U.S. v. AKZO NOBEL CHEMICALS, INC.

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. AKZO NOBEL CHEMICALS, INC., and CK…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

Date published: Mar 5, 2001

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:00-0908-RV-M (S.D. Ala. Mar. 5, 2001)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:00-0908-RV-M.

March 5, 2001.

JUDGMENT

RICHARD W. VOLLMER, JR., United States District Judge.

The attached consent decree (including the appendices) is hereby entered as the final judgment of the court in this action.

CONSENT DECREE TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND

II. JURISDICTION

III. PARTIES BOUND

IV. DEFINITIONS

V. GENERAL PROVISIONS

VI. PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK BY SETTLING DEFENDANTS

VII. REMEDY VIEW

VIII. QUALITY ASSURANCE, SAMPLING, and DATA ANALYSIS

IX. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

X. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

XI. EPA APPROVAL OF PLANS AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS

XII. PROJECT COORDINATORS

XIII. ASSURANCE OF ABILITY TO COMPLETE WORK

XIV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION

XV. EMERGENCY RESPONSE

XVI. REIMBURSEMENT OF RESPONSE COSTS

XVII. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

XVIII. FORCE MAJEURE

XIX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

XX. STIPULATED PENALTIES

XXI. COVENANTS NOT TO SUE BY PLAINTIFF

XXII. COVENANTS BY SETTLINGS DEFENDANTS

XXIII. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT; CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION

XXIV. ACCESS TO INFORMATION

XXV. RETENTION OF RECORDS

XXVI. NOTICES AND SUBMISSIONS

XXVII. EFFECTIVE DATE

XXVIII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

XXIX. APPENDICES

XXX. COMMUNITY RELATIONS

XXXI. MODIFICATION

XXXII. LODGING AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

XXXIII. SIGNATORIES/SERVICE

XXXIV. FINAL JUDGMENT

I. BACKGROUND

A. The United States of America ("United States"), on behalf of the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), filed a complaint in this matter pursuant to Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § § 9606, 9607.

B. The United States in its complaint seeks, inter alia: (1) reimbursement of costs incurred by EPA and the Department of Justice for response actions at Operable Unit #2 ("OU#2") at the Stauffer Chem (Le Moyne Plant) Superftmnd Site in Mobile County, Alabama, together with accrued interest; and (2) performance of studies and response work by the defendants at the Site consistent with the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300 (as amended) ("NCP").

C. In accordance with the NCP and Section 121(f)(1)(F) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621 (f)(1)(F), EPA notified the State of Alabama (the "State") on June 17, 1999 of negotiations with potentially responsible parties regarding the implementation of the remedial design and remedial action for OU#2 of the Site, and EPA has provided the State with an opportunity to participate in such negotiations and be a party to this Consent Decree.

D. In accordance with Section 122(j)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9622 (j)(1), EPA notified the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on June 17, 1999 of negotiations with potentially responsible parties regarding the release of hazardous substances that may have resulted in injury to the natural resources under Federal trusteeship and encouraged the trustees to participate in the negotiation of this Consent Decree.

E. The defendants that have entered into this Consent Decree ("Settling Defendants") do not admit the allegations in the complaint or this Section I, do not admit any liability to the Plaintiff or any other Party arising out of the transactions or occurrences alleged in the complaint or this Section I, and do not acknowledge that the release or threatened release of hazardous substance(s) at or from the Site constitutes an imminent or substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment.

F. Pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9605, EPA placed the Site on the National Priorities List, set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 300, Appendix B, by publication in the Federal Register on September 21, 1984, 49 Fed. Reg. 37070.

G. In response to a release or a substantial threat of a release of a hazardous substance(s) at or from the Site, in May 1985 EPA and the Stauffer Chemical Company commenced a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") for the Site pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 300.430 and completed the Remedial Investigation ("RI") Report in May 1988.

H. Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. commenced a Supplemental Remedial Investigation ("RI") Report on July 13, 1992 for OU#2 of the Site and completed the Supplemental RI Report on June 24, 1997. The Settling Defendants completed the Feasibility Study ("FS") Report for OU#2 of the Site in October 1997.

I. Pursuant to Section 117 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9617, EPA published notice of the completion of the FS and of the proposed plan for remedial action July 31, 1998, in a major local newspaper of general circulation. EPA provided an opportunity for written and oral comments from the public on the proposed plan for remedial action. A copy of the transcript of the public meeting is available to the public as part of the administrative record upon which the Regional Administrator based the selection of the response action.

J. The decision by EPA on the remedial action to be implemented for OU#2 at the Site is embodied in a final Record of Decision ("ROD"), executed on March 18, 1999, on which the State has given its concurrence. The ROD includes EPA's explanation for any significant differences between the final plan and the proposed plan as well as a responsiveness summary to the public comments. Notice of the final plan was published in accordance with Section 117(b) of CERCLA.

K. Based on the information presently available to EPA, EPA believes that the Work will be properly and promptly conducted by the Settling Defendants if conducted in accordance with the requirements of this Consent Decree and its appendices.

L. Solely for the purposes of Section 113(j) of CERCLA, the Remedial Action selected by the ROD and the Work to be performed by the Settling Defendants shall constitute a response action taken or ordered by the President.

M. The Parties recognize, and the Court by entering this Consent Decree finds, that this Consent Decree has been negotiated by the Parties in good faith and implementation of this Consent Decree will expedite the cleanup of the Site and will avoid prolonged and complicated litigation between the Parties, and that this Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed:

II. JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1331 and 1345, and 42 U.S.C. § § 9606, 9607, and 9613(b). This Court also has personal jurisdiction over the Settling Defendants. Solely for the purposes of this Consent Decree and the underlying complaint, Settling Defendants waive all objections and defenses that they may have to jurisdiction of the Court or to venue in this District. Settling Defendants shall not challenge the terms of this Consent Decree or this Court's jurisdiction to enter and enforce this Consent Decree.

III. PARTIES BOUND

2. This Consent Decree applies to and is binding upon the United States and upon Settling Defendants and their successors and assigns. Any change in ownership or corporate status of a Settling Defendant including, but not limited to, any transfer of assets or real or personal property, shall in no way alter such Settling Defendant's responsibilities under this Consent Decree.

3. Settling Defendants shall provide a copy of this Consent Decree to each contractor hired by Settling Defendants to perform the Work (as defined below) required by this Consent Decree and to each person representing any Settling Defendant with respect to the Work at OU#2 of the Site and shall condition all contracts entered into hereunder upon performance of the Work in conformity with the terms of this Consent Decree. Settling Defendants or their contractors shall provide written notice of the Consent Decree to all subcontractors hired to perform any portion of the Work required by this Consent Decree. Settling Defendants shall nonetheless be responsible for ensuring that their contractors and subcontractors perform the Work contemplated herein in accordance with this Consent Decree. With regard to the activities undertaken pursuant to this Consent Decree, each contractor and subcontractor shall be deemed to be in a contractual relationship with the Settling Defendants within the meaning of Section 107(b)(3) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (b)(3).

IV. DEFINITIONS

4. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, terms used in this Consent Decree which are defined in CERCLA or in regulations promulgated under CERCLA shall have the meaning assigned to them in CERCLA or in such regulations. Whenever terms listed below are used in this Consent Decree or in the appendices attached hereto and incorporated hereunder, the following definitions shall apply:

"CERCLA" shall mean the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 9601et seq.

"Consent Decree" shall mean this Decree and all appendices attached hereto (listed in Section XXIX). In the event of conflict between this Decree and any appendix, this Decree shall control.

"Day" shall mean a calendar day unless expressly stated to be a working day. "Working day" shall mean a day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday. In computing any period of time under this Consent Decree, where the last day would fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the period shall run until the close of business of the next working day.

"EPA" shall mean the United States Environmental Protection Agency and any successor departments or agencies of the United States.

"ADEM" shall mean the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and any successor departments or agencies of the State.

"Future Response Costs" shall mean all costs, including, but not limited to, direct and indirect costs, that the United States incurs in reviewing or developing plans, reports and other items pursuant to this Consent Decree, verifying the Work, or otherwise implementing, overseeing, or enforcing this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, payroll costs, contractor costs, travel costs, laboratory costs, the costs incurred pursuant to Sections VII, IX (including, but not limited to, the cost of attorney time and any monies paid to secure access and/or to secure or implement institutional controls including, but not limited to, the amount of just compensation), XV, and Paragraph 86 of Section XXI. Future Response Costs shall also include all Interim Response Costs, and all Interest on the Past Response Costs that has accrued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (a) during the period from July 21, 1999 to the date of entry of this Consent Decree.

"Interim Response Costs" shall mean all costs, including direct and indirect costs, (a) paid by the United States in connection with OU#2 at the Site between July 21, 1999 and the effective date of this Consent Decree, or (b) incurred prior to the effective date of this Consent Decree but paid after that date.

"Interest," shall mean interest at the rate specified for interest on investments of the Hazardous Substance Superfund established under Subchapter A of Chapter 98 of Title 26 of the U.S. Code, compounded on October 1 of each year, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (a).

"National Contingency Plan" or "NCP" shall mean the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9605, codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 300, and any amendments thereto.

"Operation and Maintenance" or "0 M" shall mean all activities required to maintain the effectiveness of the Remedial Action as required under the Operation and Maintenance Plan approved or developed by EPA pursuant to this Consent Decree and the Statement of Work (SOW).

"Owner Settling Defendant" shall mean Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc.

"Operable Unit #2" or "OU#2" shall be as described in the Record of Decision and consisting generally of the source areas at the Site, identified in the ROD as fourteen in number, and having as a purpose the removal of sources of contamination in soils which can result in further groundwater contamination.

"Paragraph" shall mean a portion of this Consent Decree identified by an arabic numeral or an upper case letter.

"Parties" shall mean the United States and the Settling Defendants.

"Past Response Costs" shall mean all costs, including, but not limited to, direct and indirect costs, that the United States paid at or in connection with OU#2 at the Site and charged to EPA Region 4 Site Spill ID #A406 through July 21, 1999 plus Interest on all such costs which has accrued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (a) through such date.

"Performance Standards" shall mean the cleanup standards and other measures of achievement of the goals of the Remedial Action, set forth in Section IX of the ROD and Section III of the SOW.

"Plaintiff" shall mean the United States.

"RCRA" shall mean the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § § 6901 et seq. (also known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act).

"Record of Decision" or "ROD" shall mean the EPA Record of Decision relating to Operable Unit #2 at the Site signed on March 18, 1999, by the Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4 or his/her delegate, and all attachments thereto and subsequent Explanations of Significant Differences ("ESD") and Amendments to said ROD, if any. The ROD is attached as Appendix A.

"Remedial Action" shall mean those activities, except for Operation and Maintenance, to be undertaken by the Settling Defendants to implement the ROD, in accordance with the SOW and the final Remedial Design and Remedial Action Work Plans and other plans approved by EPA.

"Remedial Action Work Plan" shall mean the document developed pursuant to Paragraph 12 of this Consent Decree and approved by EPA, and any amendments thereto.

"Remedial Design" shall mean those activities to be undertaken by the Settling Defendants to develop the final plans and specifications for the Remedial Action pursuant to the Remedial Design Work Plan.

"Remedial Design Work Plan" shall mean the document developed pursuant to Paragraph 11 of this Consent Decree and approved by EPA, and any amendments thereto.

"Section" shall mean a portion of this Consent Decree identified by a roman numeral.

"Settling Defendants" shall mean Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc., and CK Witco Corporation.

"Site" shall mean the Stauffer Chem (Le Moyne Plant) Superfund Site located at 13440 Highway 43 North in Axis, Mobile County, Alabama and depicted generally on the map attached as Appendix C.

"State" shall mean the State of Alabama.

"Statement of Work" or "SOW" shall mean the statement of work for implementation of the Remedial Design, Remedial Action, and Operation and Maintenance at OU#2 of the Site, as set forth in Appendix B to this Consent Decree and any modifications made in accordance with this Consent Decree.

"Supervising Contractor" shall mean the principal contractor retained by the Settling Defendants to supervise and direct the implementation of the Work under this Consent Decree.

"United States" shall mean the United States of America.

"Waste Material" shall mean (1) any "hazardous substance" under Section 101 (14) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (14); (2) any pollutant or contaminant under Section 101 (33), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (33); (3) any "solid waste" under Section 1004 (27) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6903 (27); and (4) any "hazardous substance" under the Alabama Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund Act, 22-30A-2(6).

"Work" shall mean all activities Settling Defendants are required to perform under this Consent Decree, including reporting requirements, except those required by Section XXV (Retention of Records).

V. GENERAL PROVISIONS

5. Obiectives of the Parties. The objectives of the Parties in entering into this Consent Decree are to protect public health or welfare or the environment at the Site by the design and implementation of response actions at OU#2 at the Site by the Settling Defendants, to reimburse response costs of the Plaintiff, and to resolve the claims of Plaintiff against Settling Defendants as provided in this Consent Decree.

6. Commitments by Settling Defendants

a. Settling Defendants shall finance and perform the Work in accordance with this Consent Decree, the ROD, the SOW, and all work plans and other plans, standards, specifications, and schedules set forth herein or developed by Settling Defendants and approved by EPA pursuant to this Consent Decree. Settling Defendants shall also reimburse the United States for Past Response Costs and Future Response Costs as provided in this Consent Decree.

b. The obligations of Settling Defendants to finance and perform the Work and to pay amounts owed the United States under this Consent Decree are joint and several. In the event of the insolvency or other failure of one Settling Defendant to implement the requirements of this Consent Decree, the remaining Settling Defendant shall complete all such requirements.

7. Compliance With Applicable Law. All activities undertaken by Settling Defendants pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of all applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Settling Defendants must also comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of all Federal and state environmental laws as set forth in the ROD and the SOW. The activities conducted pursuant to this Consent Decree, if approved by EPA, shall be considered to be consistent with the NCP.

8. Permits

a. As provided in Section 121(e) of CERCLA and Section 300.400(e) of the NCP, no permit shall be required for any portion of the Work conducted entirely on-site (i.e., within the areal extent of contamination or in very close proximity to the contamination and necessary for implementation of the Work). Where any portion of the Work that is not on-site requires a federal or state permit or approval, Settling Defendants shall submit timely and complete applications and take all other actions necessary to obtain all such permits or approvals.

b. The Settling Defendants may seek relief under the provisions of Section XVIII (Force Majeure) of this Consent Decree for any delay in the performance of the Work resulting from a failure to obtain, or a delay in obtaining, any permit required for the Work.

c. This Consent Decree is not, and shall not be construed to be, a permit issued pursuant to any federal or state statute or regulation.

