946 Eastern Surplus Company to operated a salvagejunk yard 1973 accepting materials mostly from

the Department of Defense (DOD)

1985 The Maine DEP initiated an emergency action to stabilize the Site A fence was installed and over 100 transformers with PCBs were removed

1986 EPA took over emergency to cleanup Thousands of cans 1990 drums and other containers were

^ bull bull removed Analysis of surface soil samples showed high levels of VOCs and PCBs

1988 DOD removed approximately 2500 compressed gas cylinders

1996 EPA added the site to tiie National Priorities List of Superfund sites

1996 EPA conducted a detailed investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site and the risks posed by site contamination to public health and the environment

1997 EPA performed treatability studies

1998 EPA proposes early cleanup and continues site characterization

Why is cleanup nee(Jed

The Eastem Surplus Company Superfund site is contaminated with dangerous levels of contaminants The contaminants of most concem to EPA are PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and VOCs (volatile organic chemicals) which are present in areas ofthe site at levels that could harm human health and the environment from frequent or long-term exposure to the contaminants (See Table 1) To protect neighboring residents EPA recommends reducing through appropriate cleanup measures the chances that people and animals could be exposed to the current site contaminants

Currently the major pathways of exposure are

bull Contact with contaminated soils by site visitors or by future residential users ofthe property PCBs are the major concem with respect to direct contact and incidental ingestion of soil The PCBs in the soil also represent a threat to the Dennys River if this contamination was to be washed into the River

bull Groundwater beneath the northem end ofthe Site and groundwater from the southem portion ofthe

Site extending across Rt 191 (See Figure 4) A future user of on-Site groundwater would be exposed to unacceptably high levels of methylene chloride tetrachloroethene trichloroethene and PCBs The highly contaminated groundwater beneath the source area could potentially migrate to groundwater beyond the site

After reviewing the infomiation collected during the fall 1996 spring 1997 and fall 1997 investigations EPA determined that the levels of PCBs and VOCs in die soils on-Site represented a hazard that should be addressed as quickly as possible The urgency was based upon the need to avoid the possibility that the PCB contaminated soils could be washed into the Dennys River creating a significant environmental hazard In addition the concentrations of PCBs in surface soils are above those considered acceptable for contact by visitors with the Site

mJDYBBUPSLAKE

FIGURE 4 GROUNDWATER VOCs PLUMES

EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY - NPL SITE

The solvents in the soils also represent a source of groundwater contamination unless they are controlled or removed Given the close proximity of residential water supplies to the site EPA determined that rapid control of the source ofthe groundwater contamination and ofthe groundwater already contaminated was necessary

^ ^

EPA has determined in recent studies that none ofthe residential wells located near the Site are contaminated EPA will continue to monitor these wells over time to ensure that residents are not exposed to unsafe levels of contaminants should the contaminated groundwater beneath the site unexpectedly migrate

Under this NTCRA only contamination in the northem groundwater plume will be addressed Risks to human health and the environment related to the southem plume will not be addressed until fiirther tests are conducted These tests will better define theflow direction and extent ofthe southem

Table 1 Levels of Contaminants Found Onsite Compared to Acceptable State and Federal Levels

SjfftCotttaidinants i laquorDniccrtilltHr$oiI ^r^^k

i

PCBs 2 12000

y ^ Tetrachloroethene 3 320 S ^

Trichloroethene 19 25

Chromiiun 400 13800

Cadmium 27 416

Lead 375 594

Metiiylene Chloride 13 40000

Site Contaminants of Federal Maximum Maximum Concentration found Concem in the Contaminant Level on Site (parts per million) Groundwater

Tetrachloroethene 0005 670

Trichloroethene 0005 038

Methylene Chloride 0005 044

PCBs 00005 0003

OWhats a Formal Comment During the 30-day public comment period EPA will accept formal written comments

and hold a public hearing at the end of the vmtten comment period to accept formal verbal comments EPA

uses public comments to improve the cleanup proposal

To make a formal comment you need only speak during the public hearing on June 10 1998 or submit a written comment during the 30-day comment period

Federal regulations require EPA to distinguish between formal and informal comments While EPA uses your cominents throughout site investigations and cleanup EPA is required to respond to formal comments in writing only EPA will not respond to your comments dvuing the formal hearing portion of the Jime 101998 information session

For More Detailed Information

The fact that EPA responds to formal comments only in writing does not mean that EPA can not answer questions Once the meeting moderator announces that the formal hearing portion of the meeting is closed EPA can respond to informal questions

EPA will review the transcript of all formal comments received at the hearing and all written comments received during the formal comment period before making a final cleanup decision EPA will then prepare a written response to all formal written and oral comments

Your formal comments will become part of the official public record The transcript of comments and EPAs written responses will be issued in a document called a Responsiveness Summary when EPA releases the final cleanup decision

To help you understand and comment on the proposal for the site this publication summarizes a number of reports and studies All ofthe technical and public information publications prepared to date for the site are available at the at these Eastem Surplus Company site information repositories

Calais Public Library Ms Marylin Diffin Reference Librarian Calais Free Library Union Street Calais Maine 04619

EPA Records Center 90 Canal Street Boston MA 02114 (617) 573-5729 Hours 1000 am-noon

200pm-500pm

The Three Criteria fo r Choosing a Cleanup

EPA uses three criteria to balance the pros and cons of cleanup altematives EPA has already evaluated how well each ofthe cleanup altematives developed for the Eastem Surplus Company Superfund Site meet these criteria (See Table 3) Once comments from the state and the community are received EPA will select the cleanup plan

A EfTectiveness This criteria evaluates five specific subcriteria

(1) Overall protection of human health and the environment Will it protect you and the plant and animal life on and near the site EPA will not choose a plan that does not meet this basic criterion

(2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Does the altemative meet all federal and state environmental statutes regulations and requirements on-Site

(3) Long-term effectiveness and permanence Will the effects of the cleanup plan last or could contamination cause future risk

(4) Reduction of toxicity mobility or volume through treatment Does the altemative reduce the harmful effects ofthe contaminants the spread of contaminants and the amount of contaminated material

(5) Short-term effectiveness How soon will site risks be adequately reduced Could the cleanup cause short-term hazards to workers residents or the environment

B Implementability Is the alternative technically and administratively feasible Are the right goods and services (ie treatment machinery space at an approved disposal facility) available for the plan What are the administrative barriers to proceeding

C Cost What is the total cost of an altemative over time EPA must find a plan that gives necessary protection for a reasonable cost

EPA also strongly considers state and community input prior to finalizing tbe selection ofthe cleanup altemative

Four Kinds of Cleanup

EPA looks at numerous technical approaches to determine the best way to reduce the risks presented by a Superfund site The EPA then narrows the possibilities to approaches that would protect human health and the environment Although reducing risks often involves combinations of highly technical processes there are really only four basic options

Take limited or no action Leave the site as it mmgt is or just restrict access and monitor it

Contain contamination Leave contamination where it is QVlaquo and cover or contain it in some way to prevent exposure to or spread of contaminants This method reduces risks from exposure to contamination but does not destroy or reduce it

Move contamination off site Remove contaminated material (soil groundwater etc) and dispose of it or treat it elsewhere

Treat contamination onsi te Use a chemical or physical process on the site to destroy or remove the contaminants Treated material can be left on-site Contaminants capmred by the treatment process are disposed in an off-site hazardous waste facility

Cleanup Alternatives for the Eastern Surplus Superfund Site

The Eastem Surplus Site Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis (EECA) report reviewed the options EPA considered for cleanup as well as the EPAs proposed cleanup plan The options referred to as cleanup altematives are different combinations of plans to contain remove or treat contamination to protect public health and the environment

EPA developed separate sets of options to deal with soil contamination (the source of contamination at the site) and on-Site groundwater contamination (which allows contamination to spread away from the site)

During the upcoming comment period EPA welcomes your comments on the proposed cleanup plan as well as the other technical approaches EPA evaluated These altematives are siunmarized below Please consult the Eastem Surplus Company Site EECA for more detailed information

Soil Cleanup Alternatives

Altemative SC2 Off-site disposal at a chemical waste landfill This altemative described in more detail on pages 1 and 2 is the EPA preferred altemative

bull Remove soil with concentrations of PCBs that could threaten public health (more than 2 parts per million of PCB contamination) and VOCs

above the specified cleanup levels to remove the hot spots of contamination (See Table 2)

bull Send excavated soil off-site to an approved hazardous waste landfill andor treatment facility

bull Cover excavated areas with clean fill

Alternative SC3 Thermal desorption This altemative uses thermal blankets to heat soils containing elevated levels of VOCs andor PCBs to heat the soil (in-place) to a temperature that will destroy the contamination on-Site

Altemative SC4 Soil vapor extraction This altemative involves the installation of either overtical wells or trenches to allow for the collection of VOC contaminated soil vapor A vacuum is applied to accelerate the transfer ofthe VOCfrom the soils to the air The collected vapor would be treated to remove the VOCs prior to releasing the vapor into the air Condensate would be collected and treated along v^th the groimdwater

Table 2 Proposed Soil Cleanup Levels

Contaminant Soil Cleanup Level (mgkg)

21 PCBs

1 PCE 006

1 TCE 006

002 Methylene Chloride

Source Control Groundwater Cleanup

Alternative The NTCRA will include a groimdwater source control system This system will involve the installation of sufficient groundwater extraction wells to contain the groundwater contamination on-Site and treat the collected groundwater for re-infiltration into the ground The water will be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards prior to discharge The groundwater source control system will be included in each ofthe soil cleanup altematives

Groundwater Alternative 1 bull Pump contaminated groundwater from

several site locations in the northem plume to a central treatment unit on site

bull Filter the ground water using granular activated carbon Chemicals cling to the surface ofthe carbon material removing contaminants from the water The used carbon is sent offsite for recycling or disposal

bull Discharge treated groundwater to the ground surface using an infiltration gallery The groundwater would be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards

Since groundwater altemative 1 is an interim action no cleanup levels are being proposed The final decision document for the Site will contain the cleanup levels for groundwater

What impacts would the cleanup have on the local

community

bull Any actions that disturb the contamination during cleanup could present short-term risks during excavation As a result EPA will monitor air and other emissions to ensure that unsafe levels of contaminants are not released beyond the Site boundary

bull The off-site disposal options would require the use ofthe a large portion ofthe Site to provide space to manage and store the contaminated and clean soil

bull For both on-site and off-site treatment options careful traffic management will be required to ensure the safe transport of contaminated soil off-site or for treatment within the site

bull Scarce space at off-site hazardous waste landfills and hazardous waste incinerators could require stockpiling of excavated soil and linut implementability of off-site options

Table 3 Comparison of Removal Cleanup Alternatives

Kine Criteria

Effectiveness (l)Protects human health and environment

(2)Meets federal and State requirements

(3)Provides long-term protection

(4)Reduces mobility toxicity and volume

(5)Provides short-term protection

Implementable (Can it be done)

Costs Million

Time to reach cleanup goal

2 bull ^ ^

Off-Site Disposal with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

^

bull

bull 25

^ H

mmmgt ^

Thermal Desorption with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

34

3-5 months

EPAs preferred alternative ^ Meets or exceeds criterion c Partially meets criterion ^ Does NOT meet criterion

Vapor Extraction with groundwater control

bull bull m

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

22

up to one year

10

N^Hi

Why Does EPA Recommend thte Plara

The EPA recommends a cleanup plan that uses excavation and crfllite disposal for cleanup of contaminated soil and extraction and graniilar activated carbotj tb tt^t groufidwater at the site becausetiiese teaehnologi^

Me6t|he3 criteria of cost effectiveness bull prbwde the liibist cost- effeetive balance of andimplementabflity including protecting effectiveness and implementaLbility puMic hetdth and the emvironment

bull Provide interim control of the conteuninated Result in a permanent removal of the on-Site groundwater during the time colUb^mated soilfrom the Site required to complete the remaining RIFS

studies 1 e mosr protection fbr the cost

Any delists in leaning the source materMls could

r bull 5 ^ bull bull ^ M result in ^j^ed^ costs particularlytfPCSts were

bullD^M^Riper

June 1998 EPA expects to have reviewed all coirnnentsri^ Action Memorat ^NEl ^^uftib(i^^^ciibing flie chosen cleanup plan the Actioit^siioir^ fpd a aipmai iy of respofliiamp S to

eht5 ill then be made available tp-the public ate Cl lalpm^ or other na iil|^1I^A Sjec^dslt^lir- In Bostoh EPA wninannounc^TiQ dec ion to the communi^|Nt^ugh

MM

Completion of RIFS

EPA will continue to evaluate the data collected during the 1996 and 1997 investigations to develop a comprehensive Remedial Investigation Report for the Site The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments will be based upon the data in the Remedial Investigation Report The risk assessments will determine the need for any additional cleanup actions at the Site If there are any areas that represent a potential threat to human health or the environment then a Feasibility Study will be developed to evaluate a set of cleanup altematives At a minimum a feasibility study will be prepared to determine the long-term strategy to address contaminated groundwater and any remaining contamination in on-Site soils

