REGION I J.F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MA 02203 ... · Approximately 8-10 residences housing 20-30 people are located 5. within a half mile radius of the site. Many of these

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION I

J.F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MA 02203-2211

MEMORANDUM

DATE: June 2, 1993

SUBJ: Amended Record of Decision for Source ControlPinette's Salvage Yard SiteWashburn, Maine

FROM: Merrill S. HohmaWaste Management

TO: Paul G. KeoughActing Regional Administrator

Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to seek your concurrence on theattached Amended Record of Decision (ROD) for the source controlcomponent for the Pinette's Salvage Yard Site. This RODamendment does not count towards the Region's ROD targets.

Summary of Action

EPA has determined that implementing the innovative technology(s< Ivent extraction) selected in the 1989 'OD is not feasible atthe Pinette's Salvage Yard Site. Since completion of theremedial design in 1990, EPA has attempted to implement solventextraction at the Site using two different treatment companies.The second solvent extraction treatment company was capable ofachieving the action levels established in the 1989 ROD; however,this company was able to treat only 1% of the soil requiringtreatment.

EPA has determined that an amended remedy involving off-siteincineration, and landfilling at an off-site TSCA-secure landfillor State of Maine licensed Special Waste Facility is protectiveof human health and the environment, complies will all ARAR's,and provides the best balance of the five criteria. This amendedselected remedy can be implemented and completed in 1993,utilizing the existing contractors.

Manor Issues

The problems associated with implementing the solvent extraction,an innovative treatment technology, are specific to this Site.EPA still believes that solvent extraction is a viable technologyat other sites with larger volumes of soil to be treated, andwith longer construction seasons.

EPA has a contract in existence which implements the 1989

remedial action. Modifications to this contract have beennegotiated and await the signature of the amended ROD. Delays inamending the ROD will put EPA at risk contractually which maysubject EPA to change orders and claims.

This Amended Record of Decision does not change the Management ofMigration component of the 1989 ROD; therefore, this amended RODdoes not change the 1989 requirement of a waiver from a StateARAR due to the technical impracticability from an engineeringperspective of collecting particulate-bound PCB's from thegroundwater at the Site.

HQ Perspective

The headquarters liaison with Region I has been kept informed ofthe status of the Pinette's ongoing remedial action and is awareof the problems in implementing solvent extraction at this Site.

Public Involvement

There has been no significant public involvement. Only onecomment from the public was received during the 30-day publiccomment period. This comment was from the Washburn Town Managerconveying that the Washburn Town Council had voted unanimously toendorse the amendment to the ROD.

Media/Congressional

There has been little congressional interest or involvement inthis Site. In 1992, the RPM provided the congressional staffwith a fence-line tour of the Site.

The local media has been informed of all Site activities. TheProposed Plan received coverage from the local print, radio andTV outlets.

State Coordination

The State of Maine has concurred with the Amended ROD. The Stateof Maine has been heavily involved in the development of theremedial design, implementing the remedial action, and inevaluating alternatives for amending the 1989 ROD. The State ofMaine is responsible for 10% of the cost of the remedial actionat this Site. A Superfund State Contract is in affect.

Recommendation

The Regional Administrator should sign the attached ROD.

Contact Persons

RPM - Ross L. Gilleland ORC - Jill MetcalfMaine & Vermont Superfund CERCLA III(617) 573-5766 (617) 565-9458

RECORD OF DECISION AMENDMENTPINETTE'S SALVAGE YARD SITE

DECLARATION

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Pinette's Salvage Yard SiteWashburn, Maine

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

This decision document presents an amendment to the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Source Control portion ofthe selected remedial action chosen in a Record of Decisionsigned on May 30, 1989 ("the 1989 ROD") for the Pinette's SalvageYard Site, in Washburn, Maine. This amended selected remedy waschosen in accordance with the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), asamended, 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq.. and is consistent, to theextent practicable, with the National Oil and HazardousSubstances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300.This amendment is made in accordance with Section 117 of CERCLA,42 U.S.C. § 9617, and 40 CFR § 300.435(c)(2)(ii). The RegionalAdministrator has been delegated the authority to approve thisamendment to the Record of Decision.

The State of Maine has concurred on this amended selected remedyand determined, through a detailed evaluation that the selectedremedy is consistent with Maine laws and regulations.

STATEMENT OF BASIS

This decision is based on the Administrative Record compiled forthis Site which was developed in accordance with Section 113(k)of CERCLA. The Administrative Record is available for publicreview at The Washburn Town Offices in Washburn, Maine and at theEPA Region I Waste Management Division Record Center in Boston,Massachusetts. The Attached index (Attachment A) identifies theitems which comprise the administrative record upon which theselection of the remedial action is based.

DESCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL SELECTED REMEDY

The remedial action selected for Source Control in the 1989 RODconsisted of:

1) Off-site incineration of PCB-contaminated soils greaterthan 50 ppm; and

2) On-site solvent extraction of additional PCB- andorganic-contaminated soils.

DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDED SELECTED REMEDY

The amended source control remedy will consist of:

1) Off-site incineration of PCB-contaminated soils greaterthan 500 ppm; and

2) Off-Site land disposal at a federally permitted ToxicSubstances Control Act (TSCA) secure landfill of allsoils contaminated with PCBs at concentrations greaterthan or equal to 50 ppm and less than 500 ppm; and

3) Off-Site Land Disposal at either a State of Mainelicensed Special Waste Landfill, or a federallypermitted Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) securelandfill of all soils contaminated with PCBs atconcentrations greater than or equal to 5 ppm and lessthan 50 ppm and/or contaminated with other organiccontaminants greater than the action levels listed inTable 1.

All other aspects of the 1989 selected remedy remain unchanged.

DECLARATION

The amended selected remedy is protective of human health and theenvironment, attains ARARs (except as discussed in the 1989 RODwith respect to the groundwater component, which is not subjectto this amendment) and is cost effective. The amended selectedremedy also satisfies the statutory preference for treatmentwhich permanently and significantly reduces the mobility,toxicity or volume of hazardous substances as a principalelement. Additionally, the amended selected remedy utilizesalternate treatment technologies or resource recoverytechnologies to the maximum extent practicable.

This amended selected remedy does not change the groundwaterportion of the 1989 ROD; therefore, this amended selected remedydoes not change the 1989 requirement of a waiver from a StateARAR due to the technical impracticability from an engineeringperspective of collecting particulate-bound PCB's from thegroundwater at the Site. Additionally, because the amendedselected remedy could still likely result in hazardous substances(PCBs) remaining in groundwater on-site above health basedlevels, a review will be conducted (at a minimum) within fiveyears after commencement of the remedial action to ensure thatthe remedy continues to provide adequate protection of humanhealth and the environment.

—-Date Regional Administrator

Record of Decision AmendmentPinette's Salvage Yard SiteWashburn, Maine


TABLE OP CONTENTS

Page Number

I. SITE DESCRIPTION AND RATIONALE FOR 5PROPOSED AMENDMENT

II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 8

III. COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY 11

IV. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 12

V. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 12

VI. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 14

VII. THE AMENDED SELECTED REMEDY 19

VIII. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 20

IX. STATE ROLE 22

Figure Number/Title1. Site Location Map2. Site Vicinity Map3. Current Site Features

Table Number/Title

1. Soil Cleanup Levels2. Source Control ARARs affected by Amended ROD

Attachments

A. Pinette's Salvage Yard Site Administrative Record IndexB. Pinette's Salvage Yard Site Responsiveness SummaryC. Pinette's Salvage Yard Site State of Maine Declaration of

Concurrence LetterD. Pinette's Salvage Yard Official Public Hearing Transcript,

April 13, 1993


DECISION SUMMARY

I. SITE DESCRIPTION AND RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT

The Pinette's Salvage Yard (PSY) site is located on Gardner CreekRoad (a.k.a. Wade Road) approximately one mile southwest of thetown of Washburn, Aroostook County, Maine, in the northeasterncorner of the state (see Figures 1 and 2). The town of Washburnhas a current estimated population of 2,200 residents, andconsists of various family-owned and operated stores, anelementary school and high school, Town Hall and medical center.

A portion of the Pinette's Salvage Yard (PSY) site is privatelyowned and operated by Roger J. Pinette and his family as avehicle repair and salvage yard. Damaged vehicles are storedand/or dismantled, from which recovered parts are sold, on aninfrequent basis at present. This portion of the site issituated within the parcel of land currently owned by Roger J.Pinette and Cynthia C. Pinette (granted, with warranty covenants,as joint tenants) which consists of 9.45 acres.

The remainder of the PSY site consists of an area south ofGardner Creek Road where contamination has come to be locatedthrough surface water runoff from the salvage yard area locatednorth of the road. This smaller area is part of a larger tractof land that is privately owned by A.E. Albert Farms, Inc. It iscurrently undeveloped.

Land use within a one mile radius of the site consists ofresidential, general industrial, agricultural and undevelopedforest and wetlands. Residential zoning (with a one acre minimumlot size) and agricultural zoning predominates adjacent to thePSY site. Other areas along Gardner Creek Road consist ofresidential homes both northeast and southwest of the site;agricultural areas north and south of the site (as well assurrounding areas); wetlands to the northeast, northwest, andsouth of the site; and general industrial facilities located nearMain Street in Washburn and the intersection of Gardner CreekRoad. To the southwest of the site, Gardner Creek Road becomes adirt road and eventually separates into several logging roads.The forests in this area are used for lumber production, andnumerous hunting camps have been established for recreationaloutings.

Natural resources at the site and in surrounding areas includeground water, surface water, fish and game, agriculture,wetlands, and forests.

Approximately 8-10 residences housing 20-30 people are located

5

within a half mile radius of the site. Many of these residentsobtain their water from private wells which are primarily locatedin the deep, bedrock aquifer near the site. The majority ofresidents located within the town of Washburn obtain theirdrinking water from the Washburn Water Company. The municipalwells used to supply potable water to these residents are locatedapproximately one mile northeast of the site on Church Street inWashburn and are approximately 100 feet deep.

The surface water bodies in the area of the site consist of theAroostook River, Gardner Creek, Gardner Creek Branch, and SalmonBrook (see Figures 1 and 2). Fishing, trapping, and duck huntingare the primary recreational activities conducted at theselocations.

The PSY site is located approximately 1,500 feet northwest of theAroostook River, as shown on Figure 2, a major waterway innortheastern Maine that is used as a natural and recreationalresource. Regional and local planning officials havesuccessfully completed a recent $60 million effort to clean upthe Aroostook River. This extensive cleanup effort has producedbetter water quality, enabling the public to use the river forboating and swimming, and as a potable water source in certainareas. Atlantic salmon and trout, both environmentally sensitiveand selective species, are now found in the Aroostook Riverindicating that the water quality is excellent.