9. Notice to Successors-in-Title

a. With respect to any property owned or controlled by the Owner Settling Defendant that is located within OU#2 at the Site, within 30 days after the Owner Settling Defendant receives written notice of the entry of this Consent Decree, the Owner Settling Defendant shall submit to EPA for review and approval a notice to be filed with the Recorder's Office or Registry of Deeds or other appropriate office, Mobile County, State of Alabama, which shall provide notice to all successors-in-title to such property that the property is part of OU#2 at the Site, that EPA selected a remedy for Operable Unit 42 of the Site on March 18, 1999, and that potentially responsible parties have entered into a Consent Decree requiring implementation of the remedy. Such notice(s) shall identify the United States District Court in which the Consent Decree was filed, the name and civil action number of this case, and the date the Consent Decree was entered by the Court. The Owner Settling Defendant shall record the notice(s) within 30 days after receiving EPA's approval of the notice(s). The Owner Settling Defendant shall provide EPA with a certified copy of the recorded notice within 10 days of recording such notice(s).

b. At least 30 days prior to the conveyance of any interest in property located within OU#2 at the Site including, but not limited to, fee interests, leasehold interests, and mortgage interests, the Owner Settling Defendant conveying the interest shall give the grantee written notice of this Consent Decree. At least 30 days prior to such conveyance, the Owner Settling Defendant conveying the interest shall also give written notice to EPA and the State of the proposed conveyance, including the name and address of the grantee, and the date on which notice of the Consent Decree, access easements, and/or restrictive easements was given to the grantee.

c. In the event of any such conveyance, the Owner Settling Defendant's obligations under this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, its obligation to provide or secure access and institutional controls, as well as to abide by such institutional controls, pursuant to Section IX (Access and Institutional Controls) of this Consent Decree, shall continue to be met by the Owner Settling Defendant. In no event shall the conveyance release or otherwise affect the liability of the Owner Settling Defendant to comply with all provisions of this Consent Decree, absent the prior written consent of EPA. If the United States approves, the grantee may perform some or all of the Work under this Consent Decree.

VI. PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK BY SETTLING DEFENDANTS

10. Selection of Supervising Contractor.

a. All aspects of the Work to be performed by Settling Defendants pursuant to Sections VI (Performance of the Work by Settling Defendants), VII (Remedy Review), VIII (Quality Assurance, Sampling and Data Analysis), and XV (Emergency Response) of this Consent Decree shall be under the direction and supervision of the Supervising Contractor, the selection of which shall be subject to disapproval by EPA. Within 30 days after the entry of this Consent Decree, Settling Defendants shall notify EPA in writing of the name, title, and qualifications of any contractor or representative of a Settling Defendant proposed to be the Supervising Contractor ("Supervising Contractor"). EPA will issue a notice of disapproval or an authorization to proceed. If at any time thereafter, Settling Defendants propose to change a Supervising Contractor, Settling Defendants shall give such notice to EPA and must obtain an authorization to proceed from EPA before the new Supervising Contractor performs, directs, or supervises any Work under this Consent Decree.

b. If EPA disapproves a proposed Supervising Contractor, EPA will notify Settling Defendants in writing. Settling Defendants shall submit to EPA a list of contractors, including the qualifications of each contractor, that would be acceptable to them within 30 days of receipt of EPA's disapproval of the contractor previously proposed. EPA will provide written notice of the names of any contractor(s) that it disapproves and an authorization to proceed with respect to any of the other contractors. Settling Defendants may select any contractor from that list that is not disapproved and shall notify EPA of the name of the contractor selected within 21 days of EPA's authorization to proceed.

c. If EPA fails to provide written notice of its authorization to proceed or disapproval as provided in this Paragraph and this failure prevents the Settling Defendants from meeting one or more deadlines in a plan approved by the EPA pursuant to this Consent Decree, Settling Defendants may seek relief under the provisions of Section XVIII (Force Majeure) hereof.

11. Remedial Design.

a. Within 60 days after EPA's issuance of an authorization to proceed pursuant to Paragraph 10, Settling Defendants shall submit to EPA and the State a work plan for. the design of the Remedial Action at OU#2 at the Site ("Remedial Design Work Plan" or "RD Work Plan"). The Remedial Design Work Plan shall provide for design of the remedy set forth in the ROD, in accordance with the SOW and for achievement of the Performance Standards and other requirements set forth in the ROD, this Consent Decree and/or the SOW. Upon its approval by EPA, the Remedial Design Work Plan shall be incorporated into and become enforceable under this Consent Decree. Within 60 days after EPA's issuance of an authorization to proceed, if any Remedial Design site work is proposed the Settling Defendants shall submit to EPA and the State a Health and Safety Plan for field design activities which conforms to the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration and EPA requirements including, but not limited to, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.120.

b. The Remedial Design Work Plan shall include plans and schedules for implementation of all remedial design and pre-design tasks identified in the SOW, including, but not limited to, plans and schedules for the completion of: (1) a Sampling and Analysis Plan if Remedial Design field sampling is proposed (including, but not limited to, a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) in accordance with Section VIII (Quality Assurance, Sampling and Data Analysis)); and (2) a pre-final (95%) /flnal design submittal. In addition, the Remedial Design Work Plan shall include a schedule for completion of the Remedial Action Work Plan.

c. Upon approval of the Remedial Design Work Plan by EPA, after a reasonable opportunity for review and comment by the State, and submittal of a Health and Safety Plan for any field activities to EPA and the State, Settling Defendants shall implement the Remedial Design Work Plan. The Settling Defendants shall submit to EPA and the State all plans, submittals and other deliverables required under the approved Remedial Design Work Plan in accordance with the approved schedule for review and approval pursuant to Section XI (EPA Approval of Plans and Other Submissions). Unless otherwise directed by EPA, Settling Defendants shall not commence further Remedial Design activities at OU#2 at the Site prior to approval of the Remedial Design Work Plan.

d. The pre-final (95%)/final design submittal shall include, at a minimum the following: (1) results of any data acquisition activities; (2) a design criteria report; (3) a complete design analysis; (4) final plans and specifications; (5) a final construction schedule; (6) a construction cost estimate; and (7) a plan for satisfying permitting requirements. An oral presentation shall be made to EPA at the 50% design stage.

12. Remedial Action.

a. Within 30 days after the approval of the final plans and specifications, Settling Defendants shall submit to EPA and the State, a work plan for the performance of the Remedial Action at OU#2 at the Site ("Remedial Action Work Plan"). The Remedial Action Work Plan shall provide for construction and implementation of the remedy set forth in the ROD and achievement of the Performance Standards, in accordance with this Consent Decree, the ROD, the SOW, and the design plans and specifications developed in accordance with the Remedial Design Work Plan and approved by EPA. Upon its approval by EPA, the Remedial Action Work Plan shall be incorporated into and become enforceable under this Consent Decree. At the same time as they submit the Remedial Action Work Plan, Settling Defendants shall submit to EPA and the State a Health and Safety Plan for field activities required by the Remedial Action Work Plan which conforms to the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration and EPA requirements including, but not limited to, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.120.

b. The Remedial Action Work Plan shall include the following: (1) the schedule for completion of the Remedial Action; (2) the schedule for developing and submitting other Remedial Action plans; (3) a detailed description of the tasks to be performed and work products to be submitted to EPA; and (4) a Construction Quality Assurance Plan. The Remedial Action Work Plan also shall include a schedule for implementation of all Remedial Action tasks identified in the final design submittal and shall identify the initial formulation of the Settling Defendants' Remedial Action Project Team (including, but not limited to, the Supervising Contractor).

c. Upon approval of the Remedial Action Work Plan by EPA, after a reasonable opportunity for review and comment by the State, Settling Defendants shall implement the activities required under the Remedial Action Work Plan. The Settling Defendants shall submit to EPA and the State all plans, submittals, or other deliverables required under the approved Remedial Action Work Plan in accordance with the approved schedule for review and approval pursuant to Section XI (EPA Approval of Plans and Other Submissions). Unless otherwise directed in writing by EPA, Settling Defendants shall not commence physical Remedial Action activities at OU#2 at the Site prior to approval of the Remedial Action Work Plan.

13. The Settling Defendants shall continue to implement the Remedial Action and OM until the Performance Standards are achieved and for so long thereafter as is otherwise required under this Consent Decree.

14. Modification of the SOW or Related Work Plans.

a. If EPA determines that modification to the work specified in the SOW and/or in work plans developed pursuant to the SOW is necessary to achieve and maintain the Performance Standards or to carry out and maintain the effectiveness of the remedy set forth in the ROD, EPA may require that such modification be incorporated in the SOW and/or such work plans. Provided, however, that a modification may only be required pursuant to this Paragraph to the extent that it is consistent with the scope of the remedy selected in the ROD.

b. For the purposes of this Paragraph 14 and Paragraph 50 and 51 only, the "scope of the remedy selected in the ROD" is: Construction, operation, and maintenance of an insitu soil flushing system in the Halby area; institutional controls to restrict construction in the former Halby area and to prevent use of any portion of OU#2 at the Site as a residence; monitoring of subsurface soil contamination in the former Halby area; other maintenance activities at OU#2 of the Site as identified in the ROD, and periodic reporting of monitoring results.

c. If Settling Defendants object to any modification determined by EPA to be necessary pursuant to this Paragraph, they may seek dispute resolution pursuant to Section XIX (Dispute Resolution), Paragraph 68 (record review). The SOW and/or related work plans shall be modified in accordance with final resolution of the dispute.

d. Settling Defendants shall implement any work required by any modifications incorporated in the SOW and/or in work plans developed pursuant to the SOW in accordance with this Paragraph.

e. Nothing in this Paragraph shall be construed to limit EPA's authority to require performance of further response actions as otherwise provided in this Consent Decree.

15. Settling Defendants acknowledge and agree that nothing in this Consent Decree, the SOW, or the Remedial Design or Remedial Action Work Plans constitutes a warranty or representation of any kind by Plaintiff that compliance with the work requirements set forth in the SOW and the Work Plans will achieve the Performance Standards.

16. Settling Defendants shall, prior to any off-Site shipment of Waste Material from the Site to an out-of-state waste management facility, provide written notification to the appropriate state environmental official in the receiving facility's state and to the EPA Project Coordinator of such shipment of Waste Material. However, this notification requirement shall not apply to any off-Site shipments when the total volume of all such shipments will not exceed 10 cubic yards.

a. The Settling Defendants shall include in the written notification the following information, where available: (1) the name and location of the facility to which the Waste Material are to be shipped; (2) the type and quantity of the Waste Material to be shipped; (3) the expected schedule for the shipment of the Waste Material; and (4) the method of transportation. The Settling Defendants shall notify the state in which the planned receiving facility is located of major changes in the shipment plan, such as a decision to ship the Waste Material to another facility within the same state, or to a facility in another state.

b. The identity of the receiving facility and state will be determined by the Settling Defendants following an award of the contract for Remedial Action construction. The Settling Defendants shall provide the information required by Paragraph 1 6.a as soon as practicable after the award of the contract and before Waste Material is actually shipped.

VII. REMEDY REVIEW

17. Periodic Review. Settling Defendants shall conduct any studies and investigations as requested by EPA, in order to permit EPA to conduct reviews of whether the Remedial Action is protective of human health and the environment at least every five years as required by Section 121(c) of CERCLA and any applicable regulations.

18. EPA Selection of Further Response Actions. If EPA determines, at anytime, that the Remedial Action is not protective of human health and the environment, EPA may select further response actions for OU#2 at the Site in accordance with the requirements of CERCLA and the NCP.

19. Opportunity To Comment. Settling Defendants and, if required by Sections 113(k)(2) or 117 of CERCLA, the public, will be provided with an opportunity to comment on any further response actions proposed by EPA as a result of the review conducted pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA and to submit written comments for the record during the comment period.

20. Settling Defendants' Obligation To Perform Further Response Actions. If EPA selects further response actions for OU#2 at the Site, the Settling Defendants shall undertake such further response actions to the extent that the reopener conditions in Paragraph 82 or Paragraph 83 (United States' reservations of liability based on unknown conditions or new information) are satisfied. Settling Defendants may invoke the procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) to dispute (1) EPA's determination that the reopener conditions of Paragraph 82 or Paragraph 83 of Section XXI (Covenants Not To Sue by Plaintiff) are satisfied, (2) EPA's determination that the Remedial Action is not protective of human health and the environment, or (3) EPA's selection of the further response actions. Disputes pertaining to whether the Remedial Action is protective or to EPA's selection of further response actions shall be resolved pursuant to Paragraph 68 (record review).

21. Submissions of Plans. If Settling Defendants are required to perform the further response actions pursuant to Paragraph 20, they shall submit a plan for such work to EPA for approval in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section VI (Performance of the Work by Settling Defendants) and shall implement the plan approved by EPA in accordance with the provisions of this Decree.

VIII. QUALITY ASSURANCE. SAMPLING. and DATA ANALYSIS

22. Settling Defendants shall use quality assurance, quality control, and chain of custody procedures for all treatabiity, design, compliance and monitoring samples in accordance with "EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Data Operation, " (EPA QA/R5; "Preparing Perfect Project Plans," (EPA /600/9-88/087), and subsequent amendments to such guidelines upon notification by EPA to Settling Defendants of such amendment. Amended guidelines shall apply only to procedures conducted after such notification. Prior to the commencement of any monitoring project under this Consent Decree, Settling Defendants shall submit to EPA for approval, after a reasonable opportunity for review and comment by the State, a Quality Assurance Project Plan ("QAPP") that is consistent with the SOW, the NCP and applicable guidance documents. If relevant to the proceeding, the Parties agree that validated sampling data generated in accordance with the QAPP(s) and reviewed and approved by EPA shall be admissible as evidence, without objection, in any proceeding under this Decree. Settling Defendants shall ensure that EPA personnel and its authorized representatives are allowed access at reasonable times to all laboratories utilized by Settling Defendants in implementing this Consent Decree. In addition, Settling Defendants shall ensure that such laboratories shall analyze all samples submitted by EPA pursuant to the QAPP for quality assurance monitoring. Settling Defendants shall ensure that the laboratories they utilize for the analysis of samples taken pursuant to this Decree perform all analyses according to accepted EPA methods. Accepted EPA methods consist of those methods which are documented in the "Contract Lab Program Statement of Work for Inorganic Analysis" and the "Contract Lab Program Statement of Work for Organic Analysis," dated February 1988, and any amendments made thereto during the course of the implementation of this Decree. Settling Defendants shall ensure that all laboratories they use for analysis of samples taken pursuant to this Consent Decrees participate in an EPA or EPA-equivalent QA/QC program. Settling Defendants shall ensure that all field methodologies utilized in collecting samples for subsequent analysis pursuant to this Decree will be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the QAPP approved by EPA.

23. Upon request, the Settling Defendants shall allow split or duplicate samples to be taken by EPA or its authorized representatives. Settling Defendants shall notify EPA not less than 28 days in advance of any sample collection activity unless shorter notice is agreed to by EPA. In addition, EPA shall have the right to take any additional samples that EPA deem necessary. Upon request, EPA shall allow the Settling Defendants to take split or duplicate samples of any samples it takes as part of the Plaintiffs oversight of the Settling Defendants' implementation of the Work.

24. Settling Defendants shall submit to EPA five (5) copies of the results of all sampling and/or tests or other data obtained or generated by or on behalf of Settling Defendants with respect to OU#2 at the Site and/or the implementation of this Consent Decree unless EPA agrees otherwise.

25. Notwithstanding any provision of this Consent Decree, the United States hereby retains all of its information gathering and inspection authorities and rights, including enforcement actions related thereto, under CERCLA, RCRA and any other applicable statutes or regulations.