The need for a cleanup of Lake Meddybemps or the Dennys River will not be known until the completion ofthe risk assessments The final decision regarding the long-term cleanup and management ofthe Site will be described in a Proposed Plan which is expected to be released in the spring or fall of 1999 Thefinal decision will be documented in a Record of Decision

11

Use This Space to Write Your Comments or to be added to the mailing list

EPA wants your written comments on the options under consideration for dealing with the contamination at the Eastem Surplus Superfund site You can use the form below to send written comments Ifyou have questions about how to comment please call EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Erin Heskett at 617 565-3033 This form is provided for your convenience Please mail this form or additional sheets of written comments postmarked no later than date year to

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region I (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203-0001

or send E-mail to hathawayed epamailepagov

(Attach sheets as needed) Comment Submitted bv June 221998

Mailing list additions deletions or changes

I would like to o be added to the site mailing list n note a change of address n be deleted from the mailing list

Name Address

FIGURE 3 REMOVAL ACTION AND

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONFEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS

NPL Listing June 1996

RIFS Start August 1996 ]

RiFS Process Phase I A Sampling Program

Spring 1996

NTCRA

USFWS Fish Sampling Report

May 1998

Approval Memorandum January 1998

USGS Hydrogeology Report

July 1998

T Human Health Risk

Assessment August 1998

A Remedial

Investigation Report December 1998

T Ecological Risk Assessment

Feasibility Study Report Spring 1999

T 1

EECA May 1998

Fact Sheet May 1998

Public Comment Period

May-June 1998

Action Memo July 1998

Design and Construction

July-December 1998

1 1

1

Final ROD for Site (Groundwaterriver NPL - National Priorities List

lake) RIFS - Remedial InvestigationFeasibility Study EECA - Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis NTCRA - Non-Time-Critical Removal Action

Site History

The Eastem Surplus Company Superfund site is a 4 to 5 acre former salvagejimk yard located at the edge of Meddybemps Lake and the Dennys River

1946 Eastern Surplus Company to operated a salvagejunk yard 1973 accepting materials mostly from

the Department of Defense (DOD)

1985 The Maine DEP initiated an emergency action to stabilize the Site A fence was installed and over 100 transformers with PCBs were removed

1986 EPA took over emergency to cleanup Thousands of cans 1990 drums and other containers were

^ bull bull removed Analysis of surface soil samples showed high levels of VOCs and PCBs

1988 DOD removed approximately 2500 compressed gas cylinders

1996 EPA added the site to tiie National Priorities List of Superfund sites

1996 EPA conducted a detailed investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site and the risks posed by site contamination to public health and the environment

1997 EPA performed treatability studies

1998 EPA proposes early cleanup and continues site characterization

Why is cleanup nee(Jed

The Eastem Surplus Company Superfund site is contaminated with dangerous levels of contaminants The contaminants of most concem to EPA are PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and VOCs (volatile organic chemicals) which are present in areas ofthe site at levels that could harm human health and the environment from frequent or long-term exposure to the contaminants (See Table 1) To protect neighboring residents EPA recommends reducing through appropriate cleanup measures the chances that people and animals could be exposed to the current site contaminants

Currently the major pathways of exposure are

bull Contact with contaminated soils by site visitors or by future residential users ofthe property PCBs are the major concem with respect to direct contact and incidental ingestion of soil The PCBs in the soil also represent a threat to the Dennys River if this contamination was to be washed into the River

bull Groundwater beneath the northem end ofthe Site and groundwater from the southem portion ofthe

Site extending across Rt 191 (See Figure 4) A future user of on-Site groundwater would be exposed to unacceptably high levels of methylene chloride tetrachloroethene trichloroethene and PCBs The highly contaminated groundwater beneath the source area could potentially migrate to groundwater beyond the site

After reviewing the infomiation collected during the fall 1996 spring 1997 and fall 1997 investigations EPA determined that the levels of PCBs and VOCs in die soils on-Site represented a hazard that should be addressed as quickly as possible The urgency was based upon the need to avoid the possibility that the PCB contaminated soils could be washed into the Dennys River creating a significant environmental hazard In addition the concentrations of PCBs in surface soils are above those considered acceptable for contact by visitors with the Site

mJDYBBUPSLAKE

FIGURE 4 GROUNDWATER VOCs PLUMES

EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY - NPL SITE

The solvents in the soils also represent a source of groundwater contamination unless they are controlled or removed Given the close proximity of residential water supplies to the site EPA determined that rapid control of the source ofthe groundwater contamination and ofthe groundwater already contaminated was necessary

^ ^

EPA has determined in recent studies that none ofthe residential wells located near the Site are contaminated EPA will continue to monitor these wells over time to ensure that residents are not exposed to unsafe levels of contaminants should the contaminated groundwater beneath the site unexpectedly migrate

Under this NTCRA only contamination in the northem groundwater plume will be addressed Risks to human health and the environment related to the southem plume will not be addressed until fiirther tests are conducted These tests will better define theflow direction and extent ofthe southem

Table 1 Levels of Contaminants Found Onsite Compared to Acceptable State and Federal Levels

SjfftCotttaidinants i laquorDniccrtilltHr$oiI ^r^^k

i

PCBs 2 12000

y ^ Tetrachloroethene 3 320 S ^

Trichloroethene 19 25

Chromiiun 400 13800

Cadmium 27 416

Lead 375 594

Metiiylene Chloride 13 40000

Site Contaminants of Federal Maximum Maximum Concentration found Concem in the Contaminant Level on Site (parts per million) Groundwater

Tetrachloroethene 0005 670

Trichloroethene 0005 038

Methylene Chloride 0005 044

PCBs 00005 0003

OWhats a Formal Comment During the 30-day public comment period EPA will accept formal written comments

and hold a public hearing at the end of the vmtten comment period to accept formal verbal comments EPA

uses public comments to improve the cleanup proposal

To make a formal comment you need only speak during the public hearing on June 10 1998 or submit a written comment during the 30-day comment period

Federal regulations require EPA to distinguish between formal and informal comments While EPA uses your cominents throughout site investigations and cleanup EPA is required to respond to formal comments in writing only EPA will not respond to your comments dvuing the formal hearing portion of the Jime 101998 information session

For More Detailed Information

The fact that EPA responds to formal comments only in writing does not mean that EPA can not answer questions Once the meeting moderator announces that the formal hearing portion of the meeting is closed EPA can respond to informal questions

EPA will review the transcript of all formal comments received at the hearing and all written comments received during the formal comment period before making a final cleanup decision EPA will then prepare a written response to all formal written and oral comments

Your formal comments will become part of the official public record The transcript of comments and EPAs written responses will be issued in a document called a Responsiveness Summary when EPA releases the final cleanup decision

To help you understand and comment on the proposal for the site this publication summarizes a number of reports and studies All ofthe technical and public information publications prepared to date for the site are available at the at these Eastem Surplus Company site information repositories

Calais Public Library Ms Marylin Diffin Reference Librarian Calais Free Library Union Street Calais Maine 04619

EPA Records Center 90 Canal Street Boston MA 02114 (617) 573-5729 Hours 1000 am-noon

200pm-500pm

The Three Criteria fo r Choosing a Cleanup

EPA uses three criteria to balance the pros and cons of cleanup altematives EPA has already evaluated how well each ofthe cleanup altematives developed for the Eastem Surplus Company Superfund Site meet these criteria (See Table 3) Once comments from the state and the community are received EPA will select the cleanup plan

A EfTectiveness This criteria evaluates five specific subcriteria

(1) Overall protection of human health and the environment Will it protect you and the plant and animal life on and near the site EPA will not choose a plan that does not meet this basic criterion

(2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Does the altemative meet all federal and state environmental statutes regulations and requirements on-Site

(3) Long-term effectiveness and permanence Will the effects of the cleanup plan last or could contamination cause future risk

(4) Reduction of toxicity mobility or volume through treatment Does the altemative reduce the harmful effects ofthe contaminants the spread of contaminants and the amount of contaminated material

(5) Short-term effectiveness How soon will site risks be adequately reduced Could the cleanup cause short-term hazards to workers residents or the environment

B Implementability Is the alternative technically and administratively feasible Are the right goods and services (ie treatment machinery space at an approved disposal facility) available for the plan What are the administrative barriers to proceeding

C Cost What is the total cost of an altemative over time EPA must find a plan that gives necessary protection for a reasonable cost

EPA also strongly considers state and community input prior to finalizing tbe selection ofthe cleanup altemative

Four Kinds of Cleanup

EPA looks at numerous technical approaches to determine the best way to reduce the risks presented by a Superfund site The EPA then narrows the possibilities to approaches that would protect human health and the environment Although reducing risks often involves combinations of highly technical processes there are really only four basic options

Take limited or no action Leave the site as it mmgt is or just restrict access and monitor it

Contain contamination Leave contamination where it is QVlaquo and cover or contain it in some way to prevent exposure to or spread of contaminants This method reduces risks from exposure to contamination but does not destroy or reduce it

Move contamination off site Remove contaminated material (soil groundwater etc) and dispose of it or treat it elsewhere

Treat contamination onsi te Use a chemical or physical process on the site to destroy or remove the contaminants Treated material can be left on-site Contaminants capmred by the treatment process are disposed in an off-site hazardous waste facility

Cleanup Alternatives for the Eastern Surplus Superfund Site

The Eastem Surplus Site Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis (EECA) report reviewed the options EPA considered for cleanup as well as the EPAs proposed cleanup plan The options referred to as cleanup altematives are different combinations of plans to contain remove or treat contamination to protect public health and the environment

EPA developed separate sets of options to deal with soil contamination (the source of contamination at the site) and on-Site groundwater contamination (which allows contamination to spread away from the site)

During the upcoming comment period EPA welcomes your comments on the proposed cleanup plan as well as the other technical approaches EPA evaluated These altematives are siunmarized below Please consult the Eastem Surplus Company Site EECA for more detailed information

Soil Cleanup Alternatives

Altemative SC2 Off-site disposal at a chemical waste landfill This altemative described in more detail on pages 1 and 2 is the EPA preferred altemative

bull Remove soil with concentrations of PCBs that could threaten public health (more than 2 parts per million of PCB contamination) and VOCs

above the specified cleanup levels to remove the hot spots of contamination (See Table 2)

bull Send excavated soil off-site to an approved hazardous waste landfill andor treatment facility

bull Cover excavated areas with clean fill

Alternative SC3 Thermal desorption This altemative uses thermal blankets to heat soils containing elevated levels of VOCs andor PCBs to heat the soil (in-place) to a temperature that will destroy the contamination on-Site

Altemative SC4 Soil vapor extraction This altemative involves the installation of either overtical wells or trenches to allow for the collection of VOC contaminated soil vapor A vacuum is applied to accelerate the transfer ofthe VOCfrom the soils to the air The collected vapor would be treated to remove the VOCs prior to releasing the vapor into the air Condensate would be collected and treated along v^th the groimdwater

Table 2 Proposed Soil Cleanup Levels

Contaminant Soil Cleanup Level (mgkg)

21 PCBs

1 PCE 006

1 TCE 006

002 Methylene Chloride

Source Control Groundwater Cleanup

Alternative The NTCRA will include a groimdwater source control system This system will involve the installation of sufficient groundwater extraction wells to contain the groundwater contamination on-Site and treat the collected groundwater for re-infiltration into the ground The water will be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards prior to discharge The groundwater source control system will be included in each ofthe soil cleanup altematives

Groundwater Alternative 1 bull Pump contaminated groundwater from

several site locations in the northem plume to a central treatment unit on site

bull Filter the ground water using granular activated carbon Chemicals cling to the surface ofthe carbon material removing contaminants from the water The used carbon is sent offsite for recycling or disposal

bull Discharge treated groundwater to the ground surface using an infiltration gallery The groundwater would be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards

Since groundwater altemative 1 is an interim action no cleanup levels are being proposed The final decision document for the Site will contain the cleanup levels for groundwater

What impacts would the cleanup have on the local

community

bull Any actions that disturb the contamination during cleanup could present short-term risks during excavation As a result EPA will monitor air and other emissions to ensure that unsafe levels of contaminants are not released beyond the Site boundary

bull The off-site disposal options would require the use ofthe a large portion ofthe Site to provide space to manage and store the contaminated and clean soil

bull For both on-site and off-site treatment options careful traffic management will be required to ensure the safe transport of contaminated soil off-site or for treatment within the site

bull Scarce space at off-site hazardous waste landfills and hazardous waste incinerators could require stockpiling of excavated soil and linut implementability of off-site options

Table 3 Comparison of Removal Cleanup Alternatives

Kine Criteria

Effectiveness (l)Protects human health and environment

(2)Meets federal and State requirements

(3)Provides long-term protection

(4)Reduces mobility toxicity and volume

(5)Provides short-term protection

Implementable (Can it be done)

Costs Million

Time to reach cleanup goal

2 bull ^ ^

Off-Site Disposal with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

^

bull

bull 25

^ H

mmmgt ^

Thermal Desorption with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

34

3-5 months

EPAs preferred alternative ^ Meets or exceeds criterion c Partially meets criterion ^ Does NOT meet criterion