The wetlands, agricultural and woodland areas surrounding thesite are used primarily for such activities as hunting, trapping,horseback riding, snowmobile and motorcycle riding, and camping.The agricultural areas are predominately used for potato and peafarming. Some farms in the area raise cattle, horses, and otherlivestock. Various animals such as moose, bear, deer, mink, andwaterfowl have been observed in the areas surrounding the site.

The remedial investigation field work performed at the PSY siteidentified several additional site-specific characteristics asdescribed below:

o ground surface elevations range from approximately 480 to470 feet above mean sea level (msl) north of Gardner CreekRoad, and 475 feet above msl or less south of the road wherethe topography becomes steeper;

o surface water drainage flows south to southeast on thewestern portion of the site, and approximately due east onthe eastern portion of the site prior to discharging intoindividual culverts located under Gardner Creek Road;

o four (4) distinct lithologic soil units include: surfacesoils (alluvium), a clay/silt confining unit, a sequence ofglacial till/glacial outwash, and a bedrock unit (consisting

of an upper, weathered and fractured zone, and a deeper,less fractured bedrock zone);

o wetland areas consist of the eastern pond/drainage ditch,the western pond and those areas west-northwest of the site,the "groundwater breakout" area south of Gardner Creek Road,and a large area located adjacent to Gardner Creek Roadapproximately 300 feet east-southeast of the site;

o two (2) distinct aquifers (shallow overburden and glacialtill/fractured bedrock) are separated by an intervening claylayer;

o the clay layer separating the two aquifers is found at adepth of 2 to 6 feet below the ground surface, extends todepths of up to 12 to 16 feet, and varies in thickness from2 to 3 feet in the northern portion of the site (where itmay become discontinuous) to greater than 10 feet in thesouthern portion of the site north of Gardner Creek Road;

o the clay unit has low permeability (approximately 2x10-7cm/sec) relative to the overlying alluvial aquifer, andtherefore is an aquitard allowing limited downward movementof groundwater and contaminant transport;

o the clay unit (aquitard) creates a "perched" groundwatercondition in the shallow alluvial aquifer, resulting in asaturated thickness ranging from two to three feet; the baseof the shallow aquifer crops out south of Gardner Creek Roadwhich results in the discharge of groundwater in the"groundwater breakout" area; and

o the clay unit (aquitard) also in turn creates semi-confined conditions in the underlying glacial till/fracturedbedrock zone.

A more complete description of the site can be found in the FinalSupplemental Remedial Investigation (SRI) report (Ebasco, 1989a).

The purpose of the Amended Record of Decision is to formallyspecify changes to the previously issued Record of Decision. TheAmended Record of Decision describes the changes adopted,presents an evaluation of technologies which were consideredpursuant to the original Record of Decision. In addition, itpresents the rationale for changing the Record of Decision, thestate and public perspectives on the change, an explanation ofhow the change differs from the original Record of Decision, anda Responsiveness Summary which is EPA's response to publiccomment on the change.

II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

A. Site History

In June 1979, three electrical transformers from Loring Air ForceBase located near Limestone, Maine, were removed from the baseunder a written agreement with a private electrical contractorhired by the base. Allegedly, the transformers were brought tothe Site where they apparently ruptured while being removed fromthe delivery vehicle. Approximately 900 to 1,000 gallons ofdielectric fluid containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)spilled directly onto the ground.

From October 4 to November 4, 1983 approximately 1,050 tons (800cubic yards) of PCB contaminated soil and assorted debris wereremoved for disposal as part of an EPA authorized ImmediateRemoval Action. A 1985 Deletion Remedial Investigation resultedin the determination by EPA, in consultation with Maine DEP, thatthe Site was not suitable for deletion from the National PriorityList.

A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study of the Site wasconducted from 1984 to 1989. The Remedial Investigation wasperformed to characterize the geology, hydrogeology, anddistribution of contaminants in the soil, ground water, surfacewater, and sediments at the Site. The Feasibility Studypresented and evaluated various remedial alternatives, includingthe treatment alternatives selected in the 1989 ROD.

Based on the Feasibility Study, EPA proposed a preferredalternative for the Site in a Proposed Plan dated March 1989.Following a public comment period, the preferred alternative wasestablished by EPA as the final remedy of the Site in the 1989ROD. After issuance of the 1989 ROD, EPA completed the RemedialDesign in June 1990. EPA's construction management contractorsolicited proposals from engineering construction firms toimplement the Remedial Design in accordance with the 1989 ROD.EPA's contractor evaluated the proposals and awarded thesubcontract for the cleanup in October 1990. The followingspring, EPA began cleanup activities at the Pinette's SalvageYard Site (see "Cleanup Set to Begin" Fact Sheet, January 1991).

Solvent extraction is an innovative treatment technology whichhas not yet been implemented at the full-scale level. Theability of individual solvent extraction companies to achievedesired cleanup objectives has, to date, been based on bench-scale and/or pilot-scale treatability testing, (see "A Citizen'sGuide to Solvent Extraction," March 1992 (EPA/542/F-92-004) FactSheet). Most solvent extraction companies do not have full-scaleunits pre-built which are immediately available for use. Thesolvent extraction company initially hired to treat the Pinette's

8

Salvage Yard soil demonstrated the ability to remove PCBs to thedesired objectives established in the ROD in a treatability testand committed, in October 1990, to deliver a fully fabricatedunit to the Site.

Through early to mid 1991, the fabrication of the treatment unitwas delayed. In late 1991, the new owner reportedly contemplatedselling parts of the company. At that time, all work on thetreatment unit was suspended. Eventually this company abandonedits plans to support the Pinette's Salvage Yard Site cleanup.

Despite the setbacks with the construction of the solventextraction treatment unit, work on other aspects of the cleanupcontinued at the Pinette's Salvage Yard Site. During the firstyear of cleanup activities, EPA's contractors secured the sitewith a six-foot chain linked fence, set up support services, andexcavated and removed approximately 410 cubic yards of the mosthighly contaminated soil to a federally permitted incinerator inCoffeyville, Kansas. As excavation progressed, it became evidentthat there was a larger volume of this highly contaminated soilthan originally estimated. However, soil excavation was haltedwhen incinerator capacity, nationwide, was no longer capable ofaccepting additional soil for treatment. Progress was made intreating contaminated groundwater; approximately 160,000 gallonsof contaminated groundwater was successfully treated toestablished Maine drinking water quality guidelines and drainedback into the ground.

As a result of the solvent extraction company's failure to meetits commitments to the Pinette's Salvage Yard cleanup, none ofthe moderately contaminated soil (5-50 ppm) was treated duringthe first year. Without a commitment to complete the solventextraction treatment unit, EPA's contractors requested proposalsfrom other solvent extraction companies, including thoseevaluated in the original Feasibility Study, to perform the workin 1992. EPA's contractors were able to find only one solventextraction company which was willing to construct and deliver atreatment unit to the site in 1992. Other solvent extractioncompanies either did not respond to the requests or proposedproject schedules which would have required up to 18 months offabrication and treatment costs several times higher than thosein the current subcontract. The solvent extraction company,whose schedule EPA considered acceptable, demonstrated itsprocess was capable of meeting the ROD objectives through atreatability test and resumed fabrication of a partiallyconstructed treatment unit in April 1992.

The second solvent extraction treatment unit was delivered to thePinette's Salvage Yard Site in June 1992, as scheduled. Thecompany estimated the treatment unit would be fully operationaland able to treat soils at a rate of 42 tons per day. Asreported in EPA's Fact Sheet, "EPA Resumes Cleanup," June 1992,

the cleanup was expected to be completed by November 1992.

Efforts to operate the new treatment unit were hampered bymechanical and process problems. Although the treatment unit wasable to successfully treat very small volumes of soil, theoperation of this particular unit was severely hampered bymaterial handling problems including repeated breakage of thesoil conveyance mechanisms. Additionally, the system wasrendered inefficient due to problems with fine ground soilparticles clogging solvent lines and hampering the soil dryingsystem. By August 1992, the solvent extraction company hadreduced its expectations to a soil treatment rate of 17 tons perday. The unit was continually being shut down, repaired, andmodified. By August, only 14 cubic yards of soil had beentreated to below the cleanup objectives established in the 1989ROD. At that time, the treatment unit was again shut down for athree week period in order to undergo several major designfabrications. These changes included mechanical devises to pre-sort soil particles prior to treatment, improvements to the soilconveyance mechanisms, addition of a settling tank to remove finesoil particles, and improvements to the soil dryer.

Despite these fabrication changes, performance problemscontinued. In September 1992, the solvent extraction companyadvised EPA that the maximum treatment rate of the unit would be6 tons per day. By this time, a total of only 56 cubic yard ofsoil had been treated to meet the objectives of the ROD; however,of these 56 cubic yards of soil, 42 cubic yards contained highlevels of residual solvent requiring additional measures toreduce the solvent levels to acceptable levels prior to re-placement in the ground.

As a result of these difficulties, at the end of the secondconstruction season less than 1% of soils containing between 5and 50 ppm PCB had been successfully treated and were acceptablefor re-placement in the ground. In order to treat all remainingsoils at these concentrations by the end of a third constructionseason in 1993, the treatment unit would have to undergoextensive design and construction modifications and would have totreat soils at a rate of 48 tons per day; a rate that wouldexceed the original performance estimate provided by the solventextraction company. In November 1992, the cleanup subcontractoradvised EPA and its construction management contractor of itslack of confidence in its ability to complete the Pinette's soilcleanup using the current solvent extraction unit and expressedits disinterest in undertaking the major design and fabricationchanges required for the solvent extraction treatment unit.

Despite the complications with the treatment unit, workprogressed on other aspects of the Pinette's Salvage Yard cleanupin 1992, approximately 281 cubic yards of soil containing greaterthan or equal to 50 ppm PCB were incinerated off site. A

10

damaged culvert and the contaminated soil beneath it leading tothe wetlands off-site were excavated and replaced with clean soiland a new culvert. The contaminated wetland area was excavated.However, additional volumes of contamination were identified inareas including the wetlands. As a result of this additionalsoil contamination, the restoration of the wetlands will becompleted in 1993. 440,000 gallons of contaminated ground waterwere treated in accordance with Maine drinking water qualityguidelines and drained back into the ground.

B. Enforcement Activities

On March 6, 1989, EPA notified four (4) parties who owned oroperated the facility, generated hazardous substances that wereshipped to the facility, arranged for the disposal of hazardoussubstances at the facility, or transported hazardous substancesto the facility of their potential liability with respect to theSite.