IX. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

26. If the Site, or any other property where access and/or land/water use restrictions are needed to implement this Consent Decree, is owned or controlled by any of the Settling Defendants, such Settling Defendants shall:

a. commencing on the date of lodging of this Consent Decree, provide the United States and its representatives, including EPA and its contractors, with access at all reasonable times to the Site, or such other property, for the purpose of conducting any activity related to this Consent Decree including, but not limited to, the following activities:

(1) Monitoring the Work;

(2) Verifying any data or information submitted to the United States;

(3) Conducting investigations relating to contamination at or near OU#2 at the Site;

(4) Obtaining samples;

(5) Assessing the need for, planning, or implementing additional response actions at or near OU#2 at the Site;

(6) Implementing the Work pursuant to the conditions set forth in Paragraph 86 of this Consent Decree;

(7) Inspecting and copying records, operating logs, contracts, or other documents maintained or generated by Settling Defendants or their agents, consistent with Section XXIV (Access to Information);

(8) Assessing Settling Defendants' compliance with this Consent Decree; and

(9) Determining whether the Site or other property is being used in a manner that is prohibited or restricted, or that may need to be prohibited or restricted, by or pursuant to this Consent Decree; and

b. commencing on the date of lodging of this Consent Decree, refrain from using the Site, or such other property, in any manner that would interfere with or adversely affect the integrity or protectiveness of the remedial measures to be implemented pursuant to this Consent Decree.

27. If the Site, or any other property where access and/or land/water use restrictions are needed to implement this Consent Decree, is owned or controlled by persons other than any of the Settling Defendants, Settling Defendants shall use best efforts to secure from such persons:

a. an agreement to provide access thereto for Settling Defendants, as well as for the United States on behalf of EPA, and the State, as well as their representatives (including contractors), for the purpose of conducting any activity related to this Consent Decree including, but not limited to, those activities described by Paragraph 26.a of this Consent Decree; and

b. an agreement, enforceable by the Settling Defendants and the United States, to abide by the obligations and restrictions established by Paragraph 26.b of this Consent Decree, or that are otherwise necessary to implement, ensure non-interference with, or ensure the protectiveness of the remedial measures to be performed pursuant to this Consent Decree.

28. For purposes of Paragraph 27 of this Consent Decree, "best efforts" includes the payment of reasonable sums of money in consideration of access and/or land/water use restrictions. If any access or land/water use restriction agreements contemplated by Paragraphs or 27.b of this Consent Decree are not obtained within 45 days of the date of entry of this Consent Decree, Settling Defendants shall promptly notify the United States in writing, and shall include in that notification a summary of the steps that Settling Defendants have taken to attempt to comply with Paragraph 27 of this Consent Decree. The United States may, as it deems appropriate, assist Settling Defendants in obtaining access or land/water use restrictions, either in the form of contractual agreements or in the form of easements running with the land. Settling Defendants shall reimburse the United States in accordance with the procedures in Section XVI (Reimbursement of Response Costs), for all costs incurred, direct or indirect, by the United States in obtaining such access and/or land/water use restrictions including, but not limited to, the cost of attorney time and the amount of monetary consideration paid or just compensation.

29. If EPA determines that land/water use restrictions in the form of state or local laws, regulations, ordinances or other governmental controls are needed to implement the remedy selected in the ROD, ensure the integrity and protectiveness thereof, or ensure non-interference therewith, Settling Defendants shall cooperate with EPA's efforts to secure such governmental controls.

30. Notwithstanding any provision of this Consent Decree, the United States retains all of its access authorities and rights, as well as all of its rights to require land/water use restrictions including enforcement authorities related thereto, under CERCLA, RCRA and any other applicable statute or regulations.

X. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

31. In addition to any other requirement of this Consent Decree, Settling Defendants shall submit to EPA and the State two (2) copies of written monthly progress reports that: (a) describe the actions which have been taken toward achieving compliance with this Consent Decree during the previous month; (b) include a summary of all results of sampling and tests and all other data received or generated by Settling Defendants or their contractors or agents pursuant to this Consent Decree in the previous month; (c) identify all work plans, plans and other deliverables required by this Consent Decree completed and submitted during the previous month; (d) describe all actions, including, but not limited to, data collection and implementation of work plans, which are scheduled for the next four weeks and provide other pertinent information relating to the progress of construction, including, but not limited to, critical path diagrams, Gantt charts and Pert charts; (e) include information regarding percentage of completion, unresolved delays encountered or anticipated that may affect the future schedule for implementation of the Work, and a description of efforts made to mitigate those delays or anticipated delays; (0 include any modifications to the work plans or other schedules that Settling Defendants have proposed to EPA or that have been approved by EPA; and (g) describe all activities undertaken in support of the Community Relations Plan during the previous month and those to be undertaken in the next four weeks. Settling Defendants shall submit these progress reports to EPA and the State by the tenth day of every month following the entry of this Consent Decree until EPA notifies the Settling Defendants pursuant to Paragraph 51.b of Section XIV (Certification of Completion). If requested by EPA, Settling Defendants shall also provide briefings for EPA to discuss the progress of the Work at a mutually convenient time.

32. The Settling Defendants shall notify EPA of any change in the previously submitted schedule included in the monthly progress report for the performance of any activity, including, but not limited to, data collection and implementation of work plans, no later than seven days prior to the performance of the activity.

33. Upon the occurrence of any event during performance of the Work that Settling Defendants are required to report pursuant to Section 103 of CERCLA or Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA), Settling Defendants shall within 24 hours of the onset of such event orally notify the EPA Project Coordinator or the Alternate EPA Project Coordinator (in the event of the unavailability of the EPA Project Coordinator), or, in the event that neither the EPA Project Coordinator or Alternate EPA Project Coordinator is available, the Emergency Response Section, Region 4, United States Environmental Protection Agency. These reporting requirements are in addition to the reporting required by CERCLA Section 103 or EPCRA Section 304.

34. Within 20 days of the oral notification specified in paragraph 33, Settling Defendants shall furnish to Plaintiff a written report, signed by the Settling Defendants' Project Coordinator, setting forth the events which occurred and the measures taken, and to be taken, in response thereto. Within 30 days of the conclusion of such an event, Settling Defendants shall submit a report setting forth all actions taken in response thereto.

35. Settling Defendants shall submit five (5) copies of all plans, reports, and data required by the SOW, the Remedial Design Work Plan, the Remedial Action Work Plan, or any other approved plans to EPA in accordance with the schedules set forth in such plans. Settling Defendants shall simultaneously submit two (2) copies of all such plans, reports and data to the State.

36. All reports and other documents submitted by Settling Defendants to EPA (other than the monthly progress reports referred to above) which purport to document Settling Defendants' compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree shall be signed by an authorized representative of the Settling Defendants.

XI. EPA APPROVAL OF PLANS AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS

37. After review of any plan, report or other item-which is required to be submitted for approval pursuant to this Consent Decree, EPA, after reasonable opportunity for review and comment by the State, in writing shall: (a) approve, in whole or in part, the submission; (b) approve the submission upon specified conditions; (c) modify the submission to cure the deficiencies identified; (d) disapprove, in whole or in part, the submission, identify the deficiencies, and direct that the Settling Defendants modify the submission; or (e) any combination of the above. However, EPA shall not modify a submission without first providing Settling Defendants at least one notice of deficiency and an opportunity to cure within 30 days, except where to do so would cause serious disruption to the Work or where previous submission(s) have been disapproved due to material defects and the deficiencies in the submission under consideration indicate a bad faith lack of effort to submit an acceptable deliverable.

38. In the event of approval, approval upon conditions, or modification by EPA, pursuant to Paragraph 37(a), (b), or (c), Settling Defendants shall proceed to take any action required by the plan, report, or other item, as approved or modified by EPA subject only to their right to invoke the Dispute Resolution procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) with respect to the modifications or conditions made by EPA. In the event that EPA modifies the submission to cure the deficiencies pursuant to Paragraph 37(c) and the submission has a material defect, EPA retains its right to seek stipulated penalties, as provided in Section XX (Stipulated Penalties). Following EPA approval or modification of a submittal or portion thereof, Settling Defendants shall not thereafter alter or amend such submittal or portion thereof unless directed by EPA to so do.

39. a. Upon receipt of a notice of disapproval pursuant to Paragraph 37 (d). Settling Defendants shall, within 30 days or such longer time as specified by EPA in such notice, correct the deficiencies and resubmit the plan, report, or other item for approval. Any stipulated penalties applicable to the submission, as provided in Section XX, shall accrue during the 30-day period or otherwise specified period but shall not be payable unless the resubmission is disapproved or modified due to a material defect as provided in Paragraphs 40 and 41.

b. Notwithstanding the receipt of a notice of disapproval pursuant to Paragraph 37(d), Settling Defendants shall proceed, at the direction of EPA, to take any action required by any non-deficient portion of the submission provided EPA determines that the work to be performed in (the) non-deficient portion(s) of the submission can proceed independently of the work identified as deficient in the submission. Implementation of any non-deficient portion of a submission shall not relieve Settling Defendants of any liability for stipulated penalties under Section XX (Stipulated Penalties).

40. In the event that a resubmitted plan, report or other item, or portion thereof, is disapproved by EPA, EPA may again require the Settling Defendants to correct the deficiencies, in accordance with the preceding Paragraphs. EPA also retains the right to modify or develop the plan, report or other item. Settling Defendants shall implement any such plan, report, or item as modified or developed by EPA, subject only to their right to invoke the procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution).

41. If upon resubmission, a plan, report, or item is disapproved or modified by EPA due to a material defect, Settling Defendants shall be deemed to have failed to submit such plan, report, or item timely and adequately unless the Settling Defendants invoke the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) and EPA's action is overturned pursuant to that Section. The provisions of Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) and Section XX (Stipulated Penalties) shall govern the implementation of the Work and accrual and payment of any stipulated penalties during Dispute Resolution. If EPA's disapproval or modification is upheld, stipulated penalties shall accrue for such violation from the date on which EPA sent the Settling Defendants notice of disapproval of the initial submission, as provided in Section XX.

42. All plans, reports, and other items required to be submitted to EPA under this Consent Decree shall, upon approval or modification by EPA, be enforceable under this Consent Decree. In the event EPA approves or modifies a portion of a plan, report, or other item required to be submitted to EPA under this Consent Decree, the approved or modified portion shall be enforceable under this Consent Decree.

XII. PROJECT COORDINATORS

43. Within 20 days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Settling Defendants and EPA will notify each other, in writing, of the name, address and telephone number of their respcctive designated Project Coordinators and Alternate Project Coordinators. If a Project Coordinator or Alternate Project Coordinator initially designated is changed, the identity of the successor will be given to the other Parties at least 5 working days before the changes occur, unless impracticable, but in no event later than the actual day the change is made. The Settling Defendants' Project Coordinator shall be subject to disapproval by EPA and shall have the technical expertise sufficient to adequately oversee all aspects of the Work. The Settling Defendants' Project Coordinator shall not be an attorney for any of the Settling Defendants in this matter. He or she may assign other representatives, including other contractors, to serve as a Site representative for oversight of performance of daily operations during remedial activities.

44. Plaintiff may designate other representatives, including, but not limited to, EPA employees, and federal contractors and consultants, to observe and monitor the progress of any activity undertaken pursuant to this Consent Decree. EPA's Project Coordinator and Alternate Project Coordinator shall have the authority lawfully vested in a Remedial Project Manager (RPM) and an On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) by the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300. In addition, EPA's Project Coordinator or Alternate Project Coordinator shall have authority, consistent with the National Contingency Plan, to halt any Work required by this Consent Decree and to take any necessary response action when s/he determines that conditions at the Site constitute an emergency situation or may present an immediate threat to public health or welfare or the environment due to release or threatened release of Waste Material.

45. EPA's Project Coordinator and the Settling Defendants' Project Coordinator will communicate, at a minimum, on a monthly basis.

XIII. ASSURANCE OF ABILITY TO COMPLETE WORK

46. Within 30 days of entry of this Consent Decree, Settling Defendants shall establish and maintain financial security in the amount of Five Hundred and One Thousand Dollars ($501,000) in one or more of the following forms:

a. A surety bond guaranteeing performance of the Work;

b. One or more irrevocable letters of credit equaling the total estimated cost of the Work;

c. A trust fund;

d. A guarantee to perform the Work by one or more parent corporations or subsidiaries, or by one or more unrelated corporations that have a substantial business relationship with at least one of the Settling Defendants; or

e. A demonstration that one or more of the Settling Defendants satisfy the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 264.143(f). Solely for the limited purpose of this subparagraph, references in 40 C.F.R. § 264.143 (f) to "the sum of the current closure and post-closure cost estimates and the current plugging and abandonment cost estimates" shall equal the amount of financial security specified in this paragraph.

47. If the Settling Defendants seek to demonstrate the ability to complete the Work through a guarantee by a third party pursuant to Paragraph 46.d of this Consent Decree, Settling Defendants shall demonstrate that the guarantor satisfies the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 264.143(f). If Settling Defendants seek to demonstrate their ability to complete the Work by means of the financial test or the corporate guarantee pursuant to Paragraph 46.d or 46.e, they shall resubmit sworn statements conveying the information required by 40 C.F.R. Part 264.143(f) annually, on the anniversary of the effective date of this Consent Decree. In the event that EPA determines at any time that the financial assurances provided pursuant to this Section are inadequate, Settling Defendants shall, within 30 days of receipt of written notice of EPA's determination, obtain and present to EPA for approval one of the other forms of financial assurance listed in Paragraph 46 of this Consent Decree. Settling Defendants' inability to demonstrate financial ability to complete the Work shall not excuse performance of any activities required under this Consent Decree.

48. If Settling Defendants can show that the estimated cost to complete the remaining Work has diminished below the amount set forth in Paragraph 46 above after entry of this Consent Decree, Settling Defendants may, on any anniversary date of entry of this Consent Decree, or at any other time agreed to by the Parties, reduce the amount of the financial security provided under this Section to the estimated cost of the remaining work to be performed. Settling Defendants shall submit a proposal for such reduction to EPA, in accordance with the requirements of this Section, and may reduce the amount of the security upon approval by EPA. In the event of a dispute, Settling Defendants may reduce the amount of the security in accordance with the final administrative or judicial decision resolving the dispute.

49. Settling Defendants may change the form of financial assurance provided under this Section at any time, upon notice to and approval by EPA, provided that the new form of assurance meets the requirements of this Section. In the event of a dispute, Settling Defendants may change the form of the financial assurance only in accordance with the final administrative or judicial decision resolving the dispute.

XIV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION

50. Completion of the Remedial Action

a. Within 90 days after Settling Defendants conclude that the Remedial Action has been fully performed and the Performance Standards have been attained, Settling Defendants shall schedule and conduct a pre-certification inspection to be attended by Settling Defendants and EPA. If, after the pre-certification inspection, the Settling Defendants still believe that the Remedial Action has been fully performed and the Performance Standards have been attained, they shall submit a written report requesting certification to EPA for approval, with a copy to the State, pursuant to Section XI (EPA Approval of Plans and Other Submissions) within 30 days of the inspection. In the report, a registered professional engineer and the Settling Defendants' Project Coordinator shall state that the Remedial Action has been completed in full satisfaction of the requirements of this Consent Decree. The written report shall include as-built drawings signed and stamped by a professional engineer. The report shall contain the following statement, signed by a responsible corporate official of a Settling Defendant or the Settling Defendants' Project Coordinator:

To the best of my knowledge, after thorough investigation, I certify that the information contained in or accompanying this submission is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

If, after completion of the pre-certification inspection and receipt and review of the written report, EPA, after reasonable opportunity to review and comment by the State, determines that the Remedial Action or any portion thereof has not been completed in accordance with this Consent Decree or that the Performance Standards have not been achieved, EPA will notify Settling Defendants in writing of the activities that must be undertaken by Settling Defendants pursuant to. this Consent Decree to complete the Remedial Action and achieve the Performance Standards. Provided, however, that EPA may only require Settling Defendants to perform such activities pursuant to this Paragraph to the extent that such activities are consistent with the "scope of the remedy selected in the ROD," as that term is defined in Paragraph 14.b. EPA will set forth in the notice a schedule for performance of such activities consistent with the Consent Decree and the SOW or require the Settling Defendants to submit a schedule to EPA for approval pursuant to Section XI (EPA Approval of Plans and Other Submissions). Settling Defendants shall perform all activities described in the notice in accordance with the specifications and schedules established pursuant to this Paragraph, subject to their right to invoke the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution).

b. If EPA concludes, based on the initial or any subsequent report requesting Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action and after a reasonable opportunity for review and comment by the State, that the Remedial Action has been performed in accordance with this Consent Decree and that the Performance Standards have been achieved, EPA will so certify in writing to Settling Defendants. This certification shall constitute the Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action for purposes of this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, Section XXI (Covenants Not to Sue by Plaintiff). Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action shall not affect Settling Defendants' obligations under this Consent Decree.