Vapor Extraction with groundwater control

bull bull m

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

22

up to one year

10

N^Hi

Why Does EPA Recommend thte Plara

The EPA recommends a cleanup plan that uses excavation and crfllite disposal for cleanup of contaminated soil and extraction and graniilar activated carbotj tb tt^t groufidwater at the site becausetiiese teaehnologi^

Me6t|he3 criteria of cost effectiveness bull prbwde the liibist cost- effeetive balance of andimplementabflity including protecting effectiveness and implementaLbility puMic hetdth and the emvironment

bull Provide interim control of the conteuninated Result in a permanent removal of the on-Site groundwater during the time colUb^mated soilfrom the Site required to complete the remaining RIFS

studies 1 e mosr protection fbr the cost

Any delists in leaning the source materMls could

r bull 5 ^ bull bull ^ M result in ^j^ed^ costs particularlytfPCSts were

bullD^M^Riper

June 1998 EPA expects to have reviewed all coirnnentsri^ Action Memorat ^NEl ^^uftib(i^^^ciibing flie chosen cleanup plan the Actioit^siioir^ fpd a aipmai iy of respofliiamp S to

eht5 ill then be made available tp-the public ate Cl lalpm^ or other na iil|^1I^A Sjec^dslt^lir- In Bostoh EPA wninannounc^TiQ dec ion to the communi^|Nt^ugh

MM

Completion of RIFS

EPA will continue to evaluate the data collected during the 1996 and 1997 investigations to develop a comprehensive Remedial Investigation Report for the Site The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments will be based upon the data in the Remedial Investigation Report The risk assessments will determine the need for any additional cleanup actions at the Site If there are any areas that represent a potential threat to human health or the environment then a Feasibility Study will be developed to evaluate a set of cleanup altematives At a minimum a feasibility study will be prepared to determine the long-term strategy to address contaminated groundwater and any remaining contamination in on-Site soils

The need for a cleanup of Lake Meddybemps or the Dennys River will not be known until the completion ofthe risk assessments The final decision regarding the long-term cleanup and management ofthe Site will be described in a Proposed Plan which is expected to be released in the spring or fall of 1999 Thefinal decision will be documented in a Record of Decision

11

Use This Space to Write Your Comments or to be added to the mailing list

EPA wants your written comments on the options under consideration for dealing with the contamination at the Eastem Surplus Superfund site You can use the form below to send written comments Ifyou have questions about how to comment please call EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Erin Heskett at 617 565-3033 This form is provided for your convenience Please mail this form or additional sheets of written comments postmarked no later than date year to

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region I (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203-0001

or send E-mail to hathawayed epamailepagov

(Attach sheets as needed) Comment Submitted bv June 221998

Mailing list additions deletions or changes

I would like to o be added to the site mailing list n note a change of address n be deleted from the mailing list

Name Address

Site History

The Eastem Surplus Company Superfund site is a 4 to 5 acre former salvagejimk yard located at the edge of Meddybemps Lake and the Dennys River

1946 Eastern Surplus Company to operated a salvagejunk yard 1973 accepting materials mostly from

the Department of Defense (DOD)

1985 The Maine DEP initiated an emergency action to stabilize the Site A fence was installed and over 100 transformers with PCBs were removed

1986 EPA took over emergency to cleanup Thousands of cans 1990 drums and other containers were

^ bull bull removed Analysis of surface soil samples showed high levels of VOCs and PCBs

1988 DOD removed approximately 2500 compressed gas cylinders

1996 EPA added the site to tiie National Priorities List of Superfund sites

1996 EPA conducted a detailed investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site and the risks posed by site contamination to public health and the environment

1997 EPA performed treatability studies

1998 EPA proposes early cleanup and continues site characterization

Why is cleanup nee(Jed

The Eastem Surplus Company Superfund site is contaminated with dangerous levels of contaminants The contaminants of most concem to EPA are PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and VOCs (volatile organic chemicals) which are present in areas ofthe site at levels that could harm human health and the environment from frequent or long-term exposure to the contaminants (See Table 1) To protect neighboring residents EPA recommends reducing through appropriate cleanup measures the chances that people and animals could be exposed to the current site contaminants

Currently the major pathways of exposure are

bull Contact with contaminated soils by site visitors or by future residential users ofthe property PCBs are the major concem with respect to direct contact and incidental ingestion of soil The PCBs in the soil also represent a threat to the Dennys River if this contamination was to be washed into the River

bull Groundwater beneath the northem end ofthe Site and groundwater from the southem portion ofthe

Site extending across Rt 191 (See Figure 4) A future user of on-Site groundwater would be exposed to unacceptably high levels of methylene chloride tetrachloroethene trichloroethene and PCBs The highly contaminated groundwater beneath the source area could potentially migrate to groundwater beyond the site

After reviewing the infomiation collected during the fall 1996 spring 1997 and fall 1997 investigations EPA determined that the levels of PCBs and VOCs in die soils on-Site represented a hazard that should be addressed as quickly as possible The urgency was based upon the need to avoid the possibility that the PCB contaminated soils could be washed into the Dennys River creating a significant environmental hazard In addition the concentrations of PCBs in surface soils are above those considered acceptable for contact by visitors with the Site

mJDYBBUPSLAKE

FIGURE 4 GROUNDWATER VOCs PLUMES

EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY - NPL SITE

The solvents in the soils also represent a source of groundwater contamination unless they are controlled or removed Given the close proximity of residential water supplies to the site EPA determined that rapid control of the source ofthe groundwater contamination and ofthe groundwater already contaminated was necessary

^ ^

EPA has determined in recent studies that none ofthe residential wells located near the Site are contaminated EPA will continue to monitor these wells over time to ensure that residents are not exposed to unsafe levels of contaminants should the contaminated groundwater beneath the site unexpectedly migrate

Under this NTCRA only contamination in the northem groundwater plume will be addressed Risks to human health and the environment related to the southem plume will not be addressed until fiirther tests are conducted These tests will better define theflow direction and extent ofthe southem

Table 1 Levels of Contaminants Found Onsite Compared to Acceptable State and Federal Levels

SjfftCotttaidinants i laquorDniccrtilltHr$oiI ^r^^k

i

PCBs 2 12000

y ^ Tetrachloroethene 3 320 S ^

Trichloroethene 19 25

Chromiiun 400 13800

Cadmium 27 416

Lead 375 594

Metiiylene Chloride 13 40000

Site Contaminants of Federal Maximum Maximum Concentration found Concem in the Contaminant Level on Site (parts per million) Groundwater

Tetrachloroethene 0005 670

Trichloroethene 0005 038

Methylene Chloride 0005 044

PCBs 00005 0003

OWhats a Formal Comment During the 30-day public comment period EPA will accept formal written comments

and hold a public hearing at the end of the vmtten comment period to accept formal verbal comments EPA

uses public comments to improve the cleanup proposal

To make a formal comment you need only speak during the public hearing on June 10 1998 or submit a written comment during the 30-day comment period

Federal regulations require EPA to distinguish between formal and informal comments While EPA uses your cominents throughout site investigations and cleanup EPA is required to respond to formal comments in writing only EPA will not respond to your comments dvuing the formal hearing portion of the Jime 101998 information session

For More Detailed Information

The fact that EPA responds to formal comments only in writing does not mean that EPA can not answer questions Once the meeting moderator announces that the formal hearing portion of the meeting is closed EPA can respond to informal questions

EPA will review the transcript of all formal comments received at the hearing and all written comments received during the formal comment period before making a final cleanup decision EPA will then prepare a written response to all formal written and oral comments

Your formal comments will become part of the official public record The transcript of comments and EPAs written responses will be issued in a document called a Responsiveness Summary when EPA releases the final cleanup decision

To help you understand and comment on the proposal for the site this publication summarizes a number of reports and studies All ofthe technical and public information publications prepared to date for the site are available at the at these Eastem Surplus Company site information repositories

Calais Public Library Ms Marylin Diffin Reference Librarian Calais Free Library Union Street Calais Maine 04619

EPA Records Center 90 Canal Street Boston MA 02114 (617) 573-5729 Hours 1000 am-noon

200pm-500pm

The Three Criteria fo r Choosing a Cleanup

EPA uses three criteria to balance the pros and cons of cleanup altematives EPA has already evaluated how well each ofthe cleanup altematives developed for the Eastem Surplus Company Superfund Site meet these criteria (See Table 3) Once comments from the state and the community are received EPA will select the cleanup plan

A EfTectiveness This criteria evaluates five specific subcriteria

(1) Overall protection of human health and the environment Will it protect you and the plant and animal life on and near the site EPA will not choose a plan that does not meet this basic criterion

(2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Does the altemative meet all federal and state environmental statutes regulations and requirements on-Site

(3) Long-term effectiveness and permanence Will the effects of the cleanup plan last or could contamination cause future risk

(4) Reduction of toxicity mobility or volume through treatment Does the altemative reduce the harmful effects ofthe contaminants the spread of contaminants and the amount of contaminated material

(5) Short-term effectiveness How soon will site risks be adequately reduced Could the cleanup cause short-term hazards to workers residents or the environment

B Implementability Is the alternative technically and administratively feasible Are the right goods and services (ie treatment machinery space at an approved disposal facility) available for the plan What are the administrative barriers to proceeding

C Cost What is the total cost of an altemative over time EPA must find a plan that gives necessary protection for a reasonable cost

EPA also strongly considers state and community input prior to finalizing tbe selection ofthe cleanup altemative

Four Kinds of Cleanup

EPA looks at numerous technical approaches to determine the best way to reduce the risks presented by a Superfund site The EPA then narrows the possibilities to approaches that would protect human health and the environment Although reducing risks often involves combinations of highly technical processes there are really only four basic options

Take limited or no action Leave the site as it mmgt is or just restrict access and monitor it

Contain contamination Leave contamination where it is QVlaquo and cover or contain it in some way to prevent exposure to or spread of contaminants This method reduces risks from exposure to contamination but does not destroy or reduce it

Move contamination off site Remove contaminated material (soil groundwater etc) and dispose of it or treat it elsewhere

Treat contamination onsi te Use a chemical or physical process on the site to destroy or remove the contaminants Treated material can be left on-site Contaminants capmred by the treatment process are disposed in an off-site hazardous waste facility

Cleanup Alternatives for the Eastern Surplus Superfund Site

The Eastem Surplus Site Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis (EECA) report reviewed the options EPA considered for cleanup as well as the EPAs proposed cleanup plan The options referred to as cleanup altematives are different combinations of plans to contain remove or treat contamination to protect public health and the environment

EPA developed separate sets of options to deal with soil contamination (the source of contamination at the site) and on-Site groundwater contamination (which allows contamination to spread away from the site)

During the upcoming comment period EPA welcomes your comments on the proposed cleanup plan as well as the other technical approaches EPA evaluated These altematives are siunmarized below Please consult the Eastem Surplus Company Site EECA for more detailed information

Soil Cleanup Alternatives

Altemative SC2 Off-site disposal at a chemical waste landfill This altemative described in more detail on pages 1 and 2 is the EPA preferred altemative

bull Remove soil with concentrations of PCBs that could threaten public health (more than 2 parts per million of PCB contamination) and VOCs

above the specified cleanup levels to remove the hot spots of contamination (See Table 2)

bull Send excavated soil off-site to an approved hazardous waste landfill andor treatment facility

bull Cover excavated areas with clean fill

Alternative SC3 Thermal desorption This altemative uses thermal blankets to heat soils containing elevated levels of VOCs andor PCBs to heat the soil (in-place) to a temperature that will destroy the contamination on-Site

Altemative SC4 Soil vapor extraction This altemative involves the installation of either overtical wells or trenches to allow for the collection of VOC contaminated soil vapor A vacuum is applied to accelerate the transfer ofthe VOCfrom the soils to the air The collected vapor would be treated to remove the VOCs prior to releasing the vapor into the air Condensate would be collected and treated along v^th the groimdwater

Table 2 Proposed Soil Cleanup Levels

Contaminant Soil Cleanup Level (mgkg)

21 PCBs

1 PCE 006

1 TCE 006

002 Methylene Chloride

Source Control Groundwater Cleanup

Alternative The NTCRA will include a groimdwater source control system This system will involve the installation of sufficient groundwater extraction wells to contain the groundwater contamination on-Site and treat the collected groundwater for re-infiltration into the ground The water will be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards prior to discharge The groundwater source control system will be included in each ofthe soil cleanup altematives

Groundwater Alternative 1 bull Pump contaminated groundwater from

several site locations in the northem plume to a central treatment unit on site

bull Filter the ground water using granular activated carbon Chemicals cling to the surface ofthe carbon material removing contaminants from the water The used carbon is sent offsite for recycling or disposal

bull Discharge treated groundwater to the ground surface using an infiltration gallery The groundwater would be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards

Since groundwater altemative 1 is an interim action no cleanup levels are being proposed The final decision document for the Site will contain the cleanup levels for groundwater