In addition, technical comments presented by the PotentiallyResponsible Parties (PRPs) during the initial comment period weresubmitted in writing, and are included in the AdministrativeRecord. No comments were received by any of the PRPs on theproposed plan to amend the 1989 ROD.

To date, special notice has not been issued in this case.

III. COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY

Throughout the Site's history, community concern and involvementhas been low. EPA kept the community and other interestedparties apprised of Site activities through an informationalmeeting, fact sheets, press releases and public hearings.Additionally, EPA has conducted several television and radiointerviews and has been available to the public during all sitevisits.

In June 1988, EPA released a community relations plan whichoutlined a program to address community concerns and keepcitizens informed about and involved in the remedial activitiesbeing performed a the Site.

In issuing the original 1989 Record of Decision (ROD), EPApublished a Proposed Plan on March 8, 1989. On March 14, 1989,EPA held an informational meeting, and on April 11, 1989 EPA helda public hearing to accept oral comments on the original proposedplan and administrative record. The public comment period forthe 1989 ROD ran from March 15, 1989 to April 14, 1989.

In issuing this amended ROD, EPA published a Proposed Plan onMarch 12, 1993. On March 17, 1993, EPA held an informationalmeeting, and on April 13, 1993, EPA held a public hearing to

11

accept oral comments on the proposed plan to amend the 1989 RODand the administrative record, including the new informationwhich was considered in making the proposal. The officialtranscript of the hearing provided as Attachment D. The publiccomment period for the Amended ROD ran from March 18, 1993 toApril 16, 1993.

IV. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The soil cleanup at the Pinette's Salvage Yard Site has beenongoing since 1991. During the two construction seasons, EPA haspartially completed cleanup activities. The Site has beenfenced, a concrete pad and equipment decontamination facilityhave been installed, approximately 440,000 gallons of groundwaterhave been treated and discharged, and approximately 1600 cubicyards of soil have been excavated. Of these soils, 711 cubicyards have been incinerated off-site, 259 cubic yards are storedon-site in covered containers, and the remaining 630 cubic yardsare in covered stockpiles on-site. The excavated area has beenpartly backfilled with clean soil, but part of this area remainsas an open pit which collects groundwater during wet periods.

A complete description of the site characteristics can be foundin the 1989 ROD or the "Final Supplemental Remedial Investigationand Public Health Evaluation Report," 1989.

V. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

As a result of the difficulties experienced to date inimplementing on-site solvent extraction treatment for soilscontaining between 5 and 50 ppm PCB, EPA and the State of MaineDepartment of Environmental Protection (DEP) have been unable tocomplete the soil cleanup at the Pinette's Salvage Yard Site.Therefore, EPA has considered alternatives which will meet theobjective of achieving a timely and cost-effective cleanup whileproviding overall protection of human health and the environmentin compliance with all applicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements (ARARs).

The original remedy specified in the 1989 ROD was selectedfollowing a comparative evaluation with numerous otheralternatives, based on conditions which existed at the time theoriginal Feasibility Study was prepared. As described above, thepresent conditions at the Site are considerably different fromthose which existed at the time of the 1989 Feasibility Study.However, during the evaluation of alternatives for completion ofthe soil cleanup, EPA considered these original alternatives andhow they would apply to current Site conditions. Following arebrief descriptions of these remedial alternatives.

Alternative #1: Minimal No Action: This alternative serves as abaseline for comparison with other remedial alternatives under

12

consideration. Under this alternative, no additional remedialactivities would occur at the Site. EPA's contractors woulddemobilize all equipment and secure the Site. Stockpiles of soilwould remain on-site and the flooded excavation would be leftopen. The concrete pad and perimeter fence would be left intact.As was the case in the original no-action alternative, certaininstitutional actions would be conducted, including obtainingland use restrictions; posting warning signs; conducting a publiceducation program; installing additional monitoring wells;monitoring the groundwater, surface water, and sediment for a 30-year period; and conducting a review of the Site conditions everyfive years.

Alternative #2: On-site Capping with Slurry Wall: Thisalternative was also evaluated in the 1989 Feasibility Study.This alternative, as originally conceived, would have involvedplacing an impermeable cap over contaminated soils on-site andconstructing a slurry wall extending into the clay layerunderlying the Site. This alternative is no longer appropriateto current site conditions, because much of the most highlycontaminated soil and groundwater have been removed from theSite. In order to implement this alternative now, all soilcurrently stored or stockpiled on-site would have to be replacedinto the open excavation, and then the cap and slurry wall wouldbe constructed.

Alternative #3: Off-Site Disposal: The 1989 Feasibility Studyincluded an evaluation of a remedial alternative consisting ofoff-site landfilling of all soils contaminated above EPA'sselected action level. EPA has included off-site disposal as acomponent of the amended selected remedy. All soils remaining onsite containing greater than or equal to 5 ppm PCB and less than500 ppm PCB will be excavated and disposed at an off-site TSCA-permitted landfill. This alternative consists of a significantportion of the amended selected remedy, which also includes off-site incineration of some of the PCB contaminated soil. (See thediscussion of EPA's amended selected remedy on page 19).

Alternative #4: Incineration: The 1989 Feasibility Study includedan evaluation of a remedial alternative consisting of excavationand either on-site or off-site incineration of all contaminatedsoils above EPA's selected action level. Off-site incinerationwas a component of EPA's Preferred Cleanup Plan selected in the1989 ROD. In the original Plan, all soils containing greaterthan or equal to 50 ppm PCB, originally estimated at 360 cubicyards, were specified to be incinerated at an off-site TSCA-permitted incinerator. To date, 711 cubic yards of such soilshave been incinerated. EPA's amended selected remedy includesoff-site incineration of an additional volume of soil, estimatedat 51 cubic yards, containing greater than or equal to 500 ppmPCB. (See the discussion of EPA's amended selected remedy onpage 19).

13

Alternative #5: On-site Solvent Extraction: The 1989 FeasibilityStudy evaluated an alternative comprising excavation and on-sitetreatment by solvent extraction of soils containing contaminationabove EPA's selected action level. This process involves the useof a solvent to remove PCBs and other organic chemicals fromsoil. This was a component of EPA's Preferred Cleanup Planselected in the 1989 ROD. The selected remedy specified on-sitetreatment of soil containing between 5 and 50 ppm PCB, and soilscontaminated with other organic chemicals (benzene,chlorobenzene, and others) by solvent extraction technology. Asdescribed previously, EPA has experienced difficulty inimplementing this component of the selected remedy at thePinette's Salvage Yard Site.

Alternative #6: On-site Dechlorination: The 1989 FeasibilityStudy included an alternative consisting of excavation and on-site treatment of soil contaminated above EPA's selected actionlevel using a dechlorination process. This innovative technologywould involve mixing excavated soil with a combination ofchemicals, forming a reagent capable of detoxifying PCBs throughthe removal of chlorine atoms from the PCB molecule.Decontaminated soils would be replaced on-site and thecontaminated reagent would be disposed at a licensed off-siteincineration facility.

Alternative #7: In-situ Vitrification (ISV): The 1989Feasibility Study included an alternative to treat contaminatedsoil above EPA's selected action level using an in-situvitrification technology. This innovative technology wouldinvolve placing electrodes in the soil in the area to be treated.A high power electrical current would be passed from theelectrodes to the soil, resulting in the melting andtransformation of the soil to a glass-like material. In theprocess, organic contaminants would be destroyed/volatilized, andinorganic contaminants would be bound/fused together. Off-gaseswould be collected by carbon filters within a hood placed overthe area to be treated. In order to apply this technology tocurrent site conditions, all stockpiled soil would have to bereplaced in the open excavation and the area would have to begraded prior to application of the technology.

VI. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

Section I2l(b)(l) of CERCLA presents several factors that at aminimum EPA is required to consider in its assessment ofalternatives. Building upon these specific statutory mandates,the National Contingency Plan articulates nine evaluationcriteria to be used in assessing the individual remedialalternatives.

A detailed analysis was performed on the alternatives using the

14

nine evaluation criteria in order to select a site remedy. Thefollowing is a summary of the comparison of each alternative'sstrength and weakness with respect to the nine evaluationcriteria. These criteria are summarized as follows:

Threshold Criteria

The two threshold criteria described below must be met in orderfor the alternatives to be eligible for selection in accordancewith the NCP.

1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environmentaddresses whether or not an alternative provides adequateprotection and describes how risks posed through each pathway areeliminated, reduced or controlled through treatment, engineeringcontrols, or institutional controls.

The amended selected remedy will provide overall protection ofhuman health and the environment by preventing direct contact,ingestion, and inhalation of Site contaminants. Alternative #1(the no-action alternative) would not provide overall protection,as current conditions would remain intact. Alternatives #5, #6,and #7 would potentially provide a lower degree of overallprotection due to uncertainties regarding availability andimplementability of solvent extraction, dechlorination, and in-situ vitrification technologies.

2. Compliance with Federal and State Applicable orRelevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) addresses whetheror not an alternative complies with all State and Federalenvironmental and public health laws and requirements that applyor are relevant and appropriate to the conditions and cleanupoptions at a specific site. If an ARAR cannot be met, theanalysis of the alternative must provide the legal grounds forwaiving this requirement.

The amended selected remedy will comply with all ARARs.Alternative #1 (the no-action alternative) would not comply withARARs. Alternatives #2 and #7, requiring soil containing greaterthan or equal to 50 ppm PCB to be replaced into the ground maynot comply with Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) ARARs.Similarly, Alternatives #5 and #6 may not comply with TSCA fortreatment of soil containing greater than or equal to 50 ppm PCB.This amended selected remedy does not change the groundwaterportion of the 1989 ROD. Therefore for the groundwater componentof the remedy, the ARARs analysis in the 1989 ROD remains ineffect.

Primary Balancing Criteria

The following five criteria are utilized to compare and evaluatethe elements of one alternative to another that meet thethreshold criteria.

15

3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence addresses theability of an alternative to maintain reliable protection ofhuman health and the environment over time once the cleanup goalshave been met.

The amended selected remedy will be a long-term effective andpermanent cleanup solution at the Pinette's Salvage Yard Site.Because all contaminated soil would be disposed off-site, therewould be no long-term maintenance required at the Site to ensurethe permanence of the remedy. Alternative #1 (no-action) wouldnot provide long-term permanence and effectiveness. Otheralternatives which would remove all contaminated soil from theSite (#4, #5 & #6) would achieve long-term effectiveness andpermanence. Alternatives which would contain contaminated soilson-site (#2 & #7) would require some degree of site maintenanceto achieve long-term effectiveness and permanence.

4. Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility and Volume ThroughTreatment addresses the degree to which alternatives employrecycling or treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility or volume,including how treatment is used to address the principal threatsposed by the site.