51. Completion of the Work

a. Within 90 days after Settling Defendants conclude that all phases of the Work (including 0 M), have been frilly performed, Settling Defendants shall schedule and conduct a pre-certification inspection to be attended by Settling Defendants and EPA. If, after the pre-certification inspection, the Settling Defendants still believe that the Work has been fully performed, Settling Defendants shall submit a written report by a registered professional engineer stating that the Work has been completed in full satisfaction of the requirements of this Consent Decree. The report shall contain the following statement, signed by a responsible corporate official of a Settling Defendant or the Settling Defendants' Project Coordinator:

To the best of my knowledge, after thorough investigation, I certify that the information contained in or accompanying this submission is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

If, after review of the written report, EPA, after reasonable opportunity to review and comment by the State, determines that any portion of the Work has not been completed in accordance with this Consent Decree, EPA will notify Settling Defendants in writing of the activities that must be undertaken by Settling Defendants pursuant to this Consent Decree to complete the Work. Provided, however, that EPA may only require Settling Defendants to perform such activities pursuant to this Paragraph to the extent that such activities are consistent with the "scope of the remedy selected in the ROD," as that term is defined in Paragraph 14.b. EPA will set forth in the notice a schedule for performance of such activities consistent with the Consent Decree and the SOW or require the Settling Defendants to submit a schedule to EPA for approval pursuant to Section XI (EPA Approval of Plans and Other Submissions). Settling Defendants shall perform all activities described in the notice in accordance with the specifications and schedules established therein, subject to their right to invoke the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution).

b. If EPA concludes, based on the initial or any subsequent request for Certification of Completion of the Work by Settling Defendants and after a reasonable opportunity for review and comment by the State, that the Work has been performed in accordance with this Consent Decree, EPA will so notify the Settling Defendants in writing.

XV. EMERGENCY RESPONSE

52. In the event of any action or occurrence during the performance of the Work which causes or threatens a release of Waste Material from OU#2 at the Site that constitutes an emergency situation or may present an immediate threat to public health or welfare or the environment, Settling Defendants shall, upon discovery or notification of such event, subject to Paragraph 53, immediately take all appropriate action to prevent, abate, or minimize such release or threat of release, and shall immediately notify the EPA's Project Coordinator, or, if the Project Coordinator is unavailable, EPA's Alternate Project Coordinator. If neither of these persons is available, the Settling Defendants shall notify the EPA Region 4. Settling Defendants shall take such actions in consultation with EPA's Project Coordinator or other available authorized EPA officer and in accordance with all applicable provisions of the Health and Safety Plans, the Contingency Plans, and any other applicable plans or documents developed pursuant to the SOW. In the event that Settling Defendants fail to take appropriate response action as required by this Section, and EPA or, as appropriate, the State takes such action instead, Settling Defendants shall reimburse EPA and the State all costs of the response action not inconsistent with the NCP pursuant to Section XVI (Reimbursement of Response Costs).

53. Nothing in the preceding Paragraph or in this Consent Decree shall be deemed to limit any authority of the United States a) to take all appropriate action to protect human health and the environment or to prevent, abate, respond to, or minimize an actual or threatened release of Waste Material on, at, or from the Site, or b) to direct or order such action, or seek an order from the Court, to protect human health and the environment or to prevent, abate, respond to, or minimize an actual or threatened release of Waste Material on, at, or from the Site, subject to Section XXI (Covenants Not to Sue by Plaintiff).

XVI. REIMBURSEMENT OF RESPONSE COSTS

54. Within 30 days of the effective date of this Consent Decree, Settling Defendants shall pay to the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund $76,988.78 in reimbursement of Past Response Costs, by FedWire Electronic Funds Transfer ("EFT" or wire transfer) to the U.S. Department of Justice account in accordance with current electronic funds transfer procedures, referencing the U.S.A.O. file number, the EPA Region and Site/Spill ID # A406, and DOJ case number 90-11-2-912/1. Payment shall be made in accordance with instructions provided to the Settling Defendants by the Financial Litigation Unit of the United States Attorneys Office for the Southern District of Alabama following lodging of the Consent Decree. Any payments received by the Department of Justice after 4:00 P.M. (Eastern Time) will be credited on the next business day. Settling Defendants shall send notice that such payment has been made to the United States as specified in Section XXVI (Notices and Submissions) and to attn: Paula V. Batchelor; U.S. EPA Region 4; CERCLA Program Services Branch; Waste Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.; Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

55. Settling Defendants shall reimburse the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund for all Future Response Costs not inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan. The United States will, on a periodic basis, send Settling Defendants a bill requiring payment that includes a standard Regionally-prepared and/or DOJ-prepared cost summary. Settling Defendants shall make all payments within 30 days of Settling Defendants' receipt of each bill requiring payment, except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 56. The Settling Defendants shall make all payments required by this Paragraph in the form of a certified or cashier's check or checks made payable to "EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund" and referencing the EPA Region and Site/Spill ID # A406, the DOJ case number 90-11-2-912/1, and the name and address of the party making payment. The Settling Defendants shall send the check(s) to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4; Superfund Accounting; P.O. Box 100142; Atlanta, Georgia 30384 and shall send copies of the check(s) to the United States as specified in Section XXVI (Notices and Submissions) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4; CERCLA Program Services Branch; Waste Management Division; Atlanta Federal Center; 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.; Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

56. Settling Defendants may contest payment of any Future Response Costs under Paragraph 55 if they determine that the United States has made an accounting error or if they allege that a cost item that is included represents costs that are inconsistent with the NCP. Such objection shall be made in writing within 30 days of receipt of the bill and must be sent to the United States pursuant to Section XXVI (Notices and Submissions). Any such objection shall specifically identify the contested Future Response Costs and the basis for objection. In the event of an objection, the Settling Defendants shall within the 30 day period pay all uncontested Future Response Costs to the United States in the manner described in Paragraph 55. Simultaneously, the Settling Defendants shall establish an interest-bearing escrow account in a federally-insured bank duly chartered in the State of Alabama and remit to that escrow account funds equivalent to the amount of the contested Future Response Costs. The Settling Defendants shall send to the United States, as provided in Section XXVI (Notices and Submissions), a copy of the transmittal letter and check paying the uncontested Future Response Costs, and a copy of the correspondence that establishes and funds the escrow account, including, but not limited to, information containing the identity of the bank and bank account under which the escrow account is established as well as a bank statement showing the initial balance of the escrow account. Simultaneously with establishment of the escrow account, the Settling Defendants shall initiate the Dispute Resolution procedures in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution). If the United States prevails in the dispute, within 5 days of the resolution of the dispute, the Settling Defendants shall pay the sums due (with accrued interest) to the United States in the manner described in Paragraph 55. If the Settling Defendants prevail concerning any aspect of the contested costs, the Settling Defendants shall pay that portion of the costs (plus associated accrued interest) for whicH they did not prevail to the United States in the manner described in Paragraph 55; Settling Defendants shall be disbursed any balance of the escrow account. The dispute resolution procedures set forth in this Paragraph in conjunction with the procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) shall be the exclusive mechanisms for resolving disputes regarding the Settling Defendants' obligation to reimburse the United States for its Future Response Costs.

57. In the event that the payments required by Paragraph 54 are not made within 30 days of the effective date of this Consent Decree or the payments required by Paragraph 55 are not made within 30 days of the Settling Defendants' receipt of the bill, Settling Defendants shall pay Interest on the unpaid balance. The Interest to be paid on Past Response Costs under this Paragraph shall begin to accrue 30 days after the effective date of this Consent Decree. The Interest on Future Response Costs shall begin to accrue on the date of the bill. The Interest shall accrue through the date of the Settling Defendants' payment. Payments of Interest made under this Paragraph shall be in addition to such other remedies or sanctions available to Plaintiffs by virtue of Settling Defendants' failure to make timely payments under this Section. The Settling Defendants shall make all payments required by this Paragraph in the manner described in Paragraph 55.

XVII. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

58. a. The United States does not assume any liability by entering into this agreement or by virtue of any designation of Settling Defendants as EPA's authorized representatives under Section 104(e) of CERCLA. Settling Defendants shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the United States and its officials, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, or representatives for or from any and all claims or causes of action arising from, or on account of, negligent or other wrongful acts or omissions of Settling Defendants, their officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and any persons acting on their behalf or under their control, in carrying out activities pursuant to this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, any claims arising from any designation of Settling Defendants as EPA's authorized representatives under Section 104(e) of CERCLA. Further, the Settling Defendants agree to pay the United States all costs it incurs including, but not limited to, attorneys fees and other expenses of litigation and settlement arising from, or on account of, claims made against the United States based on negligent or other wrongful acts or omissions of Settling Defendants, their officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and any persons acting on their behalf or under their control, in carrying out activities pursuant to this Consent Decree. The United States shall not be held out as a party to any contract entered into by or on behalf of Settling Defendants in carrying out activities pursuant to this Consent Decree. Neither the Settling Defendants nor any such contractor shall be considered an agent of the United States.

b. The United States shall give Settling Defendants notice of any claim for which the United States plans to seek indemnification pursuant to Paragraph 58, and shall consult with Settling Defendants prior to settling such claim.

59. Except as provided in paragraph 89, Settling Defendants waive all claims against the United States for damages or reimbursement or for set-off of any payments made or to be made to the United States, arising from or on account of any contract, agreement, or arrangemenr between any one or more of Settling Defendants and any person for performance of Work on or relating to the Site, including, but not limited to, claims on account of construction delays. In addition, Settling Defendants shall indemnify and hold harmless the United States with respect to any and all claims for damages or reimbursement arising from or on account of any contract, agreement, or arrangement between any one or more of Settling Defendants and any person for performance of Work on or relating to the Site, including, but not limited to, claims on account of construction delays.

60. No later than 15 days before commencing any on-site Work, Settling Defendants shall secure, and shall maintain until the first anniversary of EPA's Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action pursuant to Paragraph 50.b of Section XIV (Certification of Completion) comprehensive general liability insurance with limits of five (5) million dollars, combined single limit, and automobile liability insurance with limits of one (1) million dollars, combined single limit, naming the United States as an additional insured. In addition, for the duration of this Consent Decree, Settling Defendants shall satisfy, or shall ensure that their contractors or subcontractors satisfy, all applicable laws and regulations regarding the provision of worker's compensation insurance for all persons performing the Work on behalf of Settling Defendants in furtherance of this Consent Decree. Prior to commencement of the Work under this Consent Decree, Settling Defendants shall provide to EPA certificates of such insurance and a copy of each insurance policy. At least 30 days prior to cancellation of any insurance required under this paragraph Settling Defendants shall provide EPA with notice of such cancellation and provide EPA with copies of certificates and policies of new insurance obtained. If Settling Defendants demonstrate by evidence satisfactory to EPA that any contractor or subcontractor maintains insurance equivalent to that described above, or insurance covering the same risks but in a lesser amount, then, with respect to that contractor or subcontractor, Settling Defendants need provide only that portion of the insurance described above which is not maintained by the contractor or subcontractor.

XVIII. FORCE MAJEURE

61. "Force majeure," for purposes of this Consent Decree, is defined as any event arising from causes beyond the control of the Settling Defendants, of any entity controlled by Settling Defendants, or of Settling Defendants' contractors, that delays or prevents the performance of any obligation under this Consent Decree despite Settling Defendants' best efforts to fulfill the obligation. The requirement that the Settling Defendants exercise "best efforts to fulfill the obligation" includes using best efforts to anticipate any potential force majeure event and best efforts to address the effects of any potential force majeure event (1) as it is occurring and (2) following the potential force majeure event, such that the delay is minimized to the greatest extent possible. "Force Majeure" does not include financial inability to complete the Work or a failure to attain the Performance Standards.

62. If any event occurs or has occurred that may delay the performance of any obligation under this Consent Decree, whether or not caused by a force majeure event, the Settling Defendants shall notify orally EPA's Project Coordinator or, in his or her absence, EPA's Alternate Project Coordinator or, in the event both of EPA's designated representatives are unavailable, the Director of the Hazardous Waste Management Division, EPA Region 4, within 96 hours of when Settling Defendants first knew that the event might cause a delay. Within ten (10) days after such oral notification, Settling Defendants shall provide in writing to EPA an explanation and description of the reasons for the delay; the anticipated duration of the delay; all actions taken or to be taken to prevent or minimize the delay; a schedule for implementation of any measures to be taken to prevent or mitigate the delay or the effect of the delay; the Settling Defendants' rationale for attributing such delay to a force majeure event if they intend to assert such a claim and a statement as to whether, in the opinion of the Settling Defendants, such event may cause or contribute to an endangerment to public health, welfare or the environment. The Settling Defendants shall include with any notice all available documentation supporting their claim that the delay was attributable to a force majeure. Failure to comply with the above requirements shall preclude Settling Defendants from asserting any claim of force majeure for that event for the period of time of such failure to comply, and for any additional delay caused by such failure. Settling Defendants shall be deemed to know of any circumstance of which Settling Defendants, any entity controlled by Settling Defendants, or Settling Defendants' contractors knew or should have known.

63. If EPA agrees that the delay or anticipated delay is attributable to a force majeure event, the time for performance of the obligations under this Consent Decree that are affected by the force majeure event will be extended by EPA for such time as is necessary to complete those obligations. An extension of the time for performance of the obligations affected by the force majeure event shall not, of itself, extend the time for performance of any other obligation. If EPA does not agree that the delay or anticipated delay has been or will be caused by a force majeure event, EPA will notify the Settling Defendants in writing of its decision. If EPA agrees that the delay is attributable to a force majeure event, EPA will notify the Settling Defendants in writing of the length of the extension, if any, for performance of the obligations affected by the force majeure event.

64. If the Settling Defendants elect to invoke the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution), they shall do so no later than 15 days after receipt of EPA's written notice. In any such proceeding, Settling Defendants shall have the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the delay or anticipated delay has been or will be caused by a force majeure event, that the duration of the delay or the extension sought was or will be warranted under the circumstances, that best efforts were exercised to avoid and mitigate the effects of the delay, and that Settling Defendants complied with the requirements of Paragraphs 61 and 62, above. If Settling Defendants carry this burden, the delay at issue shall be deemed not to be a violation by Settling Defendants of the affected obligation of this Consent Decree identified to EPA and the Court.