What impacts would the cleanup have on the local

community

bull Any actions that disturb the contamination during cleanup could present short-term risks during excavation As a result EPA will monitor air and other emissions to ensure that unsafe levels of contaminants are not released beyond the Site boundary

bull The off-site disposal options would require the use ofthe a large portion ofthe Site to provide space to manage and store the contaminated and clean soil

bull For both on-site and off-site treatment options careful traffic management will be required to ensure the safe transport of contaminated soil off-site or for treatment within the site

bull Scarce space at off-site hazardous waste landfills and hazardous waste incinerators could require stockpiling of excavated soil and linut implementability of off-site options

Table 3 Comparison of Removal Cleanup Alternatives

Kine Criteria

Effectiveness (l)Protects human health and environment

(2)Meets federal and State requirements

(3)Provides long-term protection

(4)Reduces mobility toxicity and volume

(5)Provides short-term protection

Implementable (Can it be done)

Costs Million

Time to reach cleanup goal

2 bull ^ ^

Off-Site Disposal with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

^

bull

bull 25

^ H

mmmgt ^

Thermal Desorption with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

34

3-5 months

EPAs preferred alternative ^ Meets or exceeds criterion c Partially meets criterion ^ Does NOT meet criterion

Vapor Extraction with groundwater control

bull bull m

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

22

up to one year

10

N^Hi

Why Does EPA Recommend thte Plara

The EPA recommends a cleanup plan that uses excavation and crfllite disposal for cleanup of contaminated soil and extraction and graniilar activated carbotj tb tt^t groufidwater at the site becausetiiese teaehnologi^

Me6t|he3 criteria of cost effectiveness bull prbwde the liibist cost- effeetive balance of andimplementabflity including protecting effectiveness and implementaLbility puMic hetdth and the emvironment

bull Provide interim control of the conteuninated Result in a permanent removal of the on-Site groundwater during the time colUb^mated soilfrom the Site required to complete the remaining RIFS

studies 1 e mosr protection fbr the cost

Any delists in leaning the source materMls could

r bull 5 ^ bull bull ^ M result in ^j^ed^ costs particularlytfPCSts were

bullD^M^Riper

June 1998 EPA expects to have reviewed all coirnnentsri^ Action Memorat ^NEl ^^uftib(i^^^ciibing flie chosen cleanup plan the Actioit^siioir^ fpd a aipmai iy of respofliiamp S to

eht5 ill then be made available tp-the public ate Cl lalpm^ or other na iil|^1I^A Sjec^dslt^lir- In Bostoh EPA wninannounc^TiQ dec ion to the communi^|Nt^ugh

MM

Completion of RIFS

EPA will continue to evaluate the data collected during the 1996 and 1997 investigations to develop a comprehensive Remedial Investigation Report for the Site The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments will be based upon the data in the Remedial Investigation Report The risk assessments will determine the need for any additional cleanup actions at the Site If there are any areas that represent a potential threat to human health or the environment then a Feasibility Study will be developed to evaluate a set of cleanup altematives At a minimum a feasibility study will be prepared to determine the long-term strategy to address contaminated groundwater and any remaining contamination in on-Site soils

The need for a cleanup of Lake Meddybemps or the Dennys River will not be known until the completion ofthe risk assessments The final decision regarding the long-term cleanup and management ofthe Site will be described in a Proposed Plan which is expected to be released in the spring or fall of 1999 Thefinal decision will be documented in a Record of Decision

11

Use This Space to Write Your Comments or to be added to the mailing list

EPA wants your written comments on the options under consideration for dealing with the contamination at the Eastem Surplus Superfund site You can use the form below to send written comments Ifyou have questions about how to comment please call EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Erin Heskett at 617 565-3033 This form is provided for your convenience Please mail this form or additional sheets of written comments postmarked no later than date year to

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region I (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203-0001

or send E-mail to hathawayed epamailepagov

(Attach sheets as needed) Comment Submitted bv June 221998

Mailing list additions deletions or changes

I would like to o be added to the site mailing list n note a change of address n be deleted from the mailing list

Name Address

mJDYBBUPSLAKE

FIGURE 4 GROUNDWATER VOCs PLUMES

EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY - NPL SITE

The solvents in the soils also represent a source of groundwater contamination unless they are controlled or removed Given the close proximity of residential water supplies to the site EPA determined that rapid control of the source ofthe groundwater contamination and ofthe groundwater already contaminated was necessary

^ ^

EPA has determined in recent studies that none ofthe residential wells located near the Site are contaminated EPA will continue to monitor these wells over time to ensure that residents are not exposed to unsafe levels of contaminants should the contaminated groundwater beneath the site unexpectedly migrate

Under this NTCRA only contamination in the northem groundwater plume will be addressed Risks to human health and the environment related to the southem plume will not be addressed until fiirther tests are conducted These tests will better define theflow direction and extent ofthe southem

Table 1 Levels of Contaminants Found Onsite Compared to Acceptable State and Federal Levels

SjfftCotttaidinants i laquorDniccrtilltHr$oiI ^r^^k

i

PCBs 2 12000

y ^ Tetrachloroethene 3 320 S ^

Trichloroethene 19 25

Chromiiun 400 13800

Cadmium 27 416

Lead 375 594

Metiiylene Chloride 13 40000

Site Contaminants of Federal Maximum Maximum Concentration found Concem in the Contaminant Level on Site (parts per million) Groundwater

Tetrachloroethene 0005 670

Trichloroethene 0005 038

Methylene Chloride 0005 044

PCBs 00005 0003

OWhats a Formal Comment During the 30-day public comment period EPA will accept formal written comments

and hold a public hearing at the end of the vmtten comment period to accept formal verbal comments EPA

uses public comments to improve the cleanup proposal

To make a formal comment you need only speak during the public hearing on June 10 1998 or submit a written comment during the 30-day comment period

Federal regulations require EPA to distinguish between formal and informal comments While EPA uses your cominents throughout site investigations and cleanup EPA is required to respond to formal comments in writing only EPA will not respond to your comments dvuing the formal hearing portion of the Jime 101998 information session

For More Detailed Information

The fact that EPA responds to formal comments only in writing does not mean that EPA can not answer questions Once the meeting moderator announces that the formal hearing portion of the meeting is closed EPA can respond to informal questions

EPA will review the transcript of all formal comments received at the hearing and all written comments received during the formal comment period before making a final cleanup decision EPA will then prepare a written response to all formal written and oral comments

Your formal comments will become part of the official public record The transcript of comments and EPAs written responses will be issued in a document called a Responsiveness Summary when EPA releases the final cleanup decision

To help you understand and comment on the proposal for the site this publication summarizes a number of reports and studies All ofthe technical and public information publications prepared to date for the site are available at the at these Eastem Surplus Company site information repositories

Calais Public Library Ms Marylin Diffin Reference Librarian Calais Free Library Union Street Calais Maine 04619

EPA Records Center 90 Canal Street Boston MA 02114 (617) 573-5729 Hours 1000 am-noon

200pm-500pm

The Three Criteria fo r Choosing a Cleanup

EPA uses three criteria to balance the pros and cons of cleanup altematives EPA has already evaluated how well each ofthe cleanup altematives developed for the Eastem Surplus Company Superfund Site meet these criteria (See Table 3) Once comments from the state and the community are received EPA will select the cleanup plan

A EfTectiveness This criteria evaluates five specific subcriteria

(1) Overall protection of human health and the environment Will it protect you and the plant and animal life on and near the site EPA will not choose a plan that does not meet this basic criterion

(2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Does the altemative meet all federal and state environmental statutes regulations and requirements on-Site

(3) Long-term effectiveness and permanence Will the effects of the cleanup plan last or could contamination cause future risk

(4) Reduction of toxicity mobility or volume through treatment Does the altemative reduce the harmful effects ofthe contaminants the spread of contaminants and the amount of contaminated material

(5) Short-term effectiveness How soon will site risks be adequately reduced Could the cleanup cause short-term hazards to workers residents or the environment

B Implementability Is the alternative technically and administratively feasible Are the right goods and services (ie treatment machinery space at an approved disposal facility) available for the plan What are the administrative barriers to proceeding

C Cost What is the total cost of an altemative over time EPA must find a plan that gives necessary protection for a reasonable cost

EPA also strongly considers state and community input prior to finalizing tbe selection ofthe cleanup altemative

Four Kinds of Cleanup

EPA looks at numerous technical approaches to determine the best way to reduce the risks presented by a Superfund site The EPA then narrows the possibilities to approaches that would protect human health and the environment Although reducing risks often involves combinations of highly technical processes there are really only four basic options

Take limited or no action Leave the site as it mmgt is or just restrict access and monitor it

Contain contamination Leave contamination where it is QVlaquo and cover or contain it in some way to prevent exposure to or spread of contaminants This method reduces risks from exposure to contamination but does not destroy or reduce it

Move contamination off site Remove contaminated material (soil groundwater etc) and dispose of it or treat it elsewhere

Treat contamination onsi te Use a chemical or physical process on the site to destroy or remove the contaminants Treated material can be left on-site Contaminants capmred by the treatment process are disposed in an off-site hazardous waste facility

Cleanup Alternatives for the Eastern Surplus Superfund Site

The Eastem Surplus Site Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis (EECA) report reviewed the options EPA considered for cleanup as well as the EPAs proposed cleanup plan The options referred to as cleanup altematives are different combinations of plans to contain remove or treat contamination to protect public health and the environment

EPA developed separate sets of options to deal with soil contamination (the source of contamination at the site) and on-Site groundwater contamination (which allows contamination to spread away from the site)

During the upcoming comment period EPA welcomes your comments on the proposed cleanup plan as well as the other technical approaches EPA evaluated These altematives are siunmarized below Please consult the Eastem Surplus Company Site EECA for more detailed information

Soil Cleanup Alternatives

Altemative SC2 Off-site disposal at a chemical waste landfill This altemative described in more detail on pages 1 and 2 is the EPA preferred altemative

bull Remove soil with concentrations of PCBs that could threaten public health (more than 2 parts per million of PCB contamination) and VOCs

above the specified cleanup levels to remove the hot spots of contamination (See Table 2)

bull Send excavated soil off-site to an approved hazardous waste landfill andor treatment facility

bull Cover excavated areas with clean fill

Alternative SC3 Thermal desorption This altemative uses thermal blankets to heat soils containing elevated levels of VOCs andor PCBs to heat the soil (in-place) to a temperature that will destroy the contamination on-Site

Altemative SC4 Soil vapor extraction This altemative involves the installation of either overtical wells or trenches to allow for the collection of VOC contaminated soil vapor A vacuum is applied to accelerate the transfer ofthe VOCfrom the soils to the air The collected vapor would be treated to remove the VOCs prior to releasing the vapor into the air Condensate would be collected and treated along v^th the groimdwater

Table 2 Proposed Soil Cleanup Levels

Contaminant Soil Cleanup Level (mgkg)

21 PCBs

1 PCE 006

1 TCE 006

002 Methylene Chloride

Source Control Groundwater Cleanup

Alternative The NTCRA will include a groimdwater source control system This system will involve the installation of sufficient groundwater extraction wells to contain the groundwater contamination on-Site and treat the collected groundwater for re-infiltration into the ground The water will be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards prior to discharge The groundwater source control system will be included in each ofthe soil cleanup altematives

Groundwater Alternative 1 bull Pump contaminated groundwater from

several site locations in the northem plume to a central treatment unit on site

bull Filter the ground water using granular activated carbon Chemicals cling to the surface ofthe carbon material removing contaminants from the water The used carbon is sent offsite for recycling or disposal

bull Discharge treated groundwater to the ground surface using an infiltration gallery The groundwater would be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards

Since groundwater altemative 1 is an interim action no cleanup levels are being proposed The final decision document for the Site will contain the cleanup levels for groundwater

What impacts would the cleanup have on the local

community

bull Any actions that disturb the contamination during cleanup could present short-term risks during excavation As a result EPA will monitor air and other emissions to ensure that unsafe levels of contaminants are not released beyond the Site boundary

bull The off-site disposal options would require the use ofthe a large portion ofthe Site to provide space to manage and store the contaminated and clean soil

bull For both on-site and off-site treatment options careful traffic management will be required to ensure the safe transport of contaminated soil off-site or for treatment within the site

bull Scarce space at off-site hazardous waste landfills and hazardous waste incinerators could require stockpiling of excavated soil and linut implementability of off-site options

Table 3 Comparison of Removal Cleanup Alternatives

Kine Criteria

Effectiveness (l)Protects human health and environment

(2)Meets federal and State requirements

(3)Provides long-term protection

(4)Reduces mobility toxicity and volume

(5)Provides short-term protection

Implementable (Can it be done)

Costs Million

Time to reach cleanup goal

2 bull ^ ^

Off-Site Disposal with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

^

bull

bull 25

^ H

mmmgt ^

Thermal Desorption with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

34

3-5 months

EPAs preferred alternative ^ Meets or exceeds criterion c Partially meets criterion ^ Does NOT meet criterion