The amended selected remedy will achieve substantial reduction intoxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants through treatment.This alternative would include destruction of contaminants in allsoil containing greater than or equal to 500 ppm PCB and in 81%of soil containing greater than or equal to 50 ppm PCB. Based onanalyses conducted during the soil cleanup to date, incinerationof these soils would result in permanent destruction throughtreatment of 90% of all PCBs originally present on-site in soilscontaining greater than or equal to 5 ppm PCB. Only 10% of PCBsoriginally present on-site would be disposed in an off-sitelandfill. Therefore, this alternative would be consistent withEPA's policy at PCB sites to reduce the principal threats tohuman health and the environment through treatment.

Alternatives #1 and #2 involve no treatment. Alternative #6would achieve maximum reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volumeof contaminants through treatment by incineration ordechlorination, respectively. Alternative #5 would achievereduction of volume of contaminants by concentrating them intothe solvent extract, which would then be destroyed through asecondary off-site incineration process. Alternative #7 wouldreduce the toxicity and volume of contaminants by volatilizationduring the extreme temperatures of vitrification. Any remainingcontaminants which were not completely volatilized would berendered immobile through solidification of soil into a vitrifiedmass.

5. Short-term Effectiveness refers to the likelihood ofadverse impacts on human health or the environment that may be

16

posed during the construction and implementation of analternative until cleanup goals are achieved. The cleanup of thePinette's Salvage Yard Site has been ongoing for two constructionseasons. Although EPA has taken steps to maintain a secure site,including all appropriate public health and environmentalprecautions, nonetheless the site has been in a disturbedcondition for a period of time exceeding that anticipated by the1989 ROD. The longer this period of disruption continues, themore short term risks are posed to the community and workers atthe Site.

The amended selected remedy will be completed in the shortesttime, because the Site, which has been in a disturbed state sinceMay 1991, could be restored to original conditions at the end ofthe 1993 construction season.

Alternatives other than the amended selected remedy, with theexception of the no-action alternative (#1), would requireadditional time beyond the 1993 season, thus subjecting thecommunity, workers, and the environment to prolonged disruptionand short-term risks. Maintaining the solvent extractioncomponent of the currently selected remedy will result inextension of the disrupted site conditions for at least 18 to 24months, and there is no certainty that any other vendors will besuccessful in implementing this technology at the Site. Theother alternatives would also extend the duration of currentconditions, due to the anticipated redesign and reprocurementrequired to implement different technologies than those currentlyspecified in the 1989 ROD.

All alternatives except no-action (#1) will cause increasedvehicle traffic in the vicinity of the Site. The amendedselected remedy will result in the arrival and departure of anaverage of two to three trucks over a four to six week period tocomplete off-site shipment of contaminated soils. Transporterswill be licensed and would comply with all Federal and State ofMaine regulations for transportation of hazardous waste. Otheralternatives would not involve transportation of wastes off-siteand would therefore not require the resulting vehicular flow.However, these other alternatives would require substantialvehicle traffic to install different equipment than is currentlyon-site.

6. Implementability refers to the technical andadministrative feasibility of an alternative, includingavailability of materials and services needed to implement thealternative.

The amended selected remedy is fully implementable at thePinette's Salvage Yard Site. Standard earth moving techniquesand equipment will be used, and the availability of off-siteincineration and disposal facilities has been confirmed for the

17

1993 construction season. EPA's experience indicates that theimplementability of the solvent extraction component of the 1989selected remedy is significantly more uncertain at the Pinette'sSalvage Yard Site than anticipated during the original remedyselection process in 1989.

EPA has worked with its contractors over two construction seasonsto bring two different units to the site. In order to have beenable to make the solvent extraction unit functional for thePinette's Salvage Yard soil cleanup, major engineering andfabrication modifications would have been necessary. Thesubcontractor expressed a strong reluctance to undergo suchmodifications at its cost, and such modifications in no way wouldhave guaranteed success.

There are no other solvent extraction vendors who havecommercially available treatment units suitable for the Pinette'sSalvage Yard Site. EPA's contractors requested proposals fromother solvent extraction companies, including those evaluated inthe original Feasibility Study, to perform the work in 1992.EPA's contractors were able to find only one solvent extractioncompany which was willing to construct and deliver a treatmentunit to the site in 1992. Other solvent extraction companieseither did not respond to the requests or proposed projectschedules which would have required up to 18 months offabrication and treatment costs several times higher than thosein the current subcontract. In November 1992, the clean-upsubcontractor who was performing the work advised EPA and itsconstruction management contractor of its lack of confidence inits ability to complete the Pinette's soil cleanup using thecurrent solvent extraction unit and expressed its disinterest inundertaking the major design and fabrication changes required forthe solvent extraction treatment unit.

Alternatives #6 and #7 also include innovative treatmenttechnologies (dechlorination, in-situ vitrification) whosecommercial availability and implementability are similarlyuncertain. Neither of these alternatives are implementable in atime-frame which allows EPA to complete the soil cleanup at thePinette's Salvage Yard Site within a cost-effective timeframe.Alternatives #1 (no-action) and #2 (capping with slurry wall) areboth implementable, although neither is appropriate for currentsite conditions.

7. Cost includes the capital (up-front) cost ofimplementing an alternative as well as the costs of operating andmaintaining the alternative over the long term, and net presentworth of both capital and operation and maintenance costs.

The amended selected remedy can be completed with minimaladdition to the current funding of the existing contracts. Thecurrent selected remedy, due to uncertainty of the

18

implementability of the on-site solvent extraction component,leaves cost uncertain until the cleanup is achieved. So far, theoriginal unit costs associated with the solvent extraction vendorhave remained unchanged. However, there are certain unit pricecomponents of the project, such as water treatment and analyseswhich are paid on an as-performed basis and are controlled by theduration of the project. Additionally, construction managementcosts are largely dependent on the duration of the project,particularly with regard to on-site resident engineering. Moresignificantly, the risk of failure of the current approachcarries with it the risk of potential costs to terminate thecurrent subcontract, redesign a different remedy, and procure anew subcontractor.

The amended selected remedy can be implemented by the currentcontractors, with minimal redesign, thereby avoiding costsassociated with termination and re-procurement.

Modifying Criteria

The modifying criteria are used on the final evaluation ofremedial alternatives generally after EPA has received publiccomment on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan.

8. State Acceptance addresses the State's position and keyconcerns related to the preferred alternative and otheralternatives, and the State's comments on ARARs or the proposeduse of waivers. The State of Maine is in agreement with EPA onthe Proposed Plan and has concurred with the ROD amendment.

9. Community Acceptance addresses the public's generalresponse to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan. EPAheld an informational meeting in Washburn, Maine on March 17,1993. Local press, a town official and three Washburn residentsattended the meeting to learn about the proposal to amend the1989 ROD and to answer questions. On April 13, 1993, EPAreturned to Washburn to hear oral comments on the proposal. Thetown official read for the record that the Washburn Town Councilhad unanimously voted to endorse the ROD amendment. See PublicHearing Transcript (Attachment D) and the Responsiveness Summary(Attachment B).

VII. THE AMENDED SELECTED REMEDY

The amended selected remedy is the result of a re-evaluation ofmaterial contained in the Administrative Record, for the 1989ROD, as well as material reflecting the experiences and newinformation developed since 1989 which has been added to theAdministrative Record. In the judgement of EPA, the amendedselected remedy represents the best balance among the evaluation

19

criteria when compared to the other alternatives.

The amended selected remedy addresses a fundamental change in theapproach for cleaning up contaminated soil at the Site ( SourceControl). EPA is not proposing to change the cleanup approach inthe 1989 ROD for addressing contaminated groundwater at the Site(Management of Migration).

The amended selected remedy for Source Control is a combinationof the originally selected remedy and a modification of othersevaluated in the 1989 Feasibility Study. The amended selectedremedy includes the destruction of approximately 762 cubic yardsof soils at an off-site TSCA-permitted facility. 711 cubic yardsof this soil has already been incinerated, and approximately 51cubic yards of soil may contain greater than or equal to 500 ppmPCB. The actual soils containing greater than equal to 500 ppmPCBs will be incinerated at an off-site TSCA-permitted facility.The amended selected remedy also involves the disposal ofapproximately 209 cubic yards of soil remaining on-sitecontaining greater than or equal to 50 ppm PCB at an off-sitefederally permitted TSCA secure chemical waste landfill.Further, the amended selected remedy consists of removal anddisposal of soil contaminated with PCB concentration greater thanor equal to 5 ppm. This would involve excavating contaminatedsoil, reducing its moisture content, and disposing of the wastesat either a State of Maine licensed special waste landfill or anoff-site federally permitted TSCA-secure chemical waste landfill.The excavated areas would be filled with clean soil, regraded andrevegetated to return the Site to its original condition.

All other aspects of the 1989 ROD for Source Control would remainthe same.

VIII. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The amended selected remedy for implementation at the Pinette'sSalvage Yard Site is consistent with CERCLA and, to the extentpracticable, the NCP. The amended selected remedy is protectiveof human health and the environment, attains ARARs (except asdiscussed in the 1989 ROD with respect to the groundwatercomponent, which is not subject to this amendment) and is costeffective. The amended selected remedy also satisfies thestatutory preference for treatment which permanently andsignificantly reduces the mobility, toxicity or volume ofhazardous substances as a principal element. Additionally, theamended selected remedy utilizes alternate treatment technologiesor resource recovery technologies to the maximum extentpracticable.

The Amended Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and theEnvironment

20

The amended selected remedy at this Site will permanently reducethe risks posed to human health and the environment byeliminating, reducing or controlling exposures to human andenvironmental receptors through treatment, engineering controls,and institutional controls; more specifically the amendedselected remedy will permanently remove from the Site allcontaminated soil containing PCBs at concentrations exceedingprotective health levels.

A complete description of the Site Risks can be found in the 1989ROD.

The Amended Selected Remedy Complies with Applicable or Relevantand Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)

The amended selected remedy will attain all applicable orrelevant and appropriate federal and state requirements thatapply to the Site. Because this amended selected remedy does notchange the groundwater portion of the 1989 ROD, the amendedselected remedy does not change the 1989 requirement of a waiverfrom a State ARAR due to the technical impracticability from anengineering perspective of collecting particulate-bound PCB'sfrom the groundwater at the Site.

Environmental laws from which ARARs for the amended selectedremedy are derived, and the specific ARARs are discussed in Table2.