XIX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

65. Unless otherwise expressly provided for in this Consent Decree, the dispute resolution procedures of this Section shall be the exclusive mechanism to resolve disputes arising under or with respect to this Consent Decree. However, the procedures set forth in this Section shall not apply to actions by the United States to enforce obligations of the Settling Defendants that have not been disputed in accordance with this Section nor to disputes that do not arise under or with respect to this Consent Decree.

66. Any dispute which arises under or with respect to this Consent Decree shall in the first instance be the subject of informal negotiations between the parties to the dispute. The period for informal negotiations shall not exceed 30 days from the time the dispute arises, unless it is modified by written agreement of the parties to the dispute. The dispute shall be considered to have arisen when one party sends the other parties a written Notice of Dispute.

67. a. In the event that the parties cannot resolve a dispute by informal negotiations under the preceding Paragraph, then the position advanced by EPA shall be considered binding unless, within 30 days after the conclusion of the informal negotiation period, Settling Defendants invoke the formal dispute resolution procedures of this Section by serving on the United States a written Statement of Position on the matter in dispute, including, but not limited to, any factual data, analysis or opinion supporting that position and any supporting documentation relied upon by the Settling Defendants. The Statement of Position shall specify the Settling Defendants' position as to whether formal dispute resolution should proceed under Paragraph 68 or Paragraph 69.

b. Within 30 days after receipt of Settling Defendants' Statement of Position, EPA will serve on Settling Defendants its Statement of Position, including, but not limited to, any factual data, analysis, or opinion supporting that position and all supporting documentation relied upon by EPA. EPA's Statement of Position shall include a statement as to whether formal dispute resolution should proceed under Paragraph 68 or 69. Within 15 days after receipt of EPA's Statement of Position, Settling Defendants may submit a Reply.

c. If there is disagreement between EPA and the Settling Defendants as to whether dispute resolution should proceed under Paragraph 68 or 69, the parties to the dispute shall follow the procedures set forth in the paragraph determined by EPA to be applicable. However, if the Settling Defendants ultimately appeal to the Court to resolve the dispute, the Court shall determine which paragraph is applicable in accordance with the standards of applicability set forth in Paragraphs 68 and 69.

68. Formal dispute resolution for disputes pertaining to the selection or adequacy of any response action and all other disputes that are accorded review on the administrative record under applicable principles of administrative law shall be conducted pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Paragraph. For purposes of this Paragraph, the adequacy of any response action includes, without limitation: (1) the adequacy or appropriateness of plans, procedures to implement plans, or any other items requiring approval by EPA under this Consent Decree; and (2) the adequacy of the performance of response actions taken pursuant to this Consent Decree. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to allow any dispute by Settling Defendants regarding the validity of the ROD's provisions.

a. An administrative record of the dispute shall be maintained by EPA and shall contain all statements of position, including supporting documentation, submitted pursuant to this Section. Where appropriate, EPA will allow submission of supplemental statements of position by the parties to the dispute. The administrative record shall be available for inspection and copying by the Settling Defendants.

b. The Director of the Waste Management Division, EPA Region 4, will issue a final administrative decision resolving the dispute based on the administrative record described in Paragraph 68.a. This decision shall be binding upon the Settling Defendants, subject only to the right to seek judicial review pursuant to Paragraph 68.c. and d.

c. Any administrative decision made by EPA pursuant to Paragraph 68.b. shall be reviewable by this Court, provided that a motion for judicial review of the decision is filed by the Settling Defendants with the Court and served on all Parties within 15 days of receipt of EPA's decision. The motion shall include a description of the matter in dispute, the efforts made by the parties to resolve it, the relief requested, and the schedule, if any, within which the dispute must be resolved to ensure orderly implementation of this Consent Decree. The United States may file a response to Settling Defendants' motion.

d. In proceedings on any dispute governed by this Paragraph, Settling Defendants shall have the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the Waste Management Division Director is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. Judicial review of EPA's decision shall be on the administrative record compiled pursuant to Paragraph 68.a.

69. Formal dispute resolution for disputes that neither pertain to the selection or adequacy of any response action nor are otherwise accorded review on the administrative record under applicable principles of administrative law, shall be governed by this Paragraph.

a. Following receipt of Settling Defendants' Statement of Position submitted pursuant to Paragraph 67, the Director of the Waste Management Division, EPA Region 4, will issue a final written decision resolving the dispute. The Waste Management Division Director's decision shall be binding on the Settling Defendants unless, within 10 days of receipt of the decision, the Settling Defendants file with the Court and serve on the parties a motion for judicial review of the decision setting forth the matter in dispute, the efforts made by the parties to resolve it, the relief requested, and the schedule, if any, within which the dispute must be resolved to ensure orderly implementation of the Consent Decree. The United States may file a response to Settling Defendants' motion.

b. Notwithstanding Paragraph L of Section I (Background) of this Consent Decree, judicial review of any dispute governed by this Paragraph shall be governed by applicable principles of law.

70. The invocation of formal dispute resolution procedures under this Section shall not extend, postpone or affect in any way any obligation of the Settling Defendants under this Consent Decree, not directly in dispute, unless EPA or the Court agrees otherwise. Stipulated penalties with respect to the disputed matter shall continue to accrue but payment shall be stayed pending resolution of the dispute as provided in Paragraph 78. Notwithstanding the stay of payment, stipulated penalties shall accrue from the first day of noncompliance with any applicable provision of this Consent Decree. In the event that the Settling Defendants do not prevail on the disputed issue, stipulated penalties shall be assessed and paid as provided in Section XX (Stipulated Penalties).

XX. STIPULATED PENALTIES

71. Settling Defendants shall be liable for stipulated penalties in the amounts set forth in Paragraphs 72 and 73 to the United States for failure to comply with the requirements of this Consent Decree specified below, unless excused under Section XVIII (Force Majeure). "Compliance" by Settling Defendants shall include completion of the activities under this Consent Decree or any work plan or other plan approved under this Consent Decree identified below in accordance with all applicable requirements of law, this Consent Decree, the SOW, and any plans or other documents approved by EPA pursuant to this Consent Decree and within the specified time schedules established by and approved under this Consent Decree.

72. a. The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation per day for any noncompliance identified in subparagraph 72. b.:

Penalty Per Violation Per Day Period of Noncompliance

$1,000 1st through 14th day $2,000 15th through 30th day $3,000 31st day and beyond

b. Failure to timely or adequately submit a draft, modified, or final:

1. RD Work Plan,

2. Prefinal (95%)/Final Design,

3. RA Work Plan,

4. Remedial Action Report, or

5. Performance Standards Verification Plan.

73. For failure to timely or adequately submit any other required deliverable, document, or report not listed in paragraph 72, stipulated penalties of $1,000 per violation per day shall be payable.

74. All penalties shall begin to accrue on the day after the complete performance is due or the day a violation occurs, and shall continue to accrue through the final day of the correction of the noncompliance or completion of the activity. However, stipulated penalties shall not accrue: (1) with respect to a deficient submission under Section XI (EPA Approval of Plans and Other Submissions), during the period, if any, beginning on the 31st day after EPA's receipt of such submission until the date that EPA notifies Settling Defendants of any deficiency; (2) with respect to a decision by the Director of the Waste Management Division, EPA Region 4, under Paragraph 68.b or 69.a of Section XIX (Dispute Resolution), during the period, if any, beginning on the 21st day after the date that Settling Defendants' reply to EPA's Statement of Position is received until the date that the Director issues a final decision regarding such dispute; or (3) with respect to judicial review by this Court of any dispute under Section XIX (Dispute Resolution), during the period, if any, beginning on the 31st day after the Court's receipt of the final submission regarding the dispute until the date that the Court issues a final decision regarding such dispute. Nothing herein shall prevent the simultaneous accrual of separate penalties for separate violations of this Consent Decree.

75. Following EPA's determination that Settling Defendants have failed to comply with a requirement of this Consent Decree, EPA may give Settling Defendants written notification of the same and describe the noncompliance. EPA may send the Settling Defendants a written demand for the payment of the penalties. However, penalties shall accrue as provided in the preceding Paragraph regardless of whether EPA has notified the Settling Defendants of a violation.

76. All penalties accruing under this Section shall be due and payable to the United States within 30 days of the Settling Defendants' receipt from EPA of a demand for payment of the penalties1 unless Settling Defendants invoke the Dispute Resolution procedures under Section XIX (Dispute Resolution). All payments to the United States under this Section shall be paid by certified or cashier's check(s) made payable to "EPA Hazardous Substances Superfund," shall be mailed to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 4; Superfund Accounting; P.O. Box 100142; Atlanta, Georgia 30384, shall indicate that the payment is for stipulated penalties, and shall reference the EPA Region and Site/Spill ID #A406, the DOJ Case Number 90-11-2-912/1, and the name and address of the party making payment. Copies of check(s) paid pursuant to this Section, and any accompanying transmittal letter(s), shall be sent to the United States as provided in Section XXVI (Notices and Submissions), and to attn Paula V. Batchelor; U.S. EPA Region 4; CERCLA Program Services Branch; Waste Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.: Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

77. The payment of penalties shall not alter in any way Settling Defendants' obligation to complete the performance of the Work required under this Consent Decree.

78. Penalties shall continue to accrue as provided in Paragraph 74 during any dispute resolution period, but need not be paid until the following:

a. If the dispute is resolved by agreement or by a decision of EPA that is not appealed to this Court, accrued penalties determined to be owing shall be paid to EPA within 15 days of the agreement or the receipt of EPA's decision or order;

b. If the dispute is appealed to this Court and the United States prevails in whole or in part, Settling Defendants shall pay all accrued penalties determined by the Court to be owed to EPA within 60 days of receipt of the Court's decision or order, except as provided in Subparagraph c below;

c. If the District Court's decision is appealed by any Party, Settling Defendants shall pay all accrued penalties determined by the District Court to be owing to the United States into an interest-bearing escrow account within 60 days of receipt of the District Court's decision or order. Penalties shall be paid into this account as they continue to accrue, at least every 60 days. Within 15 days of receipt of the final appellate court decision, the escrow agent shall pay the balance of the account to EPA or to Settling Defendants to the extent that they prevail.

79. a. If Settling Defendants fail to pay stipulated penalties when due, the United States may institute proceedings to collect the penalties, as well as interest. Settling Defendants shall pay Interest on the unpaid balance, which shall begin to accrue on the date of demand made pursuant to Paragraph 76.

b. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed as prohibiting, altering, or in any way limiting the ability of the United States to seek any other remedies or sanctions available by virtue of Settling Defendants' violation of this Consent Decree or of the statutes and regulations upon which it is based, including, but not limited to, penalties pursuant to Section 122(1) of CERCLA. Provided, however, that the United States shall not seek civil penalties pursuant to Section 122(1) of CERCLA for any violation for which a stipulated penalty is provided herein, except in the case of a willful violation of the Consent Decree.

80. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, the United States may, in its unreviewable discretion, waive any portion of stipulated penalties that have accrued pursuant to this Consent Decree.

XXI. COVENANTS NOT TO SUE BY PLAINTIFF

81. In consideration of the actions that will be performed and the payments that will be made by the Settling Defendants under the terms of the Consent Decree, and except as specifically provided in Paragraphs 82, 83, and 85 of this Section, the United States covenants not to sue or to take administrative action against Settling Defendants pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA relating to OU#2 at the Site. Except with respect to future liability, these covenants not to sue shall take effect upon the receipt by EPA of the payments required by Paragraph 54 of Section XVI (Reimbursement of Response Costs). With respect to future liability, these covenants not to sue shall take effect upon Certification of Completion of Remedial Action by EPA pursuant to Paragraph 50.b of Section XIV (Certification of Completion). These covenants not to sue are conditioned upon the satisfactory performance by Settling Defendants of their obligations under this Consent Decree. These covenants not to sue extend only to the Settling Defendants and do not extend to any other person.

82. United States' Pre-certification Reservations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent Decree, the United States reserves, and this Consent Decree is without prejudice to, the right to institute proceedings in this action or in a new action, or to issue an administrative order seeking to compel Settling Defendants

a. to perform further response actions relating to OU#2 at the Site or

b. to reimburse the United States for additional costs of response if, prior to Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action:

(1) conditions at OU#2 at the Site, previously unknown to EPA, are discovered, or

(2) information, previously unknown to EPA, is received, in whole or in part,

and these previously unknown conditions or information together with any other relevant information indicates that the Remedial Action is not protective of human health or the environment.

83. United States' Post-certification Reservations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent Decree, the United States reserves, and this Consent Decree is without prejudice to, the right to institute proceedings in this action or in a new action, or to issue an administrative order seeking to compel Settling Defendants

a. to perform further response actions relating to OU#2 at the Site or

b. to reimburse the United States for additional costs of response if, subsequent to Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action:

(1) conditions at OU#2 at the Site, previously unknown to EPA, are discovered, or

(2) information, previously unknown to EPA, is received, in whole or in part, and these previously unknown conditions or this information together with other relevant information indicate that the Remedial Action is not protective of human health or the environment.

84. For purposes of Paragraph 82, the information and the conditions known to EPA shall include only that information and those conditions known to EPA as of the date the ROD was signed and set forth in the Record of Decision for the Site and the administrative record supporting the Record of Decision. For purposes of Paragraph 83, the information and the conditions known to EPA shall include only that information and those conditions known to EPA as of the date of Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action and set forth in the Record of Decision, the administrative record supporting the Record of Decision, the post-ROD administrative record, or in any information received by EPA pursuant to the requirements of this Consent Decree prior to Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action.

85. General reservations of rights. The covenants not to sue set forth above do not pertain to any matters other than those expressly specified in Paragraph 81. The United States reserves, and this Consent Decree is without prejudice to, all rights against Settling Defendants with respect to all other matters, including but not limited to, the following:

a. claims based on a failure by Settling Defendants to meet a requirement of this Consent Decree;

b. liability arising from the past, present, or future disposal, release, or threat of release of Waste Materials outside of OU#2 at the Site;

c. liability for future disposal of Waste Material at the Site, other than as provided in the ROD, the Work, or otherwise ordered by EPA;

d. liability for damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, and for the costs of any natural resource damage assessments;

e. criminal liability;

f. liability for violations of federal or state law which occur during or after implementation of the Remedial Action;

g. liability, prior to Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action, for additional response actions that EPA determines are necessary to achieve Performance Standards, but that cannot be required pursuant to Paragraph 14 (Modification of the SOW or Related Work Plans);

h. liability for operable units #1 or #3 at the Site; and

i. liability for costs that the United States will incur related to the Site but are not within the definition of Future Response Costs.

86. Work Takeover In the event EPA determines that Settling Defendants have ceased implementation of any portion of the Work, are seriously or repeatedly deficient or late in their performance of the Work, or are implementing the Work in a manner which may cause an endangerment to human health or the environment, EPA may assume the performance of all or any portions of the Work as EPA determines necessary. Settling Defendants may invoke the procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution), Paragraph 68, to dispute EPA's determination that takeover of the Work is warranted under this Paragraph. Costs incurred by the United States in performing the Work pursuant to this Paragraph shall be considered Future Response Costs that Settling Defendants shall pay pursuant to Section XVI (Reimbursement of Response Costs).

87. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent Decree, the United States retains all authority and reserves all rights to take any and all response actions authorized by law. Settling Defendants retain all their constitutional, common law, and other rights and defenses, if any, to such response actions.

