( , ' ( - 1 o

AGENDA

New Bedford Harbor Superfund SiteProposed Cleanup Plan For The Hot Spot Sediment

Public Informational Meeting

August 26, 1998

Opening Remarks (5 minutes)Purpose of Informational Meeting

Consensus Building Process with the Community Forum (5 minutes)Upper and Lower Harbor CleanupHot Spot Cleanup

Phase I or Hot Spot Proposed Cleanup Plan (10 minutes)Cleanup Actions that Have Occurred and Existing Site ConditionsFinal Cleanup Plans EvaluatedProposed Cleanup PlanWhat Impacts Would the Proposed Cleanup Plan Have On the Community

State Role (5 minutes)

DiscussionQuestion and Answers

New Bedford Harbor - Hot Spot Sediments Proposed Plan to Amend the 1990 Cleanup Plan

Information Session - August 26, 1998 Attendees

Phone, Fax, Name / Affiliation Address and/or e-mail address

^<

ie

/(oS

l'a»c

Comment** Not Spot Proposed Plan Meet ing

New Bedford Harbor Supcrfund S i te August ?.(\, 199H

I am Paul Craffey, the Department of Environmental Protection's project manager on the New Bedford Site.

I am going to briefly explain the State's Role in the Superfund cleanup process . Also, I will have a few comments on the Proposed Plan.

SUPERFUND

In Superfund, the State's major responsibilities are to: review and comment on EPA documents, pay for 10% of the remedial costs, perform Operation and Maintenance after the completion of the remedy, and act as Trustee for the Natural Resources.

The first three responsibilities are the DEP's. The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs is the designated State Trustee. The DEP, as part of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, acts in an advisory role to the Trustee Council.

PROPOSED PLAN

As a member of the Forum, the DEP and the EPA worked hard to gather community support for a remedy of the Hot Spot Sediments. EPA's Proposed Plan is the result of the Community Forum consensus.

The Plan does not represent the DEP's preferred alternative, which was on-site separation with off-site destruction of the PCB extract.

The proposed off-site landfilling plan is, however, acceptable to the DEP. The DEP will consider comments received during the comments before concurring with any Record of Decision.

The preparation of this plan involved much effort by many people, especially the EPA. and deserves your consideration.

The State has worked for almost 2 decades on the cleanup of the Harbor. We are looking forward to continuing our cooperative relationship with the EPA. I encourage everyone to get involved with the Superfund process, your input is important for a better New Bedford Harbor. Thank you.

Talking Points Hot Spot Proposed Plan

Thank you Harley. In the next 10 minutes I'm going to briefly describe the hot spot cleanup activities that have already occurred, the current conditions at the Sawyer Street facility, the range of final hot spot cleanup plans that were evaluated and the final cleanup plan that is being proposed.

Siide 1 (Sawyer Street Facility)

• This slide is an aerial photograph of the Sawyer Street Site and surrounding area. As Harley said, the hot spot sediments were dredged from the Harbor in 1994 and 1995. The sediments were dredged from areas of the harbor North of Sawyer Street closer to the Wood Street bridge. We've been safely storing them at the bottom of Sawyer Street in this Confined Disposal Facility or CDF for short ever since that time.

• As you can see the CDF has three individual cells. The hot spot sediments are stored in the largest of the three cells. This cell is about 200 feet by 400 feet, has a double HDPE liner, and is approximately nine feet deep. The hot spot sediments in the cell are about six to seven feet deep. The cell that contains the sediments is currently covered with a permalon cover. This relatively thin cover was place over the sediments as a temporary measure to minimize air emissions and potential direct contact by people and ecological receptors. The cover is weighted down with sand bags to prevent wind damage and a layer of water is maintained over the cover in the warmer months to provide additional protection against air emissions.

• The two smaller cells are currently empty except for possibly some rain water. They were needed during the 1994-95 dredging activity as part of a treatment process for the large volume of water that was dredged up along with the sediments. The primary water treatment components are housed in the building that you can also see in this aerial photograph.

So, since 1995, the hot spot sediments, some of the most highly contaminated sediments, have been out of the harbor and safely stored at this Sawyer Street CDF. Our goal over the past few years has been well defined and challenging: working with the other members of the Community Forum, evaluate different cleanup options and develop a final cleanup plan for the sediment in the Sawyer Street CDF that doesn't involve incinerating them in New Bedford and that members of the Forum can live with.

We looked at numerous cleanup options and eventually developed eleven feasible cleanup plans from which we would select one to be our Proposed Plan. Although there are eleven plans that were analyzed in detail, there are really only four basic approaches that we looked at: 1) take no further action; 2) improved containment; 3) treat the sediments at the Sawyer Street facility; 4) transport the contaminants out of New Bedford for permanent storage or destruction.

The first approach, no further action involves continued storage of the sediments in this CDF and maintenance of the facility indefinitely.

The second approach, improved containment involves continued storage in the CDF except that we would remove a significant amount of the water that is mixed with the sediments and we would replace the existing cover with a much more durable cover system .