The Amended Selected Remedy is Cost-Effective

In the Agency's judgment, the amended selected remedy is costeffective, (i.e., the remedy affords overall effectivenessproportional to its costs). In selecting this amended remedy,once EPA identified alternatives that are protective of humanhealth and the environment and that attain, or, as appropriate,waive ARARs, EPA evaluated the overall effectiveness of eachalternative by assessing the relevant three criteria—long termeffectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility,and volume through treatment; and short term effectiveness, incombination. The relationship of the overall effectiveness ofthis amended remedy was determined to be proportional to itscosts. The following estimates of cost and construction durationare inclusive of the work to complete all aspects of the SourceControl cleanup at the Pinette's Salvage Yard Site, and are foractions to be performed subsequent to the proposed ROD amendment.

Estimated Time for Design and Construction: 5 monthsEstimated Time of Operation: 4 monthsEstimated Capital Cost: $3,017,000Estimated Operation and Maintenance Cost: $0Estimated Total Cost (Net Present Worth): $3,017,000

21

The Amended Selected Remedy Utilizes Permanent Solutions andAlternative Treatment or Resource Recovery Technologies to theMaximum Extent Practicable

Once the Agency identified those alternatives that attain or, asappropriate, waive ARARs and that are protective of human healthand the environment, EPA identified which alternative utilizespermanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies orresource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.This determination was made by deciding which one of theidentified alternatives provides the best balance of trade-offsamong alternatives in terms of: 1) long-term effectiveness andpermanence; 2) reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume throughtreatment; 3) short-term effectiveness; 4)implementability; and5) cost. The balancing test emphasized long-term effectivenessand permanence and the reduction of toxicity, mobility and volumethrough treatment; and considered the preference for treatment asa principal element, the bias against off-site land disposal ofuntreated waste, and community and state acceptance. The amendedselected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs among thealternatives.

The amended selected remedy provides essentially the onlypracticable means of cleaning up this Site. Although both it andthe remedy selected in the 1989 ROD are protective and complywith ARARs (except for the groundwater componene which is not atissue here), and are equivalent in terms of long-termeffectiveness and permanence, the 1989 ROD remedy has proven notto be implementable at this Site within any reasonable cost andtime parameters. Although the amended remedy eliminates thesolvent extraction technology, EPA will still treat approximately90% of all PCBs originally present on the Site.

The Amended Selected Remedy Satisfies the Preference forTreatment as a Principal Element

The principal element of the amended selected remedy is the off-site incineration. This element addresses the primary threat atthe Site, soil contaminated with PCBs in excess of 500 ppm. Theamended selected remedy satisfies the statutory preference fortreatment as a principal element by achieving a substantialreduction in toxicity, mobility and volume of contaminantsthrough treatment. The amended selected remedy includesdestruction of contaminants in all soil containing greater thanor equal to 500 ppm PCB and in 77% of soil containing greaterthan or equal to 50 ppm PCB. Based on analyses conducted duringthe soil cleanup to date, incineration of these soils wouldresult in permanent destruction through treatment of 90% of allPCBs originally present on-site in soils containing greater thanor equal to 5 ppm PCB. Only 10% of PCBs originally present on-site would be disposed in an off-site landfill. Therefore, this

22

alternative would be consistent with EPA's policy at PCB sites toreduce the principal threats to human health and the environmentthrough treatment.

IX. STATE ROLE

The State of Maine has reviewed the various alternatives and hasindicated its support for the amended selected remedy. The Statebelieves that the amended selected remedy is in compliance withapplicable or relevant and appropriate State Environmental lawsand regulations. The State of Maine concurs with the amendedselected remedy for the Pinette's Salvage Yard Site. A copy ofthe declaration of concurrence is attached as Attachment C.

23

CANADA

waSHBURN(SITE A R E A )

CANADA

REFERENCEAMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,HIGHWAY MAP OF MAINE, 1987 EDITION,l" = 10 MluES

SITE

FIGURE iSITE LOCATION MAPPlNETTE'S SALVAGE YARD SITE

SALMON BROOK

I, \' IGARDNER CPEEK BRANCH

' T7rrr=rTr7-7 \ v

" "" T—7"' • ii

w Y * v _v- -••':

J x * • \ - • ,o v?JT R^sê fe tv O-%t

S T O C K

J S G S 7 5 ' ~OPOGRi?HiC OUADRAMGLE MAPWASHBURN, MA NE DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY

EDITED 1964, SCAÊ l ' = 2 0 0 0 '

LEGEND

DiREC~iON OF FLOW

C ,GURE 2SITE VICINITY MAP

P NETTE'S SALVAGE YARD SITE

/**~A/ I Seasonal\ J. pond

DrainageDitch

(jaraqe \ j. i

1 — T \ I / Owe"_J | ( House

iParking ,

7 Gravel Driveway ^t . M»iMi»rtt'

J' ^ £/ : Support Trailers

/ /

Stored Contaminated Soil

1. RECHARGE TRENCH2. COOLING WATER FEED TANK3. SOLVENT EXTRACTION TREATMENT UNIT4. WASTE WATER TREATMETN HOLDING TANKS5. WASTE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM6. CONTAMINATED SOIL STOCKPILE AREA7. TREATED SOIL STOCKPILE AREA8. SECURITY STATION

FIGURE 3CURRENT SITE FEATURESPinette's Salvage Yard Site

Table 1

Soil Cleanup LevelsPinette's Salvage Yard Site

Contaminant

PCBsBenzeneChlorobenzene1,4-DichlorobenzeneChloromethane

Soil Cleanup Level

5 ppm *260 ppb (unsaturated); 0.42 ppb (saturated)12,000 ppb (unsaturated); 20 ppb (saturated)26,000 ppb (unsaturated); 42 ppb (saturated)30 ppb (unsaturated); ).05 ppb (saturated)

1,2,4-Tri-chlorobenzene 4,836 ppm (unsaturated); 7.8 ppm (saturated)

* Additionally, PCB-contaminated surface soils containing greater than1 ppm but less than 5 ppm, located anywhere within the top 12-inchesof soil on the site, will be moved into the excavated areas.

QO

OC-

cs01

COH

c_D00

EN

T S

YN

OP

SIS

^rfi

Ô

a >w -^

D "o

Cwu. O

(/• . — .

"0 5

ig

PC

B

con

tain

ers

at

on

site

R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

•C* "O

« ^

.si§11 ~ ?

S<00

di

<

c^^^

opu

^ C2

s ^^ ^™

E ^"™ T^ -.

— " ^5•j »- ^^ O 0)

,/" — ••—

r 5 SJQ

U C- »-£- C- _=

—

•§i.<

^"E

1i:"a

C^ O

C •—

•E t?igc: UU o£1- ~7

£

CC ' — '

¥• — S

^ t ""5 o J

2

o

~E- •£

a 3c "O

c £o ca "5

U CO Hic —£ £

a

^ ~c; ai_V ~

gj a

Ei ~cr 7u^ C^ ,

^ w-

1— H

^ •§u l^~

^ O

t/* m2 0

c_ e_

a

CJ

-pr*

<

|_[.

"3

Eo

I— in^^

H ^"

•w r^

igCJ o

^ £ -=

g £3 E° U —vi r i "*

u- -û ° ¥& « 1^ to .£

such

as

co

nta

ine

r

Ap

plic

ab

le

to

sto

ra

qu

ire

me

nts

will

be f

ol

aw C^

'5 >->" ~* E

E_ 'S oa 5 12

^ o_ _ _ y

CJJ C i"= s u^ X

• ~ p-oj r

— ^ "— n w~

2 — S

£ s J"*

_H

J-7:«

<

,_,rtV

»

ir/••

^_

C ml-^ \^5J _•

f

C2 U

trC2UC.

j—oo

5

k.

O ^(^- c

"" 1)t— CA0 1

— *-Ci *-*

a"7 £

•5 ^^ ^

r-^ -;

"5 ^^ ccW (/"

^ c.- ^M ^

j- ^7

io

^J

•C-<

£X

JiV

^l/

-= r-;*- ™—c <o

C U

feJS

to -ara J)

•g E.C "T3

.*> M

1 i

"• S —1 1 ?f j j™ S.

E u t—-•• ^- *~

o c iCJ — ^CJ ^

c § [E~" *"x >^ —_^ "U —

"tj ™ ""C ***"" ^ ^Cij C

u- P^C ^ —C — tTO -c —

1 § 3

—

J"c.

<

^"

o•£S ^" r~~-PSi ™~"

o ^

£3 U

£§

cc

-"ceo

u

quirem

ents

for

PC

Hs

be f

ollo

we

d d

uring

th

a —^~ —a £o

~ a

c a

to =— a— -^ci "~—

~ ^c —

^ E— tj

"*" * ^*i —^ u

j^j

"d.<-6s 0

*s/ —" (N«— ^_j

./ ^xi" r^JC c

<N

_U (T —

e: ~ U

« "3g aE «2 a= tocr ô ~k-

-^to w>C TT

£" Au

-3

C3

to ~*^

•E 1o 5c_ ->a —w <£

ure "*"^ ™

c ^"3

tr

C«•. V

Jz E<f U _^

"~ — "T—"5 ~ =7 S 5t~ cc S

to

A J?

1 V

o "•-§_<C-. c^J

< ci

CO

ON

— Ot™ [ —

£. 6o oo

fy* i— —

^™ ^—

C 0cs r-

-iC C^w^ UL.c rjCj

en a) .J" Uw- t: c r-C c« C"rt — ~** E F >c ^- 1 **U v i

a ° 1 17r L. ~ Srt a 22 ^

catio

n o

f haza

rdous

v

aste

. S

ince

P

CB

s o-

ons

are

applic

able

to

t

azar

clou

s w

ast

e R

eqi

•£ ~ ~w w

^ = to*J j > (u c- -5 i- c£ S i 1^ " ~ c. c±:o *"£" o" c o^ ^ "S _C

^ w ~ "" tij"™ U | "7^ ^~

S* ^- — £ E° R. ™ " =

*" ^" z. £ ~u « c z: S" ^* ~3 CC >

> != a c

C- § J= M

_ii

3TELc.<

~ c

> s

tr ^

S f

^ a oc~ ^ "KJ _^ ^~

»^ I OO

""" c c o-c c ^û i •= °°c ~5 ~E c£re Eo Hi -5^ a a -*iS oi ci U

Q)

4-)

O

CM

CUi—I

"§H

zr -i

SYN

OPS

IS

H2uu5lug5oUJd

V,

P<!t/5

^B£<

2cPU<

O U

u

i P

CB

s <

50

ppm

. A

ppli

cab

in

PC

Bs.