XXII. COVENANTS BY SETTLING DEFENDANTS

88. Covenant Not to Sue. Subject to the reservations in Paragraph 89, Settling Defendants hereby covenant not to sue and agree not to assert any claims or causes of action against the United States with respect to: the Work, past response actions for OU#2 at the Site, and Past and Future Response Costs as defined herein or this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to:,

a. any direct or indirect claim for reimbursement from the Hazardous Substance Superfund (established pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 9507) through CERCLA Sections 106(b)(2), 107, 111, 112, 113 or any other provision of law;

b. any claims against the United States, including any department, agency or instrumentality of the United States under CERCLA Sections 107 or 113 related to OU#2 at the Site, or

c. any claims arising out of response activities for OU#2 at the Site, including claims based on EPA's selection of response actions, oversight of response activities or approval of plans for such activities.

89. The Settling Defendants reserve, and this Consent Decree is without prejudice to, claims against the United States, subject to the provisions of Chapter 171 of Title 28 of the United States Code, for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the United States while acting within the scope of his office or employment under circumstances where the Umted States, ifa private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. However, any such claim shall not include a claim for any damages caused, in whole or in part, by the act or omission of any person, including any contractor, who is not a federal employee as that term is defined in 28 U.S.C. § 2671; nor shall any such claim include a claim based on EPA's selection of response actions, or the oversight or approval of the Settling Defendants' plans or activities. The foregoing applies only to claims which are brought pursuant to any statute other than CERCLA and for which the waiver of sovereign immunity is found in a statute other than CERCLA;

90. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be deemed to constitute preauthorization of a claim within the meaning of Section 111 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9611, or 40 C.F.R. § 300.700 (d).

XXIII. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT; CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION

91. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to create any rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any person not a Party to this Consent Decree. The preceding sentence shall not be construed to waive or nullify any rights that any person not a signatory to this decree may have under applicable law. Each of the Parties expressly reserves any and all rights (including, but not limited to, any right to contribution), defenses, claims, demands, and causes of action which each Party may have with respect to any matter, transaction, or occurrence relating in any way to the Site against any person not a Party hereto.

92. The Parties agree, and by entering this Consent Decree this Court finds, that the Settling Defendants are entitled, as of the effective date of this Consent Decree, to protection from contribution actions or claims as provided by CERCLA Section 113(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 9613 (f)(2) for matters addressed in this Consent Decree.

93. The Settling Defendants agree that with respect to any suit or claim for contribution brought by them for matters related to this Consent Decree they will notify the United States in writing no later than 60 days prior to the initiation of such suit or claim.

94. The Settling Defendants also agree that with respect to any suit or claim for contribution brought against them for matters related to this Consent Decree they will notify in writing the United States within 14 days of service of the complaint on them. In addition, Settling Defendants shall notify the United States within 14 days of service or receipt of any Motion for Summary Judgment and within 10 days of receipt of any order from a court setting a case for trial.

95. In any subsequent administrative or judicial proceeding initiated by the United States for injunctive relief, recovery of response costs, or other appropriate relief relating to OU#2 at the Site, Settling Defendants shall not assert, and may not maintain, any defense or claim based upon the principles of waiver, res judicata. collateral estoppel, issue preclusion, claimsplitting, or other defenses based upon any contention that the claims raised by the United States in the subsequent proceeding were or should have been brought in the instant case; provided, however, that nothing in this Paragraph affects the enforceability of the covenants not to sue set forth in Section XXI (Covenants Not to Sue by Plaintiff).

XXIV. ACCESS TO INFORMATION

96. Settling Defendants shall provide to EPA, upon request, copies of all documents and information within their possession or control or that of their contractors or agents relating to the Work at OU#2 at the Site or to the implementation of this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, sampling, analysis, chain of custody records, manifests, trucking logs, receipts, reports, sample traffic routing, correspondence, or other documents or information related to the Work. Settling Defendants shall also make available to EPA, for purposes of investigation, information gathering, or testimony, their employees, agents, or representatives with knowledge of relevant facts concerning the performance of the Work.

97. a. Settling Defendants may assert business confidentiality claims covering part or all of the documents or niformation submitted to Plaintiffs under this Consent Decree to the extent permitted by and in accordance with Section 104(e)(7) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9604 (e)(7), and 40 C.F.R. § 2.203 (b). Documents or information determined to be confidential by EPA will be afforded the protection specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies documents or information when they are submitted to EPA, or if EPA has notified Settling Defendants that the documents or information are not confidential under the standards of Section 104(e)(7) of CERCLA, the public may be given access to such documents or information without further notice to Settling Defendants.

b. The Settling Defendants may assert that certain documents, records and other information are privileged under the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege recognized by federal law. If the Settling Defendants assert such a privilege in lieu of providing documents, they shall provide the Plaintiffs with the following: (1) the title of the document, record, or information; (2) the date of the document, record, or information; (3) the name and title of the author of the document, record, or information; (4) the name and title of each addressee and recipient; (5) a description of the contents of the document, record, or information: and (6) the privilege asserted by Settling Defendants. However, no documents, reports or other information created or generated pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree shall be withheld on the grounds that they are privileged.

98. No claim of confidentiality shall be made with respect to any data, including, but not limited to, all sampling, analytical, monitoring, hydrogeologic, scientific, chemical, or engineering data, or any other documents or information evidencing conditions at or around OU#2 at the Site.

XXV. RETENTION OF RECORDS

99. Until 10 years after the Settling Defendants' receipt of EPA's notification pursuant to Paragraph 51.b of Section XIV (Certification of Completion of the Work), each Settling Defendant shall preserve and retain all records and documents now in its possession or control or which come into its possession or control that relate in any manner to the performance of the Work or liability of any person for response actions conducted and to be conducted at OU#2 at the Site, regardless of any corporate retention policy to the contrary. Until 10 years after the Settling Defendants' receipt of EPA's notification pursuant to Paragraph 51.b of Section XIV (Certification of Completion of the Work), Settling Defendants shall also instruct their contractors and agents to preserve all documents, records, and information of whatever kind, nature or description relating to the performance of the Work.

100. At the conclusion of this document retention period, Settling Defendants shall notify the United States at least 90 days prior to the destruction of any such records or documents, and, upon request by the United States, Settling Defendants shall deliver any such records or documents to EPA. The Settling Defendants may assert that certain documents, records and other information are privileged under the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege recognized by federal law. If the Settling Defendants assert such a privilege, they shall provide the Plaintiffs with the following: (1) the title of the document, record, or information; (2) the datc of the document, record, or information; (3) the name and title of the author of the document, record, or information; (4) the name and title of each addressee and recipient; (5) a description of the subject of the document, record, or information; and (6) the pnvilege asserted by Settling Defendants. However, no documents, reports or other information created or generated pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree shall be withheld on the grounds that they are privileged.

101. Each Settling Defendant hereby certifies individually that, to the best of its knowledge and belief, after thorough inquiry, it has not altered, mutilated, discarded, destroyed or otherwise disposed of any records, documents or.other information relating to its potential liability regarding the Site since notification of potential liability by the United States or the State or the filing of suit against it regarding OU#2 at the Site and that, to the best of its knowledge and belief, after thorough inquiry, it has fully complied with any and all EPA requests for information pursuant to Section 104(e) and 122(e) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e) and 9622(e), and Section 3007 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6927.

XXVI. NOTICES AND SUBMISSIONS

102. Whenever, under the terms of this Consent Decree, written notice is required to be given or a report or other document is required to be sent by one Party to another, it shall be directed to the individuals at the addresses specified below, unless those individuals or their successors give notice of a change to the other Parties in writing. All notices and submissions shall be considered effective upon receipt, unless otherwise provided. Written notice as specified herein shall constitute complete satisfaction of any written notice requirement of the Consent Decree with respect to the United States, EPA, and the Settling Defendants, respectively.

As to the United States: Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section Environment and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 7611 Washington, D.C. 20044-7611 Re: DOJ # 90-11-2-912/1 and Director, Waste Management Division United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303

As to EPA: Annie Godfrey EPA Project Coordinator United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303

As to the Settling Defendants: Marie Pittiganano Manager, Environmental Remediation CK Witco Corporation One American Lane Greenwich, Connecticut 06831-2559

XXVII. EFFECTIVE DATE

103. The effective date of this Consent Decree shall be the date upon which this Consent Decree is entered by the Court, except as otherwise provided herein.

XXVIII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

104. This Court retains jurisdiction over both the subject matter of this Consent Decree and the Settling Defendants for the duration of the performance of the terms and provisions of this Consent Decree for the purpose of enabling any of the Parties to apply to the Court at any time for such further order, direction, and relief as may be necessary or appropriate for the construction or modification of this Consent Decree, or to effectuate or enforce compliance with its terms, or to resolve disputes in accordance with Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) hereof

XXIX. APPENDICES

105. The following appendices are attached to and incorporated into this Consent Decree:

"Appendix A" is the ROD.

"Appendix B" is the SOW.

"Appendix C" is the description and/or map of the Site.

XXX. COMMUNITY RELATIONS

106. Upon EPA's request, Settling Defendants shall propose to EPA their participation in the community relations plan to be developed by EPA. EPA will determine the appropriate role for the Settling Defendants under the Plan. Settling Defendants shall also cooperate with EPA in providing information regarding the Work to the public. As requested by EPA, Settling Defendants shall participate in the preparation of such information for dissemination to the public and inpublic meetings which may be held or sponsored by EPA to explain activities at or relating to the Site.

XXXI. MODIFICATION

107. Schedules specified in this Consent Decree for completion of the Work may be modified by agreement of EPA and the Settling Defendants. All such modifications shall be made in writing.

108. Except as provided in Paragraph 14 ("Modification of the SOW or related Work Plans"), no material modifications shall be made to the SOW without written notification to and written approval of the United States, Settling Defendants, and the Court. Prior to providing its approval to any modification, the United States will provide the State with a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on the proposed modification. Modifications to the SOW that do not materially alter that document may be made by written agreement between EPA, after providing the State with a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on the proposed modification, and the Settling Defendants.

109. Nothing in this Decree shall be deemed to alter the Court's power to enforce, supervise or approve modifications to this Consent Decree.

XXXII. LODGING AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

110. This Consent Decree shall be lodged with the Court for a period of not less than thirty (30) days for public notice and comment in accordance with Section 122(d)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9622 (d)(2), and 28 C.F.R. § 50.7. The United States reserves the right to withdraw or withhold its consent if the comments regarding the Consent Decree disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the Consent Decree is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. Settling Defendants consent to the entry of this Consent Decree without further notice.

111. If for any reason the Court should decline to approve this Consent Decree in the form presented, this agreement is voidable at the sole discretion of any Party and the terms of the agreement may not be used as evidence in any litigation between the Parties.

XXXIII. SIGNATORIES/SERVICE

112. Each undersigned representative of a Settling Defendant to this Consent Decree and the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice certifies that he or she is fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree and to execute and legally bind such Party to this document.

113. Each Settling Defendant hereby agrees not to oppose entry of this Consent Decree by this Court or to challenge any provision of this Consent Decree unless the United States has notified the Settling Defendants in writing that it no longer supports entry of the Consent Decree.

114. Each Settling Defendant shall identify, on the attached signature page, the name, address and telephone number of an agent who is authorized to accept service of process by mail on behalf of that Party with respect to all matters arising under or relating to this Consent Decree. Settling Defendants hereby agree to accept service in that manner and to waive the formal service requirements set forth in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable local rules of this Court, including, but not limited to, service of a summons.

XXXIV. FINAL JUDGMENT

115. Upon approval and entry of this Consent Decree by the Court, this Consent Decree shall constitute a final judgment between and among the United States and the Settling Defendants.

THE UNDERSIGNED PARTY enters into this Consent Decree in the matter of United States v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. and CK Witco Corporation, relating to QU#2 at the Stauffer Chem (Le Moyne Plant) Superfund Site.

9-28-00 Bruce S. Gelber Deputy Chief Enviromental Enforcement Section Enviromental and Natural Resources Division

10-10-00 Quentin C. Pair Trial Attorney Enviromental Enforcement Section Enviromental and Natural Resources Division

J. Don Foster United States Attorney Southern District of Alabama

10-10-00 By: Edward J. Vulevich, Jr. Chief, Civil Branch Southern District of Alabama Riverview Plaza 63 S. Royal Street, Suite 600 Mobile, Alabama 36602

THE UNDERSIGNED PARTY enters into this Consent Decree in the matter of United States v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. and CK Witco Corporation, relating to OU#2 at the Stauffer Chem (Le Moyne Plant) Superfund Site.

5-1-00 Richard D. Green, Director Waste Management Division Region 4 U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency

3-23-00 Gregory D. Luetscher Associate Regional Counsel Region 4 U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency

THE UNDERSIGNED PARTY enters into this Consent Decree in the matter of United States v. AKzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. and CK Witco Corporation, relating to OU#2 at the Stauffer Chem (Le Moyne Plant) Superfund Site.

FOR: Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. (Please Type Name of Settling Defendant)

BY: ______________________ Date:______________ (Your Signature)

Pier Provo Kluit (Please Type or Clearly Print Name)

President (Your Title)

Address: 300 South Riverside Plaza Chicago, IL. 60606

Agent Authorized to Accept Service on Behalf of Above-signed Party:

Name(print): Jeffrey T. Massari Title: Assistant General Counsel Address: 300 South Riverside Plaza Chicago, IL. 60606

Phone #: (312) 906-7653

THE UNDERSIGNED PARTY enters into this Consent Decree in the matter of United States v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. and OK W?tco Corporation, relating to OU#2 at the Stauffer Chem (Le Moyne Plant) Superfund Site.