Vapor Extraction with groundwater control

bull bull m

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

22

up to one year

10

N^Hi

Why Does EPA Recommend thte Plara

The EPA recommends a cleanup plan that uses excavation and crfllite disposal for cleanup of contaminated soil and extraction and graniilar activated carbotj tb tt^t groufidwater at the site becausetiiese teaehnologi^

Me6t|he3 criteria of cost effectiveness bull prbwde the liibist cost- effeetive balance of andimplementabflity including protecting effectiveness and implementaLbility puMic hetdth and the emvironment

bull Provide interim control of the conteuninated Result in a permanent removal of the on-Site groundwater during the time colUb^mated soilfrom the Site required to complete the remaining RIFS

studies 1 e mosr protection fbr the cost

Any delists in leaning the source materMls could

r bull 5 ^ bull bull ^ M result in ^j^ed^ costs particularlytfPCSts were

bullD^M^Riper

June 1998 EPA expects to have reviewed all coirnnentsri^ Action Memorat ^NEl ^^uftib(i^^^ciibing flie chosen cleanup plan the Actioit^siioir^ fpd a aipmai iy of respofliiamp S to

eht5 ill then be made available tp-the public ate Cl lalpm^ or other na iil|^1I^A Sjec^dslt^lir- In Bostoh EPA wninannounc^TiQ dec ion to the communi^|Nt^ugh

MM

Completion of RIFS

EPA will continue to evaluate the data collected during the 1996 and 1997 investigations to develop a comprehensive Remedial Investigation Report for the Site The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments will be based upon the data in the Remedial Investigation Report The risk assessments will determine the need for any additional cleanup actions at the Site If there are any areas that represent a potential threat to human health or the environment then a Feasibility Study will be developed to evaluate a set of cleanup altematives At a minimum a feasibility study will be prepared to determine the long-term strategy to address contaminated groundwater and any remaining contamination in on-Site soils

The need for a cleanup of Lake Meddybemps or the Dennys River will not be known until the completion ofthe risk assessments The final decision regarding the long-term cleanup and management ofthe Site will be described in a Proposed Plan which is expected to be released in the spring or fall of 1999 Thefinal decision will be documented in a Record of Decision

11

Use This Space to Write Your Comments or to be added to the mailing list

EPA wants your written comments on the options under consideration for dealing with the contamination at the Eastem Surplus Superfund site You can use the form below to send written comments Ifyou have questions about how to comment please call EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Erin Heskett at 617 565-3033 This form is provided for your convenience Please mail this form or additional sheets of written comments postmarked no later than date year to

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region I (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203-0001

or send E-mail to hathawayed epamailepagov

(Attach sheets as needed) Comment Submitted bv June 221998

Mailing list additions deletions or changes

I would like to o be added to the site mailing list n note a change of address n be deleted from the mailing list

Name Address

The solvents in the soils also represent a source of groundwater contamination unless they are controlled or removed Given the close proximity of residential water supplies to the site EPA determined that rapid control of the source ofthe groundwater contamination and ofthe groundwater already contaminated was necessary

^ ^

EPA has determined in recent studies that none ofthe residential wells located near the Site are contaminated EPA will continue to monitor these wells over time to ensure that residents are not exposed to unsafe levels of contaminants should the contaminated groundwater beneath the site unexpectedly migrate

Under this NTCRA only contamination in the northem groundwater plume will be addressed Risks to human health and the environment related to the southem plume will not be addressed until fiirther tests are conducted These tests will better define theflow direction and extent ofthe southem

Table 1 Levels of Contaminants Found Onsite Compared to Acceptable State and Federal Levels

SjfftCotttaidinants i laquorDniccrtilltHr$oiI ^r^^k

i

PCBs 2 12000

y ^ Tetrachloroethene 3 320 S ^

Trichloroethene 19 25

Chromiiun 400 13800

Cadmium 27 416

Lead 375 594

Metiiylene Chloride 13 40000

Site Contaminants of Federal Maximum Maximum Concentration found Concem in the Contaminant Level on Site (parts per million) Groundwater

Tetrachloroethene 0005 670

Trichloroethene 0005 038

Methylene Chloride 0005 044

PCBs 00005 0003

OWhats a Formal Comment During the 30-day public comment period EPA will accept formal written comments

and hold a public hearing at the end of the vmtten comment period to accept formal verbal comments EPA

uses public comments to improve the cleanup proposal

To make a formal comment you need only speak during the public hearing on June 10 1998 or submit a written comment during the 30-day comment period

Federal regulations require EPA to distinguish between formal and informal comments While EPA uses your cominents throughout site investigations and cleanup EPA is required to respond to formal comments in writing only EPA will not respond to your comments dvuing the formal hearing portion of the Jime 101998 information session

For More Detailed Information

The fact that EPA responds to formal comments only in writing does not mean that EPA can not answer questions Once the meeting moderator announces that the formal hearing portion of the meeting is closed EPA can respond to informal questions

EPA will review the transcript of all formal comments received at the hearing and all written comments received during the formal comment period before making a final cleanup decision EPA will then prepare a written response to all formal written and oral comments

Your formal comments will become part of the official public record The transcript of comments and EPAs written responses will be issued in a document called a Responsiveness Summary when EPA releases the final cleanup decision

To help you understand and comment on the proposal for the site this publication summarizes a number of reports and studies All ofthe technical and public information publications prepared to date for the site are available at the at these Eastem Surplus Company site information repositories

Calais Public Library Ms Marylin Diffin Reference Librarian Calais Free Library Union Street Calais Maine 04619

EPA Records Center 90 Canal Street Boston MA 02114 (617) 573-5729 Hours 1000 am-noon

200pm-500pm

The Three Criteria fo r Choosing a Cleanup

EPA uses three criteria to balance the pros and cons of cleanup altematives EPA has already evaluated how well each ofthe cleanup altematives developed for the Eastem Surplus Company Superfund Site meet these criteria (See Table 3) Once comments from the state and the community are received EPA will select the cleanup plan

A EfTectiveness This criteria evaluates five specific subcriteria

(1) Overall protection of human health and the environment Will it protect you and the plant and animal life on and near the site EPA will not choose a plan that does not meet this basic criterion

(2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Does the altemative meet all federal and state environmental statutes regulations and requirements on-Site

(3) Long-term effectiveness and permanence Will the effects of the cleanup plan last or could contamination cause future risk

(4) Reduction of toxicity mobility or volume through treatment Does the altemative reduce the harmful effects ofthe contaminants the spread of contaminants and the amount of contaminated material

(5) Short-term effectiveness How soon will site risks be adequately reduced Could the cleanup cause short-term hazards to workers residents or the environment

B Implementability Is the alternative technically and administratively feasible Are the right goods and services (ie treatment machinery space at an approved disposal facility) available for the plan What are the administrative barriers to proceeding

C Cost What is the total cost of an altemative over time EPA must find a plan that gives necessary protection for a reasonable cost

EPA also strongly considers state and community input prior to finalizing tbe selection ofthe cleanup altemative

Four Kinds of Cleanup

EPA looks at numerous technical approaches to determine the best way to reduce the risks presented by a Superfund site The EPA then narrows the possibilities to approaches that would protect human health and the environment Although reducing risks often involves combinations of highly technical processes there are really only four basic options

Take limited or no action Leave the site as it mmgt is or just restrict access and monitor it

Contain contamination Leave contamination where it is QVlaquo and cover or contain it in some way to prevent exposure to or spread of contaminants This method reduces risks from exposure to contamination but does not destroy or reduce it

Move contamination off site Remove contaminated material (soil groundwater etc) and dispose of it or treat it elsewhere

Treat contamination onsi te Use a chemical or physical process on the site to destroy or remove the contaminants Treated material can be left on-site Contaminants capmred by the treatment process are disposed in an off-site hazardous waste facility

Cleanup Alternatives for the Eastern Surplus Superfund Site

The Eastem Surplus Site Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis (EECA) report reviewed the options EPA considered for cleanup as well as the EPAs proposed cleanup plan The options referred to as cleanup altematives are different combinations of plans to contain remove or treat contamination to protect public health and the environment

EPA developed separate sets of options to deal with soil contamination (the source of contamination at the site) and on-Site groundwater contamination (which allows contamination to spread away from the site)

During the upcoming comment period EPA welcomes your comments on the proposed cleanup plan as well as the other technical approaches EPA evaluated These altematives are siunmarized below Please consult the Eastem Surplus Company Site EECA for more detailed information

Soil Cleanup Alternatives

Altemative SC2 Off-site disposal at a chemical waste landfill This altemative described in more detail on pages 1 and 2 is the EPA preferred altemative

bull Remove soil with concentrations of PCBs that could threaten public health (more than 2 parts per million of PCB contamination) and VOCs

above the specified cleanup levels to remove the hot spots of contamination (See Table 2)

bull Send excavated soil off-site to an approved hazardous waste landfill andor treatment facility

bull Cover excavated areas with clean fill

Alternative SC3 Thermal desorption This altemative uses thermal blankets to heat soils containing elevated levels of VOCs andor PCBs to heat the soil (in-place) to a temperature that will destroy the contamination on-Site

Altemative SC4 Soil vapor extraction This altemative involves the installation of either overtical wells or trenches to allow for the collection of VOC contaminated soil vapor A vacuum is applied to accelerate the transfer ofthe VOCfrom the soils to the air The collected vapor would be treated to remove the VOCs prior to releasing the vapor into the air Condensate would be collected and treated along v^th the groimdwater

Table 2 Proposed Soil Cleanup Levels

Contaminant Soil Cleanup Level (mgkg)

21 PCBs

1 PCE 006

1 TCE 006

002 Methylene Chloride

Source Control Groundwater Cleanup

Alternative The NTCRA will include a groimdwater source control system This system will involve the installation of sufficient groundwater extraction wells to contain the groundwater contamination on-Site and treat the collected groundwater for re-infiltration into the ground The water will be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards prior to discharge The groundwater source control system will be included in each ofthe soil cleanup altematives

Groundwater Alternative 1 bull Pump contaminated groundwater from

several site locations in the northem plume to a central treatment unit on site

bull Filter the ground water using granular activated carbon Chemicals cling to the surface ofthe carbon material removing contaminants from the water The used carbon is sent offsite for recycling or disposal

bull Discharge treated groundwater to the ground surface using an infiltration gallery The groundwater would be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards

Since groundwater altemative 1 is an interim action no cleanup levels are being proposed The final decision document for the Site will contain the cleanup levels for groundwater

What impacts would the cleanup have on the local

community

bull Any actions that disturb the contamination during cleanup could present short-term risks during excavation As a result EPA will monitor air and other emissions to ensure that unsafe levels of contaminants are not released beyond the Site boundary

bull The off-site disposal options would require the use ofthe a large portion ofthe Site to provide space to manage and store the contaminated and clean soil

bull For both on-site and off-site treatment options careful traffic management will be required to ensure the safe transport of contaminated soil off-site or for treatment within the site

bull Scarce space at off-site hazardous waste landfills and hazardous waste incinerators could require stockpiling of excavated soil and linut implementability of off-site options

Table 3 Comparison of Removal Cleanup Alternatives

Kine Criteria

Effectiveness (l)Protects human health and environment

(2)Meets federal and State requirements

(3)Provides long-term protection

(4)Reduces mobility toxicity and volume

(5)Provides short-term protection

Implementable (Can it be done)

Costs Million

Time to reach cleanup goal

2 bull ^ ^

Off-Site Disposal with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

^

bull

bull 25

^ H

mmmgt ^

Thermal Desorption with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

34

3-5 months

EPAs preferred alternative ^ Meets or exceeds criterion c Partially meets criterion ^ Does NOT meet criterion

Vapor Extraction with groundwater control

bull bull m

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

22

up to one year

10

N^Hi

Why Does EPA Recommend thte Plara

The EPA recommends a cleanup plan that uses excavation and crfllite disposal for cleanup of contaminated soil and extraction and graniilar activated carbotj tb tt^t groufidwater at the site becausetiiese teaehnologi^

Me6t|he3 criteria of cost effectiveness bull prbwde the liibist cost- effeetive balance of andimplementabflity including protecting effectiveness and implementaLbility puMic hetdth and the emvironment

bull Provide interim control of the conteuninated Result in a permanent removal of the on-Site groundwater during the time colUb^mated soilfrom the Site required to complete the remaining RIFS

studies 1 e mosr protection fbr the cost

Any delists in leaning the source materMls could

r bull 5 ^ bull bull ^ M result in ^j^ed^ costs particularlytfPCSts were

bullD^M^Riper

June 1998 EPA expects to have reviewed all coirnnentsri^ Action Memorat ^NEl ^^uftib(i^^^ciibing flie chosen cleanup plan the Actioit^siioir^ fpd a aipmai iy of respofliiamp S to

eht5 ill then be made available tp-the public ate Cl lalpm^ or other na iil|^1I^A Sjec^dslt^lir- In Bostoh EPA wninannounc^TiQ dec ion to the communi^|Nt^ugh