I have a few slides that are simulations of what a the third and fourth approaches, treatment and transporting the sediments out of New Bedford would look like.

Slide 2 (Existing Site Conditions)

• This slide shows the area of the Sawyer Street facility where we would build a treatment plant. The existing CDF is behind us and to our right and of course the very recognizable St. Anthony's Church and Belleville Avenue homes can be seen in the background.

• Steam Cleaning/Decontamination Pad­• Decontamination Trailer • CDF Fence in foreground

Slide 3 (Solvent Extraction Process)

• This first simulation shows conceptually what the site would look like if we were to build a treatment plant that separates the PCBs from the sediments using a solvent extraction process.

• In general the concept involves removing the sediments from the CDF, using possibly a vacuum truck and extracting the PCBs from the sediments using the treatment system shown in this simulation. The separated PCB's, which are now highly concentrated, would then be sealed in drums and transported out of New Bedford for destruction at an approved hazardous waste destruction facility. The treated sediments would be placed in one of the CDFs that will be built for the sediments we still plan to dredge out of the harbor.

• We also looked at a couple of other options which use solvent extraction. Instead of transporting the sediments off-site for destruction, we could actually destroy the PCBs at the Sawyer Street Site. There are two innovative destruction technologies that could do this. One would destroy the PCBs using a chemical process the other would destroy the PCBs using high temperatures.

• My presentation on these innovative technologies is purposely being kept at the conceptual level. I would need a lot of time to get into the details of each technology to show how slick they really are. I can go into more detail during the question and answer portion of this evenings Agenda if anyone wants me to.

• Solvent Storage Tanks • Solvent Extraction Vessels • Cooling Towers • Storage Shed • Vacuum Truck • CDF Fence in foreground • Lights for Nighttime Operations

Slide 4 (Thermal Desorption Process)

• This second simulation shows conceptually what the site would look like if we were to build a treatment plant that separates the PCBs from the sediments using a thermal desorption process instead of a solvent extraction process.

• In general the concept is the same as I just described for solvent extraction. The fundamental difference is that instead of using a solvent to separate the PCBs from the sediments we would raise the temperature of the sediments to that point where the PCBs turn into their vapor phase. The vapor phase PCBs would be condensed to a semi-solids, sealed in drums and transported out of New Bedford for destruction at an approved hazardous waste destruction facility. As stated earlier under the solvent extraction alternative, the treated sediments would be placed in one of the CDFs that will be built for the sediments we still plan to dredge out of the harbor.

• As with solvent extraction, we could team up thermal desorption with either a chemical destruction technology or thermal destruction technology to actually destroy the PCBs at the Sawyer Street Site.

• Thermal Desorption Unit • Off-gas treatment unit • Emission Vents • Storage Shed • Vacuum Truck • Lights • Fence

Vitrification (no slide)

Slide 5 (Off-Site Option)

• This slide gives you an idea of what the site would look like if the fourth and last cleanup approach, transporting the sediments out of New Bedford, was selected.

• This third simulation shows conceptually what the site may look like if we were to do no PCB destruction at the site and basically transport the sediments to an off-site location for either permanent storage in an approved hazardous waste landfill or destruction at an approved hazardous waste treatment facility.

• As with the other options the first step is removing the sediments from the CDF.

• Continue to explain the steps

• Vacuum Truck • Dewatering Facility • Container Truck • Sludge Boxes • Fence

Slide 6 (Comparison Table)

• This last slide is the Comparison Table that was included in the Proposed Plan we mailed out. This table summarizes how each cleanup plan measures up to the nine evaluation criteria. EPA is required to select the cleanup plan that is the best balance among these nine criteria.

• All eleven alternatives are shown on this Table in the four categories we talked about, limited or no further action, treat the sediments on-site; containment; and moving the sediments off-site.

• Of the eleven cleanup plans, there were only three that we really couldn't live with or certainly ranked them the lowest, no-further action, vitrification, and in-place capping. Of the remaining eight, EPA's preference was either thermal desorption or solvent extraction combined with off-site destruction.

• The State determined that there were five they could not live with.

• The Community Forum collectively could only live with one, off-site landfilling, which is our proposed plan.

• The major draw back from EPA's point of view is that off-site landfilling doesn't destroy the contamination. The good points are that it is lower cost, can be done faster, doesn't require night time operations, and has what we believe to be broad based community acceptance. These good points more than balance the bad points.

Proposed Plan and Impacts On the Community

The observable impacts to the local community will be during construction.

The first phase of construction will involve some site upgrades including the building for dewatering activities; testing of the water treatment plant, possible some access roads to the CDF, and upgrades to site utilities. These activities will take place during daylight hours only and will be completed about 6 months to 1 year after EPA's decision document is completed.

The second phase of construction involves the daily activities of removing the sediments from the CDF, dewatering them and transporting them off-site. About seven empty trucks will enter the site daily and seven full trucks will leave the site daily. This second phase will also take about 6 months to 1 year to complete.

The total time about 2 years.