FOR: CK Witco Corporation (Please Type Name of Settling Defendant)

BY: ____________________ Date: __________________ (Your Signature)

Joseph J. Waiter (Please Type or Clearly Print Name)

Deputy General Counsel (Your Title)

Address: One American Lane Greenwich, CT O6931

Agent Authorized to Accept Service on Behalf of Above-signed Party

Name (print): Title: Address:

Phone #:

APPENDIX A RECORD OF DECISION RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (LEMOYNE PLANT) SITE OPERABLE UNIT TWO AXIS, MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA PREPARED BY U.S. ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA, GEORGIA TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT

5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5.1 GEOLOGY/SOILS 5.2 SURFACE WATER 5.3 HYDROGEOLOGY 5.4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 5.5 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTIRE SITE AND RESOURCE USES

6.0 SUMMARY OF OPERABLE UNIT TWO RISKS 6.1 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN 6.2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 6.3 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT 6.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 6.5 ECOLOGICAL RISK 6.6 REMEDIATION OBJECTIVES

7.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 7.1 ALTERNATIVE NO. 0 — NO ACTION 7.2 ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 — INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS 7.3 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 — MULTI-LAYER CAP 7.4 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 — EXCAVATION AND OFFSITE DISPOSAL 7.5 ALTERNATIVE NO. 4 — EXCAVATION AND EX-SITU ONSITE BIOREMEDIATION 7.6 ALTERNATIVE NO. 5 — EXCAVATION AND EX-SITU BIOREMEDIATION/IN-SITU SOIL FLUSHING 7.7 ALTERNATIVE NO. 6 — EXCAVATION AND OFFSITE DISPOSAL/IN-SITU FLUSHING 7.8 ALTERNATIVE NO. 7 — IN-SITU SOIL FLUSHING 7.9 ALTERNATIVE NO. 8 — ASPHALT CAP

8.0 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 8.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT 8.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS 8.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE 8.4 REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY OR VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT 8.5 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS 8.6 IMPLEMENTABILITY 8.7 COST 8.8 STATE ACCEPTANCE 8.9 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE 9.0 SUMMARY OF SELECTED REMEDY 9.1 SOIL REMEDY 9.2 PERFORMANCE STANDAREDS FOR SOIL

10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATION 10.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIROMENT 10.2 ATTAINMENT OF THE APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs) 10.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS

11.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

TABLES

TABLE 5-1 — SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM CARBON TETRACHLORIDE POND SOIL BORING DATA TABLE 5-2 — SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM CARBON DISULFIDE POND SIL BORING DATA TABLE 5-3 — SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM FORMER HALBY AREA BORING DATA TABLE 5-4 — SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT DATA AT THE OLD FIREWATER POND TABLE 5-5 — SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT DATA AT THE UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TABLE 6-1 — SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN TABLE 6-2 — EXPOSURE CONCENTRATIONS AT HALBY POND AREA TABLE 6-3 — EXPOSURE CONCENTRATION AT CARBON DISULFIDE POND AND OIL CARBON TETRACHLORIDE WWT POND TABLE 6-4 — EXPOSURE CONCENTRATION AT OLD FIREWATER POND AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TABLE 6-5 — CANCER SLOPE FACTORS FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN TABLE 6-6 — REFERENCE DOSES FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN TABLE 6-7 — TOTAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH DERMAL CONTACT, INHALATION AND INGESTION TABLE 6-8 — COMPARISON OF OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS TO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA TABLE 6-9 — PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SUBSURFACE SOILS TABLE 6-10 — STATUS OF ELIMINATION POTENTIAL SOURCE AREAS TABLE 9-1 — SUBSURFACE SOIL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TABLE 9-2 — SUMMARY OF SELECTED REMEDY COSTS TABLE 10-1 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS

FIGURES

Figure 1 — Area Map Figure 2 — Site Map

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 — Responsiveness Summary Appendix 2 — State Concurrence Letter

DECLARATION of the RECORD OF DECISION OPERABLE UNIT TWO

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Stauffer Chemical Co.(LeMoyne Plant) Site, Operable Unit Two Axis, Mobile County, Alabama

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document (Record of Decision), presents the selected Remedial Action for Operable Unit Two for the Stauffer Chemical Co.(LeMoyne Plant) Site ("Stauffer LeMoyne Site" or "Site"), Operable Unit Two, Axis, Mobile County, Alabama, developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) 40 C.F.R. Part 300. This decision is based on the administrative record for the Stauffer site.

The State of Alabama, as represented by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), has been the support agency during the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study process for the Stauffer LeMoyne Site. In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 300.430, as the support agency, ADEM has provided input during this process. The State of Alabama, as represented by ADEM, has concurred with the selected remedy.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Stauffer LeMoyne Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare or the environment.

DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY

This operable unit is the second of three for the Site. This alternative requires the design and implementation of response measures which will protect human health and the environment. EPA signed a ROD for the first operable unit on September 27, 1989. The first operable unit addressed the groundwater contamination at this Site and the Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Plant) Site ("Stauffer Cold Creek Site"). The remedy for the first operable unit is ongoing. The second operable unit addresses the source contamination in the subsurface soil. The ROD for the second operable unit will be the last ROD for the Stauffer LeMoyne Site. EPA signed a ROD for the third operable unit on September 17, 1993. The third operable unit, which addresses contamination in the Cold Creek Swamp, is in the remedial design phase.

The major components of the selected remedy for operable unit two are:

Institutional controls to restrict construction on the former Halby area until the subsurface soil performance standards are met and to restrict the Stauffer LeMoyne Site from converting to residential use until such time as EPA determines through a risk assessment that the Site is available for unrestricted use,

Construction of a soil flushing system in the former Halby area to accelerate the migration of contaminants from the subsurface soil into the groundwater where contaminants will be captured and treated by the existing OU1 groundwater remedy,

Monitoring of subsurface soil for cyanide and thiocyanate in the former Halby area on an annual basis to ensure that contaminants are moving into the groundwater in a controlled manner where they will be captured and treated by the OU1 groundwater remedy, and

Periodic reporting of annual monitoring results to EPA.

Because a risk assessment for a future residential scenario was not performed for OU2 of the Site, institutional controls restricting the Site from use as residential property must remain in place until a human health risk assessment is conducted which demonstrates to EPA that the Site does not pose any unacceptable risks to fliture residents. Restriction of construction on the former Halby area is necessary to allow soil flushing to occur in this area. Monitoring of groundwater concentrations will continue under the OU1 remedy. The cost of the 0U2 remedy is estimated to be $501,000.

The selected remedy will address the principal threat waste of thiocyanate in the subsurface soil. Thiocyanate is highly mobile to the groundwater and will continue to move into the groundwater in an uncontrolled manner, if the remedy is not implemented. The selected remedy also addresses the low-level threat of cyanide in the subsurface soil. This remedy will accelerate and monitor the movement of contaminants from the subsurface soil into the groundwater, and will be able to control the movement, if necessary.

This remedy is preferred over the other alternatives considered due to its cost effectiveness and short term effectiveness. This remedy will protect human health and the environment and will meet all applicable or relevant and appropriate regulations, while minimizing the expenditure of resources.

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate, and is cost-effective. This remedy satisfies the preference for treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element. Treatment is provided by flushing contamination from the subsurface soil. Further treatment is provided by the OU1 groundwater remedy. Finally, it is determined that this remedy utilizes a permanent solution and alternative treatment technology to the maximum extent practicable.

ROD DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST

The following information is included in the Decision Summary section of this Record of Decision. Additional information can be found in the Administrative Record file for this site.

Chemicals of concern (COCs) and their respective concentrations

Baseline risk represented by the COCs

Cleanup levels established for COCs and the basis for the levels

Current and future land and groundwater use assumptions use in the baseline risk assessment and ROD

Land and groundwater use that will be available at the site as a result of the Selected Remedy

Estimated capital, operation and maintenance (OM), and total present worth costs; discount rate; and the number of years over which the remedy cost estimates are projected

Decisive factors that led to selecting the remedy

This remedy is based on risk assessments for industrial use scenarios. Contamination may be present which would restrict the use of this property for residential use. Because this remedy may result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a review will be conducted within five years after initiation of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.

Decision Summary Record of Decision Operable Unit Two Stauffer Chemical Co. (LeMoyne Plant) Superfund Site Operable Unit Two Axis, Mobile County, Alabama

1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Stauffer Chemical Co. (LeMoyne Plant) Superfund Site (hereinafter, "Stauffer LeMoyne" or "the Site") is located approximately 20 miles north of Mobile Alabama on U.S. Highway 43. The CERCLIS identification number for the Site is ALD008161176. For an area location map and general Site map, see Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The Site encompasses approximately 730 acres. The Site is an industrial facility bounded by the Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Plant) site ("Stauffer Cold Creek) on the north, Courtaulds North America, another chemical company on the south, the Mobile River on the east, and Highway 43 on the west. The area is predominantly industrial, with a few small rural residential communities within a few miles of the site. The site is currently owned and operated by Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (Ak.zo) which manufactures carbon disulfide, sulfuric acid, and a proprietary sulfur compound at the facility.

2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

The Stauffer LeMoyne site was previously owned by Stauffer Chemical Company ("Stauffer"), which began operations in 1953. In 1987, the facility was purchased by Akzo Chemie America, Inc., now called Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. Wastewaters from the Stauffer LeMoyne processes were held in ponds, some of which discharged to the Cold Creek Swamp. All of these ponds except for one were clay-lined and were closed under the direction of AWIC. Several membranelined ponds, which are currently active, were installed during the 1970's to replace those mentioned above. One of these is regulated by a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit.

From 1965 to 1979, a small portion of land on the western end of the LeMoyne site was leased by Stauffer to the Halby Chemical Company (HCC), which manufactured dye chemicals. This area is located adjacent to the Norfolk-Southern Railroad line and is approximately 700 feet north of the main entrance to the Stauffer LeMoyne site. Witco, Inc. purchased the HCC facility (the "former Halby area") in 1974, and continued to operate the plant until 1979. The plant used the following raw materials: carbon disulfide, ammonia, caustic soda, ethylene oxide, methyl acrylate, hydrogen sulfide, and para-toluenesulfonic acid. The plant produced ammonium thiocyanate. sodium thiocyanate, ammonium sulfide, sodium sulfur hydrate, thiodiglycolate, and methyl mercaptopropionic acid as products and by-products.

SWMU LEGEND

1 — COLD CREEK NORTH LANDFILL 2 — COLD CREEK LECREEK WASTE WATER TREATMENT POND 3 — COLD CREEK OLD NEUTRALIZATION POND 4 — COLD CREEK SOUTH LANDFILL 5 — FORMER HALBY POND AREA 6 — NORTH CHECK POND 7 — OLD CHLORINE PLANT WASTE WATER TREATMENT POND 8 — UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 9 — OLD BRINE MUD POND 10 — OLD FIREWATER POND 11 — CARBON DISULFIDE WASTE WATER TREATMENT POND 12 — OLD CARBON TETRACHLORIDE PLANT WASTE WATER TREATMENT POND 13 — LBMOYNE LECREEK TREATMENT POND 14 — NEW CARBON TETRACHLORIDE PLANT WASTE WATER TREATMENT POND 15 — LBMOYNE LANDFILL 16 — LBMOYNE LANDFILL SULFUR SPILL AREA 17 — LBMOYNE SWAMP SULFUR SPILL AREA 18 — LBMOYNE SWAMP

A waste pond ("the Halby Pond") was located in the southwest portion of the former Halby area, adjacent to the Norfolk Southern Railroad. Waste products and effluents, including thiocyanates, were reportedly discharged to this pond. The pond was approximately 5,000 square feet in area and may have been clay-lined. In 1979, the facility closed the pond by filling it with soil and possibly other debris from demolition work in the former Halby area. The pond does not have an impermeable cap.

Disposal practices led to soil and groundwater contamination which was discovered by Stauffer and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) in the early 1970's when contaminants were detected in both on-site and off-site wells. Several improvements and wastehandling modifications were made including the construction of lined wastewater ponds and the closure of some of the old unlined ponds. In 1973, Stauffer installed twenty-one groundwater monitoring wells. By 1977, the water quality had deteriorated substantially and seven observation wells were place at the southern property line of the Stauffer LeMoyne site. Using the results from a hydrogeological investigation performed by Stauffer, three interceptor wells accompanied by an air stripper were installed on the Stauffer LeMoyne site in late 1980. The system was approved by the Alabama Water Improvement Commission (AWIC) which is now ADEM.

The Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) conducted an assessment of the site in 1982. At the advice of ADPH, additional monitoring wells were installed around the LeMoyne Landfill which is located on the eastern side of the Stauffer LeMoyne site. Data from these wells formed the basis for placing the Site on the National Priorities List in September 1983.

Previous investigations at the site include a remedial investigation for Operable Unit One (OU1), which focused on groundwater. This investigation was started in 1985 and completed in 1988. A RCRA facility assessment was conducted in 1992. In addition, an evaluation of selected source areas (contaminated ponds, soils, and sediments) from the Stauffer LeMoyne site and Stauffer Cold Creek site was conducted to determine if evidence existed to suggest that the source areas were releasing contaminants to the groundwater.

In 1984 EPA Region 4 sent a general notice letter to Stauffer Chemical Company notiiying them of potential liability for contamination at the Stauffer Chemical Co. Site (which originally included both the Stauffer LeMoyne and the Stauffer Cold Creek sites). Stauffer agreed to conduct a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) under a consent agreement with EPA and the current owners completed the work. The present owner, Akzo, agreed to prepare a RI/FS for 0U2. Alczo completed the RI/FS for 0U2 under EPA's direction. This study included evaluations of possible risk and measures to reduce risk.

3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

As part of the earlier work for the Stauffer LeMoyne and Stauffer Cold Creek sites, a community relations plan was completed in September 1985. In May 1986, EPA distributed a fact sheet describing the site history and findings of investigations conducted at the sites. A fact sheet announcing EPA's proposed plan for Operable Unit One for both sites was issued in July 1989. A public comment period with a public meeting was opened to solicit comments on the proposed remedial action at both sites. EPA signed a Record of Decision for OUI of the Stauffer LeMoyne and Stauffer Cold Creek sites on September 17, 1989.

The public comment period on the proposed plan for this ROD (operable unit two) was July 31, 1998 through September 30, 1998. A public meeting was not requested by the public The administrative record was available to the public at both the information repository maintained at the Satsuma Branch Library in Satsuma, Alabama, and at the EPA Region IV Library at 61 Forsyth Street in Atlanta, Georgia. The notice of availability of these documents was published in the Mobile Register on July 31, 1998. The notice of the extension to the public comments period was published on September 3, 1998 in the Mobile Register. Responses to the significant comments received during the public comment period are included in the Responsiveness Summary which is part of this ROD (Appendix A).

This decision document presents the selected remedial action for operable unit two of the Stauffer LeMoyne site, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended, and the NCP. The decision for this Site is based on the administrative record. The requirements under Section 117 of CERCLA/SARA for public and state participation have been met.

4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT

EPA has organized the work at this Superfi.ind Site into three operable units (OUs). The Site was divided into three operable units after EPA determined that additional investigations and treatability studies were necessary before EPA could make decisions on the source areas and swamp. These units are:

OU 1: Contaminated groundwater underlying the Site which is being addressed by an ongoing operations and maintenance of the pump and treat remedy. EPA signed a ROD for OU1 on September 17, 1989. The purpose of operable unit one was to initiate groundwater restoration and reduce contaminant migration into the groundwater. Future ingestion of groundwater extracted from the aquifer poses a potential risk to human health because EPA's acceptable risk range is exceeded and concentrations of contaminants are greater than the maximum contaminant levels for drinking water (as specified in the Safe Drinking Water Act).

OU 2: Source areas on the Site. This OU originally included 18 separate source areas — six closed wastewater ponds, two inactive ponds, two active ponds, three surface water bodies, two spill areas, and three landfills — for the Stauffer Cold Creek and Stauffer LeMoyne facilities. Fourteen of these source areas are included in the Stauffer LeMoyne site. The purpose of this operable unit is to remove sources of contamination which can result in further groundwater contamination. This operable unit is addressing the principal threat of thiocyanate which is migrating from subsurface soil into the groundwater.

OU 3: Cold Creek Swamp. Activities at the Stauffer LeMoyne Site have contributed to contamination in the Cold Creek Swamp. EPA signed a ROD for 0U3 on September 27, 1993. The purpose of this operable unit is to remove contamination from the swamp so that it no longer poses a threat to human health or the onvironment. This operable unit is in the remedial design phase and is addressing the principal threat of surface water and sediment contamination which poses a current and potential threat to human health and the environment.

5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The conceptual site model for Operable Unit Two involves wastewater ponds, a landfill, and drums and tanks as the primary sources. Infiltration/percolation from the ponds and landfill and spills from the drums and tanks served as the primary release mechanism into the soil. Secondary release mechanisms from the soil include dust and/or volatile emissions which could be carried by wind to human and ecological receptors, infiltration/percolation into the groundwater which could carry contaminants to human receptors, and storm water runoff which could carry contaminants by surface water or sediments to human or ecological receptors.