R

equi

rem

ents

w

i

^ ~— — -> "~ ^*

4 g su ' y-re C u

E 2 £C »J UE —2 ? =t U

— ^ ci5 E a= •S Mj~ " —^ 5^ — "3D ^ ^jL. Z"

~T ^ *-""-

~— •- •—

JJ

-£o

C—

<=•5

ê-Vto

> *«T3 S

"5 ?- o-.re T

E y ^re <— ^. -.' C_

c:

"re =c — ~7- <jC c

0 0 J

C 1)c reu

" ha

zard

ous

was

tes.

T

liere

at

owev

er,

PCR

s ov

er

50 p

pmva

nt a

nd a

ppro

pria

te.

c — —v ^5 — <fw —

ea _ J;

_ 7r _cj^ re •—^ > ..H ^ -

I i JX- *— ^Ji 5 =

*™ rt y

U C

1 < "H£ 9 ^C- — _=

<

Ci

"E•5

J5^5CU

Ci (NU £v;

" (^Jp _.UJ -T

O re qj

C. tr *«

eter

min

e ad

equa

cy

of c

lean

um

ater

ials

co

ntai

ning

PC

Bip

lies

to

spill

s w

hich

oc

cur

curr

ed b

efor

e 5/

4/87

.

w C re o

o ^ ^1-|l £ i^ H E —< ~ I: 5C_ ^ l>uj c o "Hrt ^" ^~

-S M A' "u C g _g

•~; o ci> t? "iE E — 'tr ^- *-

z v S 5•2 *E c ^?c, c —— ,/• ^ tr;

,

_555

Gcr

H

u n

G! "~c. t~~

1 sD —

= f5E. oit/3 jj_

c= UC-) r*~i<X -T

<U <— c_(/; UJ

lati

on a

ctiv

itie

s at

Sup

erfu

ndce

the

rem

edia

l ac

tion

is

anna

ted

wit

h PC

Bs.

~ E —r^ ^ re

S ~ 'E^- w r-d ^—ca _u °

£ | |

0 S ^

o "~"~ %-re ~ — -

S) £ re

< - "cC- JJ cUJ ^ Str ^ —QJ •— J) ^

~ u ~5I _i E

1— - . ^_

—1~c

uaj

c=

H

c U c-- c_< - -— > ^-5 ^ ^^<a i p-S — JJ cD C / 2 > X

^ _ „ -g oc £ § ± °?

4) U C ^

•3 °° -S ?: <~ k« *-• ^) p_

O ^ U O u-'

w—

faci

liti

es.

App

lica

ble

for

o3

foll

owed

du

rin

g th

e R

A.

— —Jr ~~

C- ?V

-5 |

t-^ UCz *-^ §-^ Cj

__

> «

IP;

U "

"2 i

C y~

— *-

u_s•7£

Giic

f—

.dl

£:Ui0u-C

l£ _

0 |< E,e- c_U! <

I•H4-)

Oo

Cxi

QJ

ocvcCNr*S

u.oc

2

C2

>•

O

HI!c-

IRFIM

EN

T S

YN

OP

SIS

Oc±;

(j~.

tt/J

r*s

<cs:<

zOpu<

.

0i re ix re™ Ul_

"re ra

O D

>-\ ~

c .E

"re ""

o ex

ist

onsi

te.

A r

evi

ew

of

RC

RA

-ch

ara

cte

nst

ic w

aste

s

1 Zc ^-^ ^0) U

— u

t/- "Eu _^

re 3^ ,J

~3 -=CJ —

"

< -^ci ~u ECi '^ —

z 5

o—o

<

c23 ,—,

00

5 r-iJ --

<bU cei o

c

c ^- Jri

£ ^^- 6 c

_-rtf/~C

V

rsD

v2cow

ôW5V

tf>a

<d.Uci

cunuu.o

u

J5

Qj-

t^.

~jx_j-

ZXrtC£'rt>

ux;D

U

^J

«

t3OJ

^M

~

G

"2

U3

CJ

a R

CR

A c

hara

cteris

tic w

asl

_CJ

o

"R"

>-v

[/•

-CJ

CJu.

Eo

^

•£

lily

was

te s

cree

ning

pro

cess

)

o

^

J"

OJ

^JZ

-"

» ,

«

x"

»>X"

3J

C5 2

Or 35 3re j=

tj•;: ^0 ^

^ inre u

jl— ccC3 V)

o e

xist

onsi

te.

A r

evi

ew

of

DIIS

of

chro

miu

m (

out

of

42

~ 0> V

O '— '

-* (ND ^*~ , *

v 37 -3£ Z$ s1 "I^ —« tr

• aj

< -^£i JT"

u =~; u-^ -^

Z 55

JL)

•=

U

E<

ca _ oo^ 0= f^J

-?*

^

u 2c; S

w«

c

•s ^-5 7

1 °c 5U on

"O

Ir-0"^

&VI

"aJ>(D

ither

TC

co

nst

itue

nts

we

re a

'<^•s

Ut-t)•"ci>^re

c«

C.

2c

^"2rtVU

"re>•o

—'reE

ie c

hro

miu

m l

eve

ls w

ere

est

i

uT>ug

*T-

__^^

~

—

Pt—

™GJOJUX1

CJ

•—

-

OJ

0

OJ

•^7, r*

-at3UO

ti)

"uCC

^

OO

<—

>^

J-

—z:

Ewj

±!"Oou_JXu>-»

•rP_

—

«_£CJ

c .r

c

"^r^

C

"ct

~

O

CJk-

o

sy

0

^-s

7

=CJ

1

^15*

J-

"?

o

CJ

"3*D

3JtoU)

~1)

—

—ji

"1

>**

J]

w-

CJCJ

"3

>^«

u_J

•uJ

oo

r-1i^~X

_--^"

^

y

CJw

"cOJ

1Jort

CJ

«>

S"

>^

4J

K

j-

"

S

U

J^

^"lJ

^js

^t—

ATTACHMENT A

RECORD OP DECISION AMENDMENTPINETTE'S SALVAGE YARD SITE

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

Pinette's Salvage YardNPL Site Administrative Record

Table of ContentsVOLUME I

4.0 Feasibility Study (FS)

4.9 Proposed Plan for Selected Remedial Action

5.0 Record of Decision (ROD)


7.0 Remedial Action

7.1 Correspondence7.2 Sampling and Analysis Data7.4 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate

Requirements (ARARS)7.5 Remedial Action Documents7.6 Work Plans and Progress Reports

13.0 Community Relations

13.5 Fact Sheets

Introduction

This document is the Index to the Administrative RecordAmendment for the Pinette's Salvage Yard Project, NationalPriorities List (NPL) Site.

The Administrative Record and Administrative Record Amendmentare available for public review at EPA Region I's Office in Boston,Massachusetts, and at the Washburn Town Offices, Main Street,Washburn, Maine 04786. This Administrative Record Amendmentincludes, by reference only, all documents included in theHay 30, 1989 Administrative Record (May 30, 1989 Record ofDecision) for this NPL site. Questions concerning theAdministrative Record should be addressed to the EPA Region I sitemanager.

The Administrative Record is required by the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act(SARA).

Section I

Site-Specific Documents

AMENDMENT TO THEADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

for thePinette's Salvage Yard NPL Site

4.0 Feasibility Study (FS)

4.9 Proposed Plan for Selected Remedial Action

1. Letter from Alan S. Fowler for Luis Seijido,Ebasco Services, Inc., to Nancy Barmakian, EPARegion I (March 10, 1993). Concerning transmittalof "Proposed Plan - EPA Proposes Amended SoilCleanup Plan for Pinette's Salvage Yard SuperfundSite, March 1992," with attached "EPAEnvironmental News," March 10, 1993.


5.3 Responsiveness Summary

1. Cross-Reference: "Responsiveness Summary,Pinette's Salvage Yard Site," EPA Region I,(June 2, 1993). [Filed and cited as as AttachmentB for entry number 1 in 5.4 Record of Decision(ROD)].


1. "Record of Decision Amendment, Pinette's SalvageYard Site", EPA Region I, (June 2, 1993). Withattached:

A: "Pinette's Salvage Yard SiteAdministrative Record Index", EPA RegionI, (June 2, 1993).

B: "Pinette's Salvage Yard SiteResponsiveness Summary", EPA Region I,(June 2, 1993).

C: "Pinette's Salvage Yard Site, State ofMaine Concurrence Letter", from Dean C.Marriott, Commissioner, State of MaineDepartment of Environmental Protection,to Paul Keough, EPA Region I,(May 12, 1993).

D: "Pinette's Salvage Yard Site OfficialPublic Hearing Transcript",(April 13, 1993).

7.0 Remedial Action (RA)

7.1 Correspondence

Letter from Scott W. Engle, PRC EnvironmentalManagement, Inc., to Ross Gilleland, US EPARegion I (January 30, 1990). Concerning SITEdemonstration of the Sanivan Extrasol process atPinette's Salvage Yard.Technical Bid from Sevenson EnvironmentalServices, Inc., to Ebasco Services, Inc.(July 31, 1990). Concerning Extraksol systemdesign, capacity, and analytical results.(Table 1-8B not included).Letter from Catherine L. Arnold, Ebasco Services,Inc., to John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. (August 12, 1991).Concerning Sevenson and subcontractor,CET/Sanexen's departure from fabrication andstartup plan for Extraksol soil treatment.(Confidential Business Information is claimed inthis document)Letter from John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc., to Catherine L.Arnold, Ebasco Services, Inc. (August 15, 1991).Concerning response to August 12, 1991 letterregarding schedule delays at Pinette's SalvageYard Site. (Confidential Business Information isclaimed in this document)Letter from Catherine L. Arnold, Ebasco Services,Inc., to John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. (August 21, 1991).Concerning the August 23, 1991 meeting for thePinette's Salvage Yard Site Remedial Action. Withattached:

A: Areas of concern identified by EbascoServices, Inc. for Sevenson EnvironmentalServices, Inc. to discuss at meeting.

Letter from John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc., to Catherine L.Arnold, Ebasco Services, Inc. (August 28, 1991).Concerning the proposed agenda for the August 30,1991 meeting for Pinette's Salvage Yard Site.Letter from John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc., to Richard J.Gleason, Ebasco Services, Inc. (August 29, 1991).Concerning Pinette's Salvage Yard Site's meeting,scheduled for Friday, August 30, 1991.

7.1 Correspondence (Continued)

8. Letter from Richard J. Gleason, Ebasco Services,Inc., to John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. (August 29, 1991).Concerning feedback for agenda for theAugust 30, 1991 meeting.

9. Letter from John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. to Catherine L.Arnold, Ebasco Services, Inc. (September 6, 1991).Concerning transmittal of "Pinette's Salvage YardProject, Corrective Action Plan",(SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. (September 6, 1991).(Confidential Business Information is claimed forAttachments A and B)

10. Letter from Richard J. Gleason, Ebasco Services,Inc., to Ross Gilleland, EPA Region I(September 10, 1991). Concerning transmittal of"Pinette's Salvage Yard Project, Corrective ActionPlan" (September 6, 1991, Sevenson EnvironmentalServices, Inc.).