MM

Completion of RIFS

EPA will continue to evaluate the data collected during the 1996 and 1997 investigations to develop a comprehensive Remedial Investigation Report for the Site The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments will be based upon the data in the Remedial Investigation Report The risk assessments will determine the need for any additional cleanup actions at the Site If there are any areas that represent a potential threat to human health or the environment then a Feasibility Study will be developed to evaluate a set of cleanup altematives At a minimum a feasibility study will be prepared to determine the long-term strategy to address contaminated groundwater and any remaining contamination in on-Site soils

The need for a cleanup of Lake Meddybemps or the Dennys River will not be known until the completion ofthe risk assessments The final decision regarding the long-term cleanup and management ofthe Site will be described in a Proposed Plan which is expected to be released in the spring or fall of 1999 Thefinal decision will be documented in a Record of Decision

11

Use This Space to Write Your Comments or to be added to the mailing list

EPA wants your written comments on the options under consideration for dealing with the contamination at the Eastem Surplus Superfund site You can use the form below to send written comments Ifyou have questions about how to comment please call EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Erin Heskett at 617 565-3033 This form is provided for your convenience Please mail this form or additional sheets of written comments postmarked no later than date year to

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region I (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203-0001

or send E-mail to hathawayed epamailepagov

(Attach sheets as needed) Comment Submitted bv June 221998

Mailing list additions deletions or changes

I would like to o be added to the site mailing list n note a change of address n be deleted from the mailing list

Name Address

OWhats a Formal Comment During the 30-day public comment period EPA will accept formal written comments

and hold a public hearing at the end of the vmtten comment period to accept formal verbal comments EPA

uses public comments to improve the cleanup proposal

To make a formal comment you need only speak during the public hearing on June 10 1998 or submit a written comment during the 30-day comment period

Federal regulations require EPA to distinguish between formal and informal comments While EPA uses your cominents throughout site investigations and cleanup EPA is required to respond to formal comments in writing only EPA will not respond to your comments dvuing the formal hearing portion of the Jime 101998 information session

For More Detailed Information

The fact that EPA responds to formal comments only in writing does not mean that EPA can not answer questions Once the meeting moderator announces that the formal hearing portion of the meeting is closed EPA can respond to informal questions

EPA will review the transcript of all formal comments received at the hearing and all written comments received during the formal comment period before making a final cleanup decision EPA will then prepare a written response to all formal written and oral comments

Your formal comments will become part of the official public record The transcript of comments and EPAs written responses will be issued in a document called a Responsiveness Summary when EPA releases the final cleanup decision

To help you understand and comment on the proposal for the site this publication summarizes a number of reports and studies All ofthe technical and public information publications prepared to date for the site are available at the at these Eastem Surplus Company site information repositories

Calais Public Library Ms Marylin Diffin Reference Librarian Calais Free Library Union Street Calais Maine 04619

EPA Records Center 90 Canal Street Boston MA 02114 (617) 573-5729 Hours 1000 am-noon

200pm-500pm

The Three Criteria fo r Choosing a Cleanup

EPA uses three criteria to balance the pros and cons of cleanup altematives EPA has already evaluated how well each ofthe cleanup altematives developed for the Eastem Surplus Company Superfund Site meet these criteria (See Table 3) Once comments from the state and the community are received EPA will select the cleanup plan

A EfTectiveness This criteria evaluates five specific subcriteria

(1) Overall protection of human health and the environment Will it protect you and the plant and animal life on and near the site EPA will not choose a plan that does not meet this basic criterion

(2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Does the altemative meet all federal and state environmental statutes regulations and requirements on-Site

(3) Long-term effectiveness and permanence Will the effects of the cleanup plan last or could contamination cause future risk

(4) Reduction of toxicity mobility or volume through treatment Does the altemative reduce the harmful effects ofthe contaminants the spread of contaminants and the amount of contaminated material

(5) Short-term effectiveness How soon will site risks be adequately reduced Could the cleanup cause short-term hazards to workers residents or the environment

B Implementability Is the alternative technically and administratively feasible Are the right goods and services (ie treatment machinery space at an approved disposal facility) available for the plan What are the administrative barriers to proceeding

C Cost What is the total cost of an altemative over time EPA must find a plan that gives necessary protection for a reasonable cost

EPA also strongly considers state and community input prior to finalizing tbe selection ofthe cleanup altemative

Four Kinds of Cleanup

EPA looks at numerous technical approaches to determine the best way to reduce the risks presented by a Superfund site The EPA then narrows the possibilities to approaches that would protect human health and the environment Although reducing risks often involves combinations of highly technical processes there are really only four basic options

Take limited or no action Leave the site as it mmgt is or just restrict access and monitor it

Contain contamination Leave contamination where it is QVlaquo and cover or contain it in some way to prevent exposure to or spread of contaminants This method reduces risks from exposure to contamination but does not destroy or reduce it

Move contamination off site Remove contaminated material (soil groundwater etc) and dispose of it or treat it elsewhere

Treat contamination onsi te Use a chemical or physical process on the site to destroy or remove the contaminants Treated material can be left on-site Contaminants capmred by the treatment process are disposed in an off-site hazardous waste facility

Cleanup Alternatives for the Eastern Surplus Superfund Site

The Eastem Surplus Site Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis (EECA) report reviewed the options EPA considered for cleanup as well as the EPAs proposed cleanup plan The options referred to as cleanup altematives are different combinations of plans to contain remove or treat contamination to protect public health and the environment

EPA developed separate sets of options to deal with soil contamination (the source of contamination at the site) and on-Site groundwater contamination (which allows contamination to spread away from the site)

During the upcoming comment period EPA welcomes your comments on the proposed cleanup plan as well as the other technical approaches EPA evaluated These altematives are siunmarized below Please consult the Eastem Surplus Company Site EECA for more detailed information

Soil Cleanup Alternatives

Altemative SC2 Off-site disposal at a chemical waste landfill This altemative described in more detail on pages 1 and 2 is the EPA preferred altemative

bull Remove soil with concentrations of PCBs that could threaten public health (more than 2 parts per million of PCB contamination) and VOCs

above the specified cleanup levels to remove the hot spots of contamination (See Table 2)

bull Send excavated soil off-site to an approved hazardous waste landfill andor treatment facility

bull Cover excavated areas with clean fill

Alternative SC3 Thermal desorption This altemative uses thermal blankets to heat soils containing elevated levels of VOCs andor PCBs to heat the soil (in-place) to a temperature that will destroy the contamination on-Site

Altemative SC4 Soil vapor extraction This altemative involves the installation of either overtical wells or trenches to allow for the collection of VOC contaminated soil vapor A vacuum is applied to accelerate the transfer ofthe VOCfrom the soils to the air The collected vapor would be treated to remove the VOCs prior to releasing the vapor into the air Condensate would be collected and treated along v^th the groimdwater

Table 2 Proposed Soil Cleanup Levels

Contaminant Soil Cleanup Level (mgkg)

21 PCBs

1 PCE 006

1 TCE 006

002 Methylene Chloride

Source Control Groundwater Cleanup

Alternative The NTCRA will include a groimdwater source control system This system will involve the installation of sufficient groundwater extraction wells to contain the groundwater contamination on-Site and treat the collected groundwater for re-infiltration into the ground The water will be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards prior to discharge The groundwater source control system will be included in each ofthe soil cleanup altematives

Groundwater Alternative 1 bull Pump contaminated groundwater from

several site locations in the northem plume to a central treatment unit on site

bull Filter the ground water using granular activated carbon Chemicals cling to the surface ofthe carbon material removing contaminants from the water The used carbon is sent offsite for recycling or disposal

bull Discharge treated groundwater to the ground surface using an infiltration gallery The groundwater would be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards

Since groundwater altemative 1 is an interim action no cleanup levels are being proposed The final decision document for the Site will contain the cleanup levels for groundwater

What impacts would the cleanup have on the local

community

bull Any actions that disturb the contamination during cleanup could present short-term risks during excavation As a result EPA will monitor air and other emissions to ensure that unsafe levels of contaminants are not released beyond the Site boundary

bull The off-site disposal options would require the use ofthe a large portion ofthe Site to provide space to manage and store the contaminated and clean soil

bull For both on-site and off-site treatment options careful traffic management will be required to ensure the safe transport of contaminated soil off-site or for treatment within the site

bull Scarce space at off-site hazardous waste landfills and hazardous waste incinerators could require stockpiling of excavated soil and linut implementability of off-site options

Table 3 Comparison of Removal Cleanup Alternatives

Kine Criteria

Effectiveness (l)Protects human health and environment

(2)Meets federal and State requirements

(3)Provides long-term protection

(4)Reduces mobility toxicity and volume

(5)Provides short-term protection

Implementable (Can it be done)

Costs Million

Time to reach cleanup goal

2 bull ^ ^

Off-Site Disposal with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

^

bull

bull 25

^ H

mmmgt ^

Thermal Desorption with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

34

3-5 months

EPAs preferred alternative ^ Meets or exceeds criterion c Partially meets criterion ^ Does NOT meet criterion

Vapor Extraction with groundwater control

bull bull m

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

22

up to one year

10

N^Hi

Why Does EPA Recommend thte Plara

The EPA recommends a cleanup plan that uses excavation and crfllite disposal for cleanup of contaminated soil and extraction and graniilar activated carbotj tb tt^t groufidwater at the site becausetiiese teaehnologi^

Me6t|he3 criteria of cost effectiveness bull prbwde the liibist cost- effeetive balance of andimplementabflity including protecting effectiveness and implementaLbility puMic hetdth and the emvironment

bull Provide interim control of the conteuninated Result in a permanent removal of the on-Site groundwater during the time colUb^mated soilfrom the Site required to complete the remaining RIFS

studies 1 e mosr protection fbr the cost

Any delists in leaning the source materMls could

r bull 5 ^ bull bull ^ M result in ^j^ed^ costs particularlytfPCSts were

bullD^M^Riper

June 1998 EPA expects to have reviewed all coirnnentsri^ Action Memorat ^NEl ^^uftib(i^^^ciibing flie chosen cleanup plan the Actioit^siioir^ fpd a aipmai iy of respofliiamp S to

eht5 ill then be made available tp-the public ate Cl lalpm^ or other na iil|^1I^A Sjec^dslt^lir- In Bostoh EPA wninannounc^TiQ dec ion to the communi^|Nt^ugh

MM

Completion of RIFS

EPA will continue to evaluate the data collected during the 1996 and 1997 investigations to develop a comprehensive Remedial Investigation Report for the Site The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments will be based upon the data in the Remedial Investigation Report The risk assessments will determine the need for any additional cleanup actions at the Site If there are any areas that represent a potential threat to human health or the environment then a Feasibility Study will be developed to evaluate a set of cleanup altematives At a minimum a feasibility study will be prepared to determine the long-term strategy to address contaminated groundwater and any remaining contamination in on-Site soils

The need for a cleanup of Lake Meddybemps or the Dennys River will not be known until the completion ofthe risk assessments The final decision regarding the long-term cleanup and management ofthe Site will be described in a Proposed Plan which is expected to be released in the spring or fall of 1999 Thefinal decision will be documented in a Record of Decision

11

Use This Space to Write Your Comments or to be added to the mailing list

EPA wants your written comments on the options under consideration for dealing with the contamination at the Eastem Surplus Superfund site You can use the form below to send written comments Ifyou have questions about how to comment please call EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Erin Heskett at 617 565-3033 This form is provided for your convenience Please mail this form or additional sheets of written comments postmarked no later than date year to

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region I (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203-0001

or send E-mail to hathawayed epamailepagov

(Attach sheets as needed) Comment Submitted bv June 221998

Mailing list additions deletions or changes

I would like to o be added to the site mailing list n note a change of address n be deleted from the mailing list

Name Address

The Three Criteria fo r Choosing a Cleanup

EPA uses three criteria to balance the pros and cons of cleanup altematives EPA has already evaluated how well each ofthe cleanup altematives developed for the Eastem Surplus Company Superfund Site meet these criteria (See Table 3) Once comments from the state and the community are received EPA will select the cleanup plan

A EfTectiveness This criteria evaluates five specific subcriteria

(1) Overall protection of human health and the environment Will it protect you and the plant and animal life on and near the site EPA will not choose a plan that does not meet this basic criterion

(2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Does the altemative meet all federal and state environmental statutes regulations and requirements on-Site

(3) Long-term effectiveness and permanence Will the effects of the cleanup plan last or could contamination cause future risk

(4) Reduction of toxicity mobility or volume through treatment Does the altemative reduce the harmful effects ofthe contaminants the spread of contaminants and the amount of contaminated material

(5) Short-term effectiveness How soon will site risks be adequately reduced Could the cleanup cause short-term hazards to workers residents or the environment

B Implementability Is the alternative technically and administratively feasible Are the right goods and services (ie treatment machinery space at an approved disposal facility) available for the plan What are the administrative barriers to proceeding

C Cost What is the total cost of an altemative over time EPA must find a plan that gives necessary protection for a reasonable cost

EPA also strongly considers state and community input prior to finalizing tbe selection ofthe cleanup altemative

Four Kinds of Cleanup

EPA looks at numerous technical approaches to determine the best way to reduce the risks presented by a Superfund site The EPA then narrows the possibilities to approaches that would protect human health and the environment Although reducing risks often involves combinations of highly technical processes there are really only four basic options

Take limited or no action Leave the site as it mmgt is or just restrict access and monitor it

Contain contamination Leave contamination where it is QVlaquo and cover or contain it in some way to prevent exposure to or spread of contaminants This method reduces risks from exposure to contamination but does not destroy or reduce it

Move contamination off site Remove contaminated material (soil groundwater etc) and dispose of it or treat it elsewhere

Treat contamination onsi te Use a chemical or physical process on the site to destroy or remove the contaminants Treated material can be left on-site Contaminants capmred by the treatment process are disposed in an off-site hazardous waste facility

Cleanup Alternatives for the Eastern Surplus Superfund Site

The Eastem Surplus Site Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis (EECA) report reviewed the options EPA considered for cleanup as well as the EPAs proposed cleanup plan The options referred to as cleanup altematives are different combinations of plans to contain remove or treat contamination to protect public health and the environment

EPA developed separate sets of options to deal with soil contamination (the source of contamination at the site) and on-Site groundwater contamination (which allows contamination to spread away from the site)

During the upcoming comment period EPA welcomes your comments on the proposed cleanup plan as well as the other technical approaches EPA evaluated These altematives are siunmarized below Please consult the Eastem Surplus Company Site EECA for more detailed information

Soil Cleanup Alternatives

Altemative SC2 Off-site disposal at a chemical waste landfill This altemative described in more detail on pages 1 and 2 is the EPA preferred altemative

bull Remove soil with concentrations of PCBs that could threaten public health (more than 2 parts per million of PCB contamination) and VOCs

above the specified cleanup levels to remove the hot spots of contamination (See Table 2)

bull Send excavated soil off-site to an approved hazardous waste landfill andor treatment facility

bull Cover excavated areas with clean fill

Alternative SC3 Thermal desorption This altemative uses thermal blankets to heat soils containing elevated levels of VOCs andor PCBs to heat the soil (in-place) to a temperature that will destroy the contamination on-Site

Altemative SC4 Soil vapor extraction This altemative involves the installation of either overtical wells or trenches to allow for the collection of VOC contaminated soil vapor A vacuum is applied to accelerate the transfer ofthe VOCfrom the soils to the air The collected vapor would be treated to remove the VOCs prior to releasing the vapor into the air Condensate would be collected and treated along v^th the groimdwater

Table 2 Proposed Soil Cleanup Levels

Contaminant Soil Cleanup Level (mgkg)

21 PCBs

1 PCE 006

1 TCE 006

002 Methylene Chloride

Source Control Groundwater Cleanup

Alternative The NTCRA will include a groimdwater source control system This system will involve the installation of sufficient groundwater extraction wells to contain the groundwater contamination on-Site and treat the collected groundwater for re-infiltration into the ground The water will be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards prior to discharge The groundwater source control system will be included in each ofthe soil cleanup altematives

Groundwater Alternative 1 bull Pump contaminated groundwater from

several site locations in the northem plume to a central treatment unit on site

bull Filter the ground water using granular activated carbon Chemicals cling to the surface ofthe carbon material removing contaminants from the water The used carbon is sent offsite for recycling or disposal

bull Discharge treated groundwater to the ground surface using an infiltration gallery The groundwater would be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards

Since groundwater altemative 1 is an interim action no cleanup levels are being proposed The final decision document for the Site will contain the cleanup levels for groundwater

What impacts would the cleanup have on the local

community

bull Any actions that disturb the contamination during cleanup could present short-term risks during excavation As a result EPA will monitor air and other emissions to ensure that unsafe levels of contaminants are not released beyond the Site boundary

bull The off-site disposal options would require the use ofthe a large portion ofthe Site to provide space to manage and store the contaminated and clean soil

bull For both on-site and off-site treatment options careful traffic management will be required to ensure the safe transport of contaminated soil off-site or for treatment within the site

bull Scarce space at off-site hazardous waste landfills and hazardous waste incinerators could require stockpiling of excavated soil and linut implementability of off-site options

Table 3 Comparison of Removal Cleanup Alternatives

Kine Criteria

Effectiveness (l)Protects human health and environment

(2)Meets federal and State requirements

(3)Provides long-term protection

(4)Reduces mobility toxicity and volume

(5)Provides short-term protection

Implementable (Can it be done)

Costs Million

Time to reach cleanup goal

2 bull ^ ^

Off-Site Disposal with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

^

bull

bull 25

^ H

mmmgt ^

Thermal Desorption with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

34

3-5 months

EPAs preferred alternative ^ Meets or exceeds criterion c Partially meets criterion ^ Does NOT meet criterion

Vapor Extraction with groundwater control

bull bull m

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

22

up to one year

10

N^Hi

Why Does EPA Recommend thte Plara

The EPA recommends a cleanup plan that uses excavation and crfllite disposal for cleanup of contaminated soil and extraction and graniilar activated carbotj tb tt^t groufidwater at the site becausetiiese teaehnologi^

Me6t|he3 criteria of cost effectiveness bull prbwde the liibist cost- effeetive balance of andimplementabflity including protecting effectiveness and implementaLbility puMic hetdth and the emvironment

bull Provide interim control of the conteuninated Result in a permanent removal of the on-Site groundwater during the time colUb^mated soilfrom the Site required to complete the remaining RIFS

studies 1 e mosr protection fbr the cost

Any delists in leaning the source materMls could

r bull 5 ^ bull bull ^ M result in ^j^ed^ costs particularlytfPCSts were

bullD^M^Riper

June 1998 EPA expects to have reviewed all coirnnentsri^ Action Memorat ^NEl ^^uftib(i^^^ciibing flie chosen cleanup plan the Actioit^siioir^ fpd a aipmai iy of respofliiamp S to

eht5 ill then be made available tp-the public ate Cl lalpm^ or other na iil|^1I^A Sjec^dslt^lir- In Bostoh EPA wninannounc^TiQ dec ion to the communi^|Nt^ugh

MM

Completion of RIFS

EPA will continue to evaluate the data collected during the 1996 and 1997 investigations to develop a comprehensive Remedial Investigation Report for the Site The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments will be based upon the data in the Remedial Investigation Report The risk assessments will determine the need for any additional cleanup actions at the Site If there are any areas that represent a potential threat to human health or the environment then a Feasibility Study will be developed to evaluate a set of cleanup altematives At a minimum a feasibility study will be prepared to determine the long-term strategy to address contaminated groundwater and any remaining contamination in on-Site soils

The need for a cleanup of Lake Meddybemps or the Dennys River will not be known until the completion ofthe risk assessments The final decision regarding the long-term cleanup and management ofthe Site will be described in a Proposed Plan which is expected to be released in the spring or fall of 1999 Thefinal decision will be documented in a Record of Decision

11

Use This Space to Write Your Comments or to be added to the mailing list

EPA wants your written comments on the options under consideration for dealing with the contamination at the Eastem Surplus Superfund site You can use the form below to send written comments Ifyou have questions about how to comment please call EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Erin Heskett at 617 565-3033 This form is provided for your convenience Please mail this form or additional sheets of written comments postmarked no later than date year to

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region I (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203-0001

or send E-mail to hathawayed epamailepagov

(Attach sheets as needed) Comment Submitted bv June 221998

Mailing list additions deletions or changes

I would like to o be added to the site mailing list n note a change of address n be deleted from the mailing list

Name Address

Cleanup Alternatives for the Eastern Surplus Superfund Site

The Eastem Surplus Site Engineering EvaluationCost Analysis (EECA) report reviewed the options EPA considered for cleanup as well as the EPAs proposed cleanup plan The options referred to as cleanup altematives are different combinations of plans to contain remove or treat contamination to protect public health and the environment

EPA developed separate sets of options to deal with soil contamination (the source of contamination at the site) and on-Site groundwater contamination (which allows contamination to spread away from the site)

During the upcoming comment period EPA welcomes your comments on the proposed cleanup plan as well as the other technical approaches EPA evaluated These altematives are siunmarized below Please consult the Eastem Surplus Company Site EECA for more detailed information

Soil Cleanup Alternatives

Altemative SC2 Off-site disposal at a chemical waste landfill This altemative described in more detail on pages 1 and 2 is the EPA preferred altemative

bull Remove soil with concentrations of PCBs that could threaten public health (more than 2 parts per million of PCB contamination) and VOCs

above the specified cleanup levels to remove the hot spots of contamination (See Table 2)

bull Send excavated soil off-site to an approved hazardous waste landfill andor treatment facility

bull Cover excavated areas with clean fill

Alternative SC3 Thermal desorption This altemative uses thermal blankets to heat soils containing elevated levels of VOCs andor PCBs to heat the soil (in-place) to a temperature that will destroy the contamination on-Site

Altemative SC4 Soil vapor extraction This altemative involves the installation of either overtical wells or trenches to allow for the collection of VOC contaminated soil vapor A vacuum is applied to accelerate the transfer ofthe VOCfrom the soils to the air The collected vapor would be treated to remove the VOCs prior to releasing the vapor into the air Condensate would be collected and treated along v^th the groimdwater

Table 2 Proposed Soil Cleanup Levels

Contaminant Soil Cleanup Level (mgkg)

21 PCBs

1 PCE 006

1 TCE 006

002 Methylene Chloride

Source Control Groundwater Cleanup

Alternative The NTCRA will include a groimdwater source control system This system will involve the installation of sufficient groundwater extraction wells to contain the groundwater contamination on-Site and treat the collected groundwater for re-infiltration into the ground The water will be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards prior to discharge The groundwater source control system will be included in each ofthe soil cleanup altematives

Groundwater Alternative 1 bull Pump contaminated groundwater from

several site locations in the northem plume to a central treatment unit on site

bull Filter the ground water using granular activated carbon Chemicals cling to the surface ofthe carbon material removing contaminants from the water The used carbon is sent offsite for recycling or disposal

bull Discharge treated groundwater to the ground surface using an infiltration gallery The groundwater would be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards

Since groundwater altemative 1 is an interim action no cleanup levels are being proposed The final decision document for the Site will contain the cleanup levels for groundwater

What impacts would the cleanup have on the local

community

bull Any actions that disturb the contamination during cleanup could present short-term risks during excavation As a result EPA will monitor air and other emissions to ensure that unsafe levels of contaminants are not released beyond the Site boundary

bull The off-site disposal options would require the use ofthe a large portion ofthe Site to provide space to manage and store the contaminated and clean soil

bull For both on-site and off-site treatment options careful traffic management will be required to ensure the safe transport of contaminated soil off-site or for treatment within the site

bull Scarce space at off-site hazardous waste landfills and hazardous waste incinerators could require stockpiling of excavated soil and linut implementability of off-site options

Table 3 Comparison of Removal Cleanup Alternatives

Kine Criteria

Effectiveness (l)Protects human health and environment

(2)Meets federal and State requirements

(3)Provides long-term protection

(4)Reduces mobility toxicity and volume

(5)Provides short-term protection

Implementable (Can it be done)

Costs Million

Time to reach cleanup goal

2 bull ^ ^

Off-Site Disposal with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

^

bull

bull 25

^ H

mmmgt ^

Thermal Desorption with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

34

3-5 months

EPAs preferred alternative ^ Meets or exceeds criterion c Partially meets criterion ^ Does NOT meet criterion

Vapor Extraction with groundwater control

bull bull m

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

22

up to one year

10

N^Hi

Why Does EPA Recommend thte Plara

The EPA recommends a cleanup plan that uses excavation and crfllite disposal for cleanup of contaminated soil and extraction and graniilar activated carbotj tb tt^t groufidwater at the site becausetiiese teaehnologi^

Me6t|he3 criteria of cost effectiveness bull prbwde the liibist cost- effeetive balance of andimplementabflity including protecting effectiveness and implementaLbility puMic hetdth and the emvironment

bull Provide interim control of the conteuninated Result in a permanent removal of the on-Site groundwater during the time colUb^mated soilfrom the Site required to complete the remaining RIFS

studies 1 e mosr protection fbr the cost

Any delists in leaning the source materMls could

r bull 5 ^ bull bull ^ M result in ^j^ed^ costs particularlytfPCSts were

bullD^M^Riper

June 1998 EPA expects to have reviewed all coirnnentsri^ Action Memorat ^NEl ^^uftib(i^^^ciibing flie chosen cleanup plan the Actioit^siioir^ fpd a aipmai iy of respofliiamp S to

eht5 ill then be made available tp-the public ate Cl lalpm^ or other na iil|^1I^A Sjec^dslt^lir- In Bostoh EPA wninannounc^TiQ dec ion to the communi^|Nt^ugh