11. Letter from Richard J. Gleason, Ebasco Services,Inc., to John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. (September 18, 1991).Concerning review of "Corrective Action Plan,"(September 6, 1991, Sevenson EnvironmentalServices, Inc.). (Confidential BusinessInformation is claimed in this document)

12. Letter from Richard J. Gleason, Ebasco Services,Inc., to John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. (October 11, 1991).Concerning Corrective Action Plan progress.

13. Memorandum from Richard J. Gleason, EbascoServices, Inc., to Ross Gilleland, EPA RegionI (November 5, 1991). Concerning alternatives forcompletion of Pinette's Remedial Action.(Confidential Business Information is claimed inthis document)

14. Letter from Catherine L. Arnold, Ebasco Services,Inc. to John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. (December 5, 1991).Concerning the continued delinquency of the STScomponent of the project.

15. Letter from John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. to Catherine L.Arnold, Ebasco Services, Inc. (December 19, 1991).Concerning transmittal of "Pinette's Salvage YardProject, Revised Corrective Action Plan,"(December 19, 1991, Sevenson EnvironmentalServices, Inc.), and the use of Terra KleenCorporation (TKC) as another solvent extractionvendor.


16. Letter from Richard J. Gleason, Ebasco Services,Inc., to Ross Gilleland, EPA RegionI (December23,1991). Concerning transmittal of"Pinette's Salvage Yard Project, RevisedCorrective Action Plan,"(December 19, 1991,Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc.), and theuse of Terra Kleen Corporation (TKC) as anothersolvent extraction vendor.

17. Letter from Richard J. Gleason, Ebasco Services,Inc., to John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. (January 8, 1992).Concerning comments on the Revised CorrectiveAction Plan (December 19, 1991).

18. Letter from Richard J. Gleason, Ebasco Services,Inc., to Ross Gilleland, EPA Region I(January 20, 1992). Concerning Ebasco Services,Inc. activities to support and evaluate benchscale testing by proposed substitute treatmentvendor (Terra-Kleen Corporation). (ConfidentialBusiness Information is claimed in this document)

19. Letter from John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. to Catherine (Arnold)Uhrig, Ebasco Services, Inc. (April 22, 1992).Concerning Pinette's Salvage Remedial Actiondelinquent project schedule and the purchase ofTerra-Kleen Corporation (TKC) by Sevenson.

20. Letter from Catherine A. Uhrig, Ebasco Services,Inc., to John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. (August 14, 1992).Concerning the status of Sevenson ExtractionTechnology Soil Treatment Unit 13.

21. Letter from Jacqueline R. Corum for John C.Robbins III, Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc.to Catherine A. Uhrig, Ebasco Services, Inc.(August 20, 1992). Concerning status of STS unit,specific actions, and project schedule.(Confidential Business Information is claimed inthis document)

22. Letter from John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc., to Richard J.Gleason, Ebasco Services, Inc.(September 22, 1992). Concerning Pinette'sSalvage Yard Remedial Action Preliminary 1993Corrective Action Plan.

23. Letter report from Richard J. Gleason, EbascoServices, Inc. to Ross Gilleland, EPA Region I(September 28, 1992). Concerning evaluation ofalternatives for Remedial Action completion, withattached, "Pinette's Salvage Yard Project,Evaluation of Alternatives to Complete Pinette'sSalvage Yard Remedial Action." (ConfidentialBusiness Information is claimed for theAttachment)


24. Letter from Catherine A. Unrig, Ebasco Services,Inc., to John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. (October 8, 1992).Concerning STS Corrective Action Plan.

25. Letter from John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. to Catherine A.Uhrig, Ebasco Services, Inc. (October 22, 1992).Concerning the status of STS Correction ActionPlan and effect of Alternate Corrective ActionPlans. (Confidential Business Information isclaimed in this document)

26. Letter from John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. to Catherine A.Uhrig, Ebasco Environmental, Inc.(November 25, 1992). Concerning the status ofsoil treatment performance in response to letterdated November 18, 1992. (Confidential BusinessInformation is claimed in this document)

27. Letter from Catherine A. Uhrig, Ebasco Services,Inc., to John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. (December 8, 1992).Concerning request for Final Corrective ActionPlan.

28. Letter from John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc. to Catherine A.Uhrig, Ebasco Services, Inc. (December 14, 1992).Concerning Pinette's Salvage Yard Project,Contract Quantity and Cost Report, and status asof Dec. 10, 1992 under Final Corrective ActionPlan (Landfilling > 50ppm PCB). (ConfidentialBusiness Information is claimed in this document)

29. Internal memorandum from Jed Lowrey, EbascoServices, Inc., to Richard J. Gleason, EbascoServices, Inc. February 15, 1993). Concerning thequantity of treated water discharged from thePinette's Salvage Yard Site.

30. Memorandum from Richard J. Gleason, EbascoServices, Inc. to file (March 3, 1993).Concerning calculations documenting the estimatedcost to complete RA using Revised PreferredCleanup Alternative at Pinette's Salvage YardSite.

31. Internal memorandum from Jed Lowrey, to Richard J.Gleason, Ebasco Services, Inc.(March 4, 1993).Concerning the on-site treated soil status atPinette's Salvage Yard Project Site.

32. Memorandum from Richard J. Gleason, EbascoServices, Inc. to file (March 4, 1993).Concerning calculations documenting PCB reductionby incinerator under revised preferred cleanupalternative at Pinette's Salvage Yard.


33. Memorandum from Richard J. Gleason, EbascoServices, Inc. to file (March 4, 1993).Concerning calculations documenting soilquantities treated to less than 5ppm PCB actionlevel and soil quantities incinerated (>50ppm PCBin soil) in 1992 at Pinette's Salvage Yard Site.With attached:

A: ARCS I Program Contract Quantity andCost Report No. 21 from Ebasco Services,Inc., as of January 1993. (ConfidentialBusiness Information is claimed in thisdocument)

34. Memorandum from Richard J. Gleason, EbascoServices, Inc. to file (March 4, 1993).Concerning calculations documenting volume/tonnageof Pinette's soil with PCB >50ppm at the Pinette'sSalvage Yard Site. (Confidential BusinessInformation is claimed in this document) Withattached:

A: Schedule of Prices for source control atPinette's Salvage Yard Site. From Pinette'sSalvage Yard RA- Source Control RemedialDesign, 1990.B: Cross reference: ARCS I Program ContractQuantity and Cost Report for January 1993[Filed and cited as entry number 33 in 7.1,attachment A, in Correspondence].

7.2 Sampling and Analysis Data

1. Data Summary Sheet, Ebasco Services, Inc.(October 9, 1992). PCB concentrations in Soil for1991/1992 TSCA Storage.

2. Data Summary Sheet, Ebasco Services, Inc.(October 16, 1992). Average PCB concentrations inSoil for 1992/1993 TSCA Storage.

7.4 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements(ARARS)

1. Letter from Lynne Picardi, State of Maine DEP, toRoss Gilleland, EPA Region I (February 8, 1993).Concerning the State of Maine's action-specificand chemical specific ARARS that have been amendedor promulgated since May 30, 1989.

7.4 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements(ARARS) (Continued)

2. Letter report from Richard J. Gleason, EbascoServices, Inc., to Ross Gilleland, EPA Region I(February 24, 1993). Concerning Post ROD support,submittal of Alternative Evaluations and ARARSinformation.

7.5 Remedial Action Documents

1. "Soil Treatment System Documentation [Extraksol],Pinette's Salvage Yard, Washburn, Maine, Revision3, Submittal U," Sevenson Environmental Services,Inc. (April 22, 1991).

2. "Soil Treatment System Documentation [Extraksol],Pinette's Salvage Yard, Washburn, Maine, Revision4, Submittal U," Sevenson Environmental Services,Inc. (May 6, 1991). (Confidential BusinessInformation is claimed in this document)

3. "Solvent Extraction Process Verification Data[Terra Kleen Corporation] - Solvent ExtractionProcess Supporting Data," Sevenson EnvironmentalServices, Inc.(February 13, 1992). (ConfidentialBusiness Information is claimed in this document)

7.6 Work Plans and Progress Reports

1. Memorandum from Sevenson Environmental Services,Inc., to Ebasco Services, Inc. (October 6, 1991).Concerning "Weekly Progress Report (week endingOctober 4, 1991). Activities included: coveringof soil and AWTS facility for winter, operation ofAWTS, excavation, sampling, surveying, and sitesecurity.

2. Memorandum from John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc., to Richard J.Gleason, Ebasco Services, Inc.,(October 16, 1991). Concerning transmittal ofweekly progress report (week endingOctober 11, 1991). Activities included: AWTSoperation, soil loading, sampling, security, andsurveying.

3. Memorandum from Sevenson Environmental Services,Inc., to Ebasco Services, Inc. (October 22, 1991).Concerning weekly progress report (week endingOctober 18, 1991). Activities included:winterization of pad sumps and AWTS, surveying ofsample locations, security, and sampling.

7.6 Work Plans and Progress Reports (Continued)

4. Memorandum from John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc., to Richard J.Gleason, Ebasco Services, Inc.,(October 28, 1991). Concerning transmittal ofweekly progress report (week endingOctober 25, 1991). Activities included:winterization, soil removal, and security.

5. Memorandum from John C. Robbins III, SevensonEnvironmental Services, Inc., to Richard J.Gleason, Ebasco Services Inc., (November 7, 1991).Concerning transmittal of weekly progress report(week ending November 1, 1991). Informationincluded: status of alternative treatmentvendors.

6. Memorandum from Richard J. Gleason, EbascoServices, Inc., to Ross Gilleland, EPA RegionI (November 15, 1991). Concerning transmittal ofweekly progress report for Pinette's Salvage Yardremediation (week ending November 15, 1991) fromSevenson Environmental Services, Inc. Includesstatus of alternative treatment vendors.

7. Letter from Richard J. Gleason, Ebasco Services,Inc., to Ross Gilleland, EPA Region I(May 19, 1992). Concerning transmittal of monthlystatus report No. 13 (April 1992). Activitiesincluded: field construction, winter shutdown,active construction on STS unit. (ConfidentialBusiness Information is claimed in this document)

8. Letter from Richard J. Gleason, Ebasco Services,Inc., to Ross Gilleland, EPA Region I(June 16, 1992). Concerning transmittal ofmonthly status report No. 14 (May 1992).Activities included: re-establishment of on-sitecontrol, and reinitiation of work. (ConfidentialBusiness Information is claimed in this document)

9. Letter from Richard J. Gleason, Ebasco Services,Inc., to Ross Gilleland, EPA Region I(July 14, 1992). Concerning transmittal ofmonthly status report No. 15 (June 1992).Activities included: restart of Aqueous wastetreatment, resumption of soil excavation andstockpiling of contaminated wetland soils.(Confidential Business Information is claimed inthis document)

8

7.6 Work Plans and Progress Reports (Continued)

10. Memorandum from Richard J. Gleason, EbascoServices, Inc., to Ross Gilleland, EPA RegionI (August 3, 1992). Concerning transmittal ofweekly status report (week ending July 30, 1992).Activities included: repair of STS unit,operation of AWTS, transport of soil. Note: STSoptimization is 8 weeks behind schedule.Attachments not included.

11. Letter from Richard J. Gleason, Ebasco Services,Inc., to Ross Gilleland, EPA Region I(August 21, 1992). Concerning transmittal ofmonthly status report No. 16 (July 1992).Activities included: excavation and transport ofcontaminated soil, AWTS operation, completedinstallation of STS unit, driveway excavation,soil and water sampling and analyses, andsurveying of completed excavation. (ConfidentialBusiness Information is claimed in this document)

12. Letter from Richard J. Gleason, Ebasco Services,Inc., to Ross Gilleland, EPA Region I(September 10, 1992). Concerning transmittal ofmonthly status report No. 17 (August 1992).Activities included: continued attempts tooptimize soil treatment unit, AWTS operation,wetland excavation, and driveway excavation andrepair. (Confidential Business Information isclaimed in this document)

13. Letter from Richard J. Gleason, Ebasco Services,Inc., to Ross Gilleland, EPA Region I(October 14 1992). Concerning transmittal ofmonthly status report No. 20 (September 1992).Activities included: modifications to soiltreatment unit, continued excavation of l-5ppmsoil, AWTS operation, clearing of contaminatedwetland, beginning of decontamination anddemobilization of equipment and winterization ofsite. (Confidential Business Information isclaimed in this document)

14. Letter from Richard J. Gleason, Ebasco Services,Inc., to Ross Gilleland, EPA Region I(November 11, 1992). Concerning transmittal ofmonthly status report No. 19 (October 1992).Activities included: cessation of attempts tooptimize STS, dewatering of excavation pit,backfilling into main excavation, soil and watersampling, and loading and transport ofcontaminated debris and soil to off-site TSCAlandfill. (Confidential Business Information isclaimed in this document)

9.0 State Coordination

9.1 Correspondence

Cross-Reference: Letter from Dean C. Marriott,Maine Department of Environmental Protection toPaul Keough, EPA Region I, (May 12, 1993).Concerning "Pinette's Salvage Yard Site State ofMaine Declaration of Concurrence letter". [Filedand cited as Attachment C for entry number 1 in5.4 Record of Decision (ROD)].

13.0 Community Relations

13.4 Public Meetings

Cross-Reference: Transcript, "Pinette's SalvageYard Site Official Public Hearing, (April 13,1993)". [Filed and cited as Attachment D forentry number 1 in 5.4 Record of Decision (ROD)].

13.5 Fact Sheets

"Superfund Program Information Update: CleanupSet to Begin at the Pinette's Salvage Yard Site,"EPA Region I (January 1991)."EPA SITE Fact Sheet: Proposed Demonstration ofthe Sanivan Group Extrasol Solvent ExtractionTechnology, Pinette's Salvage Yard Superfund Site,Washburn, Maine," EPA Region I (March 1991)."Superfund Program Information Update: EPAResumes Soil Cleanup," EPA Region I (June 1992).With Attached EPA Technology Fact Sheets: "ACitizen's Guide to Solvent Extraction," EPATechnology Innovation Office (March 1992) and "ACitizen's Guide to Innovative TreatmentTechnologies....,11 EPA Technology InnovativeOffice (March 1992).

10

ATTACHMENT B


RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

This Responsiveness Summary documents public comments regardingthe proposed amendment to the 1989 Record of Decision (ROD)expressed during the public comment period. The summary alsodocuments EPA's responses to the comments that were received.The public comment period for the amendment to the 1989 ROD forthe Pinette's Salvage Yard Site began on March 17, 1993 and endedon April 16, 1993. EPA held an official Public Hearing on April13, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. at the Washburn Elementary School to acceptoral comments on this proposed amendment to the 1989 ROD.Written comments which were postmarked on or before April 16 werealso accepted. EPA received two written comments, one of whichwas read into the record at the April 13, 1993 Public Hearing.The comments and responses are summarized below:

Comment 1: In a letter dated April 13, 1993, Lynne Picardi, MaineDepartment of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) ProjectCoordinator expressed that the ME DEP has worked in consultationwith EPA on developing the proposed amendment and would concurwith the amendment to the 1989 ROD. The letter also stated thatthe State of Maine is responsible for 10% of the cost for allremedial activities.

EPA's Response: EPA would like to thank the Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection for its continued support on thisproject. EPA has enjoyed the cooperative working relationshipbetween the two levels of government, and acknowledges that theState's 10% cost share is instrumental in the undertaking of aremedial response action at the Site. EPA looks forward to acontinued working relationship with ME DEP and completing thesoil clean up at the Site.

Comment 2; In a letter dated April 13, 1993, Eugene J. Conolgue,Washburn Town Manager informed EPA that the Washburn Town Councilhad voted unanimously to endorse the proposed amendment. TheCouncil believes that the new plan represents the bestalternative to Washburn, and would allow for completion of theproject in 1993. The Council also expressed appreciation ofEPA's work to date.

EPA's Response: EPA would like to express its appreciation to thecitizens and elected officials of Washburn, Maine for theirsupport and cooperation on this project. EPA also appreciatesthe Washburn Town Council's endorsement of the amendment to the1989 ROD.

ATTACHMENT C

RECORD OP DECISION AMENDMENTPINETTE'S SALVAGE YARD SITE

STATE OP MAINE DECLARATION OF CONCURRENCE LETTER

MPY-25-'93 TUE 09=04 ID: TEL NO: 3 P01

STATE OF MAINE

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONJOHN A. McKHNAN. JR. MAN 0. MAfMIOn

COMMIUIONIR

DIMAH flICHAftDOBWJTY COMMI«»lON|fl

May 12,1993

Paul KeoughActing Regional AdministratorU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyJFK Building (HPS-CAN1)Boston MA 02203-2211

Subject: ROD Amendment for Pinette's Salvage Yard

Dear Mr. Keough:

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed the May 10,1993Draft Record of Decision Amendment (ROD) with regard to the Alternative RemedialAction Remedy for the Pinette Salvage Yard Superfund Site in Washburn, Maine. TheDepartment concurs with the amended selected remedy based upon an understandingthat:

A. Soils contaminated with PCB's at concentrations greater than 500 ppm, will besent off-site for incineration.

B. Soils contaminated with PCB's at concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppmand less than 500 ppm will be disposed of off-site at a federally permitted ToxicSubstances Control Act (TSCA) secure landfill.

C. Soils contaminated with PCB's at concentrations greater than or equal to 5 ppmand less than 50 ppm will be disposed of off-site at either a federally permittedTSCA secure landfill or a Maine licensed special waste facility.

D. The Department's financial obligations for this site will be limited to a maximumof ten percent of the costs of the remedial action including all future maintenance.Based upon the State Superfund Contract, the Department's cost share will notexceed $732,776 dollars,

E. A review will be conducted within five years after commencement of theremedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequateprotection of human health and the environment

AUGUSTASTATI HOUM STATION uAUOUITA. MAINC 0*313*017

.Owe. tour, ,r,

PORTLANDSi t CANCO ROABPORfUNO. MB 04183(JOT) 879*300 FAX; (»T) 871*

F. The Department shall receive monthly status reports from the EPA contractor,and will be awarded reasonable opportunity to review monitoring plans andparticipate in any meetings regarding this site.

The Department looks forward to working with the EPA to resolve the environmentalproblems posed by this site.

Sincerely,

Dean C. MarriottCommissioner

cc: Michael BardenHankAho

ATTACHMENT D


OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTAPRIL 13, 1993

27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

EPA PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS REVISED CLEANUP PROPOSAL FORPINETTE'S SALVAGE YARD SUPERFUND SITE

APRIL 13, 1993

ARCS I - EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-W9-0034WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 11-1R34PINETTE'S SALVAGE YARD - RA

Taken before Lee H. Wyman, a Notary Public in and

for the State of Maine on the 13th day of April, 1993,

at the Washburn Elementary School, Washburn, Maine, at 6:00

P.M.

Aroostook Legal ReportersP.O. Box 1287Caribou, Maine 04736

Lee H. WymanReporter

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

EUGENE CONLOGUE

1 USEPA PUBLIC HEARING

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

APRIL 13, 1993

MARY JANE O'DONALD: Good evening, I'd like to welcome all

of you here tonight for the meeting on the Pinette's

Superfund Site. My name is Mary Jane O'Donald, I work

for EPA in Boston. With me tonight is Ross Gilleland

who is EPA's project manager, and Lynn Bacardi(sic) who

works for Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

The purpose of tonight's meeting is to accept comments

on the revised cleanup plan for the Pinette's Salvage

Yard site in Washburn, Maine. Tonight we will be

formally accepting comments on this revised cleanup

plan. Our comment period started, I believe, March

18th, and closes this Friday, April 16th, and we will

be accepting written comments and oral comments from

anyone in the audience. If anyone would like to submit

written comments they should be sent to EPA to Ross

Gilleland's attention by April 16th, and the address is

in the proposed plan. With that as background I'd like

to open the floor to any comments that anyone may have

relative to EPA's proposed action at the site.

MR. EUGENE CONLOGUE: Would you want me to just state for

the record the council election?

MS. MARY JANE 0'DONALD: That's up to you. If you'd like to

az

u.in

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USEPA PUBLIC HEARING 4

that's fine, if not —.

MR. EUGENE CONLOGUE: Gene Conlogue, Town Manager of

Washburn. The Washburn Town Council at its meeting

last night endorsed the proposed Pinette's plan that

you are now putting out here. It was a unanimous vote,

and you have a letter submitted for documentation.

MS. MARY JANE 0'DONALD: Thanks Gene. With that as our last

and only comment, the meeting is now adjourned. Thank

you.

END OF HEARING

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

i E R T I F I C A T I O N

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT the foregoing is a true and

correct transcript of my stenographic notes taken at

the April 13th, 1993, EPA Public Hearing to discuss

revised cleanup proposal for Pinette's Salvage Yard

Superfund Site.

\MeM.

Lee H. Wyman

Court Reporter