MM

Completion of RIFS

EPA will continue to evaluate the data collected during the 1996 and 1997 investigations to develop a comprehensive Remedial Investigation Report for the Site The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments will be based upon the data in the Remedial Investigation Report The risk assessments will determine the need for any additional cleanup actions at the Site If there are any areas that represent a potential threat to human health or the environment then a Feasibility Study will be developed to evaluate a set of cleanup altematives At a minimum a feasibility study will be prepared to determine the long-term strategy to address contaminated groundwater and any remaining contamination in on-Site soils

The need for a cleanup of Lake Meddybemps or the Dennys River will not be known until the completion ofthe risk assessments The final decision regarding the long-term cleanup and management ofthe Site will be described in a Proposed Plan which is expected to be released in the spring or fall of 1999 Thefinal decision will be documented in a Record of Decision

11

Use This Space to Write Your Comments or to be added to the mailing list

EPA wants your written comments on the options under consideration for dealing with the contamination at the Eastem Surplus Superfund site You can use the form below to send written comments Ifyou have questions about how to comment please call EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Erin Heskett at 617 565-3033 This form is provided for your convenience Please mail this form or additional sheets of written comments postmarked no later than date year to

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region I (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203-0001

or send E-mail to hathawayed epamailepagov

(Attach sheets as needed) Comment Submitted bv June 221998

Mailing list additions deletions or changes

I would like to o be added to the site mailing list n note a change of address n be deleted from the mailing list

Name Address

Source Control Groundwater Cleanup

Alternative The NTCRA will include a groimdwater source control system This system will involve the installation of sufficient groundwater extraction wells to contain the groundwater contamination on-Site and treat the collected groundwater for re-infiltration into the ground The water will be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards prior to discharge The groundwater source control system will be included in each ofthe soil cleanup altematives

Groundwater Alternative 1 bull Pump contaminated groundwater from

several site locations in the northem plume to a central treatment unit on site

bull Filter the ground water using granular activated carbon Chemicals cling to the surface ofthe carbon material removing contaminants from the water The used carbon is sent offsite for recycling or disposal

bull Discharge treated groundwater to the ground surface using an infiltration gallery The groundwater would be treated to meet federal and state drinking water standards

Since groundwater altemative 1 is an interim action no cleanup levels are being proposed The final decision document for the Site will contain the cleanup levels for groundwater

What impacts would the cleanup have on the local

community

bull Any actions that disturb the contamination during cleanup could present short-term risks during excavation As a result EPA will monitor air and other emissions to ensure that unsafe levels of contaminants are not released beyond the Site boundary

bull The off-site disposal options would require the use ofthe a large portion ofthe Site to provide space to manage and store the contaminated and clean soil

bull For both on-site and off-site treatment options careful traffic management will be required to ensure the safe transport of contaminated soil off-site or for treatment within the site

bull Scarce space at off-site hazardous waste landfills and hazardous waste incinerators could require stockpiling of excavated soil and linut implementability of off-site options

Table 3 Comparison of Removal Cleanup Alternatives

Kine Criteria

Effectiveness (l)Protects human health and environment

(2)Meets federal and State requirements

(3)Provides long-term protection

(4)Reduces mobility toxicity and volume

(5)Provides short-term protection

Implementable (Can it be done)

Costs Million

Time to reach cleanup goal

2 bull ^ ^

Off-Site Disposal with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

^

bull

bull 25

^ H

mmmgt ^

Thermal Desorption with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

34

3-5 months

EPAs preferred alternative ^ Meets or exceeds criterion c Partially meets criterion ^ Does NOT meet criterion

Vapor Extraction with groundwater control

bull bull m

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

22

up to one year

10

N^Hi

Why Does EPA Recommend thte Plara

The EPA recommends a cleanup plan that uses excavation and crfllite disposal for cleanup of contaminated soil and extraction and graniilar activated carbotj tb tt^t groufidwater at the site becausetiiese teaehnologi^

Me6t|he3 criteria of cost effectiveness bull prbwde the liibist cost- effeetive balance of andimplementabflity including protecting effectiveness and implementaLbility puMic hetdth and the emvironment

bull Provide interim control of the conteuninated Result in a permanent removal of the on-Site groundwater during the time colUb^mated soilfrom the Site required to complete the remaining RIFS

studies 1 e mosr protection fbr the cost

Any delists in leaning the source materMls could

r bull 5 ^ bull bull ^ M result in ^j^ed^ costs particularlytfPCSts were

bullD^M^Riper

June 1998 EPA expects to have reviewed all coirnnentsri^ Action Memorat ^NEl ^^uftib(i^^^ciibing flie chosen cleanup plan the Actioit^siioir^ fpd a aipmai iy of respofliiamp S to

eht5 ill then be made available tp-the public ate Cl lalpm^ or other na iil|^1I^A Sjec^dslt^lir- In Bostoh EPA wninannounc^TiQ dec ion to the communi^|Nt^ugh

MM

Completion of RIFS

EPA will continue to evaluate the data collected during the 1996 and 1997 investigations to develop a comprehensive Remedial Investigation Report for the Site The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments will be based upon the data in the Remedial Investigation Report The risk assessments will determine the need for any additional cleanup actions at the Site If there are any areas that represent a potential threat to human health or the environment then a Feasibility Study will be developed to evaluate a set of cleanup altematives At a minimum a feasibility study will be prepared to determine the long-term strategy to address contaminated groundwater and any remaining contamination in on-Site soils

The need for a cleanup of Lake Meddybemps or the Dennys River will not be known until the completion ofthe risk assessments The final decision regarding the long-term cleanup and management ofthe Site will be described in a Proposed Plan which is expected to be released in the spring or fall of 1999 Thefinal decision will be documented in a Record of Decision

11

Use This Space to Write Your Comments or to be added to the mailing list

EPA wants your written comments on the options under consideration for dealing with the contamination at the Eastem Surplus Superfund site You can use the form below to send written comments Ifyou have questions about how to comment please call EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Erin Heskett at 617 565-3033 This form is provided for your convenience Please mail this form or additional sheets of written comments postmarked no later than date year to

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region I (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203-0001

or send E-mail to hathawayed epamailepagov

(Attach sheets as needed) Comment Submitted bv June 221998

Mailing list additions deletions or changes

I would like to o be added to the site mailing list n note a change of address n be deleted from the mailing list

Name Address

Table 3 Comparison of Removal Cleanup Alternatives

Kine Criteria

Effectiveness (l)Protects human health and environment

(2)Meets federal and State requirements

(3)Provides long-term protection

(4)Reduces mobility toxicity and volume

(5)Provides short-term protection

Implementable (Can it be done)

Costs Million

Time to reach cleanup goal

2 bull ^ ^

Off-Site Disposal with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

^

bull

bull 25

^ H

mmmgt ^

Thermal Desorption with groundwater control

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

34

3-5 months

EPAs preferred alternative ^ Meets or exceeds criterion c Partially meets criterion ^ Does NOT meet criterion

Vapor Extraction with groundwater control

bull bull m

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

^

22

up to one year

10

N^Hi

Why Does EPA Recommend thte Plara

The EPA recommends a cleanup plan that uses excavation and crfllite disposal for cleanup of contaminated soil and extraction and graniilar activated carbotj tb tt^t groufidwater at the site becausetiiese teaehnologi^

Me6t|he3 criteria of cost effectiveness bull prbwde the liibist cost- effeetive balance of andimplementabflity including protecting effectiveness and implementaLbility puMic hetdth and the emvironment

bull Provide interim control of the conteuninated Result in a permanent removal of the on-Site groundwater during the time colUb^mated soilfrom the Site required to complete the remaining RIFS

studies 1 e mosr protection fbr the cost

Any delists in leaning the source materMls could

r bull 5 ^ bull bull ^ M result in ^j^ed^ costs particularlytfPCSts were

bullD^M^Riper

June 1998 EPA expects to have reviewed all coirnnentsri^ Action Memorat ^NEl ^^uftib(i^^^ciibing flie chosen cleanup plan the Actioit^siioir^ fpd a aipmai iy of respofliiamp S to

eht5 ill then be made available tp-the public ate Cl lalpm^ or other na iil|^1I^A Sjec^dslt^lir- In Bostoh EPA wninannounc^TiQ dec ion to the communi^|Nt^ugh

MM

Completion of RIFS

EPA will continue to evaluate the data collected during the 1996 and 1997 investigations to develop a comprehensive Remedial Investigation Report for the Site The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments will be based upon the data in the Remedial Investigation Report The risk assessments will determine the need for any additional cleanup actions at the Site If there are any areas that represent a potential threat to human health or the environment then a Feasibility Study will be developed to evaluate a set of cleanup altematives At a minimum a feasibility study will be prepared to determine the long-term strategy to address contaminated groundwater and any remaining contamination in on-Site soils

The need for a cleanup of Lake Meddybemps or the Dennys River will not be known until the completion ofthe risk assessments The final decision regarding the long-term cleanup and management ofthe Site will be described in a Proposed Plan which is expected to be released in the spring or fall of 1999 Thefinal decision will be documented in a Record of Decision

11

Use This Space to Write Your Comments or to be added to the mailing list

EPA wants your written comments on the options under consideration for dealing with the contamination at the Eastem Surplus Superfund site You can use the form below to send written comments Ifyou have questions about how to comment please call EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Erin Heskett at 617 565-3033 This form is provided for your convenience Please mail this form or additional sheets of written comments postmarked no later than date year to

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region I (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203-0001

or send E-mail to hathawayed epamailepagov

(Attach sheets as needed) Comment Submitted bv June 221998

Mailing list additions deletions or changes

I would like to o be added to the site mailing list n note a change of address n be deleted from the mailing list

Name Address

N^Hi

Why Does EPA Recommend thte Plara

The EPA recommends a cleanup plan that uses excavation and crfllite disposal for cleanup of contaminated soil and extraction and graniilar activated carbotj tb tt^t groufidwater at the site becausetiiese teaehnologi^

Me6t|he3 criteria of cost effectiveness bull prbwde the liibist cost- effeetive balance of andimplementabflity including protecting effectiveness and implementaLbility puMic hetdth and the emvironment

bull Provide interim control of the conteuninated Result in a permanent removal of the on-Site groundwater during the time colUb^mated soilfrom the Site required to complete the remaining RIFS

studies 1 e mosr protection fbr the cost

Any delists in leaning the source materMls could

r bull 5 ^ bull bull ^ M result in ^j^ed^ costs particularlytfPCSts were

bullD^M^Riper

June 1998 EPA expects to have reviewed all coirnnentsri^ Action Memorat ^NEl ^^uftib(i^^^ciibing flie chosen cleanup plan the Actioit^siioir^ fpd a aipmai iy of respofliiamp S to

eht5 ill then be made available tp-the public ate Cl lalpm^ or other na iil|^1I^A Sjec^dslt^lir- In Bostoh EPA wninannounc^TiQ dec ion to the communi^|Nt^ugh

MM

Completion of RIFS

EPA will continue to evaluate the data collected during the 1996 and 1997 investigations to develop a comprehensive Remedial Investigation Report for the Site The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments will be based upon the data in the Remedial Investigation Report The risk assessments will determine the need for any additional cleanup actions at the Site If there are any areas that represent a potential threat to human health or the environment then a Feasibility Study will be developed to evaluate a set of cleanup altematives At a minimum a feasibility study will be prepared to determine the long-term strategy to address contaminated groundwater and any remaining contamination in on-Site soils

The need for a cleanup of Lake Meddybemps or the Dennys River will not be known until the completion ofthe risk assessments The final decision regarding the long-term cleanup and management ofthe Site will be described in a Proposed Plan which is expected to be released in the spring or fall of 1999 Thefinal decision will be documented in a Record of Decision

11

Use This Space to Write Your Comments or to be added to the mailing list

EPA wants your written comments on the options under consideration for dealing with the contamination at the Eastem Surplus Superfund site You can use the form below to send written comments Ifyou have questions about how to comment please call EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Erin Heskett at 617 565-3033 This form is provided for your convenience Please mail this form or additional sheets of written comments postmarked no later than date year to

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region I (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203-0001

or send E-mail to hathawayed epamailepagov

(Attach sheets as needed) Comment Submitted bv June 221998

Mailing list additions deletions or changes

I would like to o be added to the site mailing list n note a change of address n be deleted from the mailing list

Name Address

Use This Space to Write Your Comments or to be added to the mailing list

EPA wants your written comments on the options under consideration for dealing with the contamination at the Eastem Surplus Superfund site You can use the form below to send written comments Ifyou have questions about how to comment please call EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Erin Heskett at 617 565-3033 This form is provided for your convenience Please mail this form or additional sheets of written comments postmarked no later than date year to

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region I (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203-0001

or send E-mail to hathawayed epamailepagov

(Attach sheets as needed) Comment Submitted bv June 221998

Mailing list additions deletions or changes

I would like to o be added to the site mailing list n note a change of address n be deleted from the mailing list

Name Address

Eastern Surplus Superfund Site Public Comment Sheet (cent)

O

Fold staple stamp and mail-

Place Stamp Here

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203 -0001

Fold staple stamp and mail-

Place Stamp Here

Ed Hathaway Remedial Project Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 (HBT) JFK Federal Building Boston MA 02203 -0001