5.1 GEOLOGY/SOILS

The geology beneath the Stauffer LeMoyne Site can be characterized as marine alluvial deltaic sediments. Two shallow clayey-sand units extend to depths of 120 feet along the western area of the site and thin slightly to bottom depths of 80 feet along the eastern river shoreline. This surficial clayey-sand formation comprises the shallow aquifer and resides atop a dense-stiff bluish green clay formation which forms an aquaclude with a slight dip toward the west and ranges in thickness from 40 to 60 feet. Shallow sediments are comprised of fine to medium grained, clean quartz sands, reddish-brown to grayish tan in color. These sands are interbedded with grey-clay strata, yellowish-brown to grey silty-clay lenses and quartz-gravel beds forming the upper unconsolidated sand unit of the shallow aquifer. This shallow zone exhibits low to moderate permeabilities caused by interbedding and discontinuous clayey strata across the Site. The upper sand unit extends to depths of 50 to 60 feet along the western area of the Site, thinning to depths of 30 to 50 feet along the eastern shoreline area. Lower sands of the shallow aquifer are cleaner, coarser, and more angular with depth even occurring as 1/4 inch quartz gravel layers within this lower zone. These coarse, clean sands comprise the water source as they exhibit moderate to relatively high permeabilities and transmissivities. A relatively shallow clay layer in the western portion of the Site may effectively separate the shallow aquifer into two water-bearing zones and produce semi-confined conditions in the aquifer in certain areas. The Site is underlain by a basal Miocene-age blue-green clay that acts as a confining layer below the shallow aquifer.

Two main U.S. Department of Agriculture soil types dominate the Site. The first is the Izagora-Bethera/Annemaine group which is common in coastal drainage areas, exhibit good drainage and support woodland vegetation dominating the western-central portion of the Site. The other is the Dorovan-Levy soil type which is common to coastal flooded areas, exhibiting hydric or saturated conditions most of the year. This soil type covers most of the Mobile River shoreline area. The Izagora soil type is characterized as a loamy-marine sediment with a high available water capacity and is usually well to moderately well drained, with poor fertility due to low organic content. The soil type is typically acidic and allows for a deep root zone. The Halby Pond area is located atop the Izagora soils onsite. The Bethera Group is characterized by its location in shallow depressions or drainage areas with poor drainage. Typically, the soil group consists of silty-clay loam which is frequently wet from constant contact with surface or groundwater. The Bethera soil group exhibits a high available water capacity, is low in natural fertility, has low to moderate organic content, and is usually acidic. These soils are common along the Carbon Tetrachioride! Carbon Disulfide ponds and extend northward in the Unnamed Tributary which runs from south side of the Site to the Cold Creek Swamp located on the Stauffer Cold Creek site. The Annemaine Group is characterized by its location in saturated or damp areas (year-round). The soil group is composed of silts and clays which are mostly wet or damp. The Annemaine group exhibits a high availability of water capacity, frequently contains organics with moderate to low fertility, and is usually acidic. The Dorovan-Levy association is limited in extent to the Mobile Rive shoreline. These soils are characterized as very poorly drained, organic-muck sediments which can support vegetation and coastal forests. Typically, these soils area very fertile, always moist, and provide wildlife habitat for coastal foraging fauna.

5.2 SURFACE WATER

Surface drainage from the western portion of the Stauffer LeMoyne site is toward an unnamed stream (the Unnamed Tributary) which flows northward toward the Cold Creek Swamp. The eastern portion of the Stauffer LeMoyne site is adjacent to and drains toward the Mobile River. Flooding potential at the site is considered to be minimal.

5.3 HYDROGEOLOGY

Prior to industry utilizing the groundwater, the direction of groundwater flow was eastward toward the Mobile River and the depth to groundwater ranged from 0 to 20 feet below ground surface. Pumping of wells for industrial water supply on the adjacent Courtaulds property has resulted in a lowering of the water table to between 25 and 75 feet below ground surface. Furthermore, direction of groundwater flow has been changed to southwest on the western portion of the Site and to the southeast on the eastern portion. Most of the industries and local communities in the area obtain water from the surficial aquifer.

5.4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

EPA identified 14 potential source areas at the Stauffer LeMoyne site. Five are closed wastewater treatment (WWT) ponds:

Old Carbon Disulfide WWT Pond Old Chlorine Plant WWT Pond Chlorine Plant North Check Pond Old Brine Mud Pond, and Halby Treatment Pond.

Two units are inactive ponds:

Old Carbon Tetrachloride Plant WWT Pond, and New Carbon Tetrachloride Plant WWT Pond.

One is an active pond:

LeMoyne LeCreek WWT Pond.

Three units are associated with surface water bodies. One is man-made:

the Old Firewater Pond,

and two are natural:

the Unnamed Tributary, and LeMoyne Swamp.

Two units are associated with sulfur spills:

LeMoyne Swamp Sulfur Spill Area, and LeMoyne Landfill Sulfur Spill Area.

One unit is a landfill:

LeMoyne Landfill.

During the first remedial investigation in 1988, sampling was conducted around the ponds and landfills at the Site. Soil borings were made around the ponds and samples were analyzed for contaminants of potential concern. Analyses of composite soil samples associated with the Old Carbon Tetrachloride WWT Pond and the Old Carbon Disulfide WWT Pond found low levels of carbon tetrachloride and carbon disulfide. Soil samples from the Halby Pond detected levels of. copper and zinc above background. Cyanide and thiocyanate were also found in Halby Pond samples (Table 5-1).

A background surface water sample was collected from the Unnamed Tributary near the southern edge of the Stauffer LeMoyne site. The only contaminants detected were mercury and zinc. Four sediment samples and one surface water sample were collected from the LeMoyne Swamp. Concentrations of mercury, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, lead, and nickel were detected at or near background levels. Concentrations of copper and zinc were elevated in comparison to background levels.

TABLE 5-1 — SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM CARBON TETRACHLORIDE POND SOIL BORING DATA

BORING DEPTH CARBON DISULFIDE CARBON TETRACHLORIDE (FEET) (UG/KG) (UG/KG)

Surface (0-0.5) 74 80 7 7 46 14 ND ND 21 N.D. 89 28 N.D. 5 35 N.D. 9 42 N.D. 34

ND — Not detected

Additional remedial investigation activities were conducted at the Old Carbon Disulfide WWT Pond, the Old Carbon Tetrachloride WWT Pond, the Halby Pond, the Old Firewater Pond, and the Unnamed Tributary in 1993 and at the LeMoyne Swamp in 1994. Additional investigations were not conducted at eight of the potential source areas, because contamination at these areas were addressed by existing presumptive remedies or the areas were currently regulated under other EPA authorities. The source areas which were eliminated from further investigation were the Old Chlorine Plant WWT Pond, the Chlorine Plant North Check Pond, the Old Brine Mud Pond, the New Tetrachloride Plant WWT Pond, the LeMoyne LeCreek WWT Pond, the LeMoyne Swamp Sulfur Spill Area, the LeMoyne Landfill Sulfur Spill Area, and the LeMoyne Landfill. The field activities at the remaining six source areas included soil borings and sampling, surface water and sediment sampling, and fish tissue sampling. Four soil borings were drilled at both the Old Carbon Disulfide WWT Pond and the Old Carbon Tetrachloride WWT Pond. Nineteen soil borings were drilled at the Halby Pond. Sediment samples were collected from the Unnamed Tributary, the Old Firewater Pond, and the LeMoyne Swamp. Surface water samples were taken in the same locations at the sediment samples and also in the Old Carbon Tetrachloride WWT Pond.

The ecological field investigation conducted in April 1994 involved the LeMoyne Swamp, the Unnamed Tributary and the Old Firewater Pond. Fish samples were collected from the LeMoyne Swamp. A benthic community analysis and fish community survey were conducted in the

Unnamed Tributary and the Old Firewater Pond. Physicochemical parameters (water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity) were also analyzed in these areas.

TABLE 5-2 — SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM CARBON DISULFIDE POND SOIL BORING DATA

DEPTH (FEET) CARBON DISULFIDE CARBON TETRACHLORIDE (UG/KG) (UG/KG)

Surface (0-0.5) ND 4 7 ND ND 14 88 800E 21 12 51 28 4 31 35 N.D. 18 42 840 9700

ND — Not detected E — Exceeded calibration range of GC/MS

Sampling results from the soil borings at the Old Carbon Tetrachloride WWT Pond and the Old Carbon Disulfide WWT Pond, are presented in Tables 5-1 and 5-2.

Four sets of data have been collected in the former Halby area. In the 1986 site investigation, three soil borings indicated the presence of elevated levels of thiocyanates at depths of up to 40 feet. The remedial investigation conducted in 1993 consisted of three angled borings, two eight foot borings, and 14 30-foot borings, with analysis for carbon disulfide, thiocyanates, and cyanide. In 1995 four additional soil samples for thiocyanate analysis were collected at a depth of 30 feet at locations approximating the locations of four earlier borings. Additional data was collected in 1998 to further characterize the site. Table 5-3 summarized the data from the former Halby area.

Some studies indicate that cyanide results obtained from soil analyses in the former Halby area may be false positives caused by the nature of the analytical method utilized. Nevertheless, because this premise has not has not been adequately demonstrated, cyanide remains as a contaminant of concern at the Site. Future analysis using improved analytical methods may demonstrate that cyanide is not present in the soil.

TABLE 5-3 — SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM FORMER HALBY AREA BORING DATA

BORING CARBON DISULFIDE THIOCYANATE CYANIDE DEPTH (FEET) (UG/KG)* (MG/KG)** (MG/KG)**

Surface(0-0.5) ND 11A 3.57A 5-10 Feet 25 2000 12.3J 15-21 Feet 280 9000 5.15J 25-30 Feet 270 90,000*** 18.6J 35-40 Feet NS 300 13.3J

ND — Not detected NS — Not sampled J — Estimated value A — Average value * — 1993 data ** — 1998 data *** — Result may be a sampling anomaly. Next highest value is 5000 mg/kg.

Surface water sampling results for the Old Carbon Tetrachloride WWT Pond were non-detectable for carbon tetrachloride and carbon disulfide. Surface water and sediment sampling results for the Old Firewater Pond and the Unnamed Tributary are presented in Tables 5-4 and 5-5.

TABLE 5-4 — SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT DATA AT THE OLD FIREWATER POND

CONTAMINANT SURFACE WATER (UG/L) SEDIMENT (UG/KG)

Carbon disulfide 14 ND Carbon tetrachloride ND ND Chromium ND 260 Iron 680 38,500 Mercury ND 10.6* Zinc 64.4 8,790 Cyanide ND 0.835 Thiocyanate ND ND

ND — Not detected * — Duplicate analysis not within control limits

Mercury contamination in the LeMoyne Swamp sediment ranged from below 022 mg/kg to 1.7 mg/kg. Contamination in a nearby reference area ranged from 0.22 mg/kg to 0.28 mg/kg. Mercury contamination in fish tissue from LeMoyne Swamp ranged from below 0.08 mg/kg to 0.84 mg/kg. Mercury contamination in fish from the reference area ranged from below 0.08 mg/kg to 0.78 mg/kg.

5.5 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE AND RESOURCE USES

Current on-site land use is industrial. The Stauffer LeMoyne Site is owned and operated by Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (Akzo) which manufactures carbon disulfide, sulfuric acid, and a proprietary sulfur compound there. The Site is currently surrounded by additional industrial facilities and the Mobile River. The anticipated future land use for this area is industrial.

The groundwater beneath the Site is classified as Class II groundwater, which is a potential source of drinking water (Guidelines for ground-water classification under the EPA ground-water protection strategy, Final Draft, November 1986, Office of Ground-water Protection, Office of Water, U.S.E.P.A.). This groundwater is currently used for industrial purposes, but not for drinking water sources. The USGS report entitled Geohydrogeology and Susceptibility of Major Aquifers to Surface Contamination in Alabama; Area 13 (1988) designates the area around the

TABLE 5-5 — SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT DATA AT THE UNNAMED TRIBUTARY

CONTAMINANT SURFACE WATER(UG/L) SEDIMENT (UG/KG)

Carbon disulfide 28 ND Carbon tetrachloride ND ND Chromium 3.2B 72.1N Iron 969 17,800* Mercury ND 3.5N* Zinc 46.4 325 Cyanide ND 0.835 Thiocyanate ND 29.6

ND — Not detected B — Reported value is less than the contract Required Detection Limit, but greater than the Instrument Detection Limit * — Duplicate analysis not within control limits

Site as a recharge area for a major aquifer which is highly susceptible to surface contamination. The groundwater beneath the Site is not expected to be used as a drinking water source in the next 30 years, since alternative water supplies from other aquifers are available. However, these alternative water supplies utilize groundwater near the Site as sources of drinking water.

6.0 SUMMARY OF OPERABLE UNIT TWO RISKS

CERCLA directs EPA to conduct a baseline risk assessment to determine whether a Superftmnd Site poses a current or potential threat to human health and the environment in the absence of any remedial action. The baseline risk assessment provides the basis for determining whether or not remedial action is necessary and the justification for performing remedial action. Based upon this analysis EPA determined that the subsurface soil poses a risk to potential users of groundwater.

The migration of subsurface contaminants into the groundwater would pose a risk for potential adult and child residential users of the groundwater. Direct exposure to soil does not pose a significant risk to on-site workers. Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present a current or potential threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.

6.1 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

The majority of the wastes and residues generated by production operations at the facility have been managed, treated, and disposed of onsite throughout the Site's history. The chemicals measured in the various environmental media during the RI were evaluated for inclusion as chemicals of potential concern in the risk assessment by application of screening criteria. Cyanide, thiocyanate, carbon tetrachloride, carbon disulfide, chromium, mercury, and zinc were identified as chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) for OU2 of the Site. These compounds were found in surficial and subsurface soils, sediment, and surface water. Table 6-1 presents the COPCs and their concentration ranges.

6.2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

Whether a chemical is actually a concern to human health and the environment depends upon the likelihood of exposure, i.e. whether the exposure pathway is currently complete or could be complete in the future. A complete exposure pathway (a sequence of events leading to contact with a chemical) is defined by the following four elements:

• A source and mechanism of release from the source,

• A transport medium (e.g., surface water, groundwater, air) and mechanisms of migration through the medium,

• The presence or potential presence of a receptor at the exposure point, and

• A route of exposure (ingestion, inhalation, dermal adsorption).

If all four elements are present, the pathway is considered complete.

An evaluation was undertaken of all potential exposure pathways which could connect chemical sources in source areas (soil and subsurface soil) at the Site with potential receptors. All possible pathways were first hypothesized and evaluated for completeness using EPA's criteria. The current pathways represent exposure pathways which could exist under current Site conditions while the future pathways represent exposure pathways which could exist, in the fliture, if the current exposure conditions change (such as by installing drinking water wells). For both current and future exposure scenarios, EPA assumed the Site would remain in industrial use. Therefore, residential scenarios were not examined. Exposure by each of these pathways was mathematically modeled using generally conservative assumptions.

The current pathways are:

• incidental ingestion of surface water, sediment, or soil by maintenance workers,

• potential dermal exposure by on-site maintenance workers to on-site surface soils, sediment, or surface water,

• potential inhalation exposure by on-site maintenance workers to dust, and

• potential inhalation of volatile emissions by on-site maintenance workers.

The future pathways are:

• potential oral exposure by on-site construction workers to on-site surface soils,

• potential dermal exposure by on-site construction workers to on-site surface soils,

• potential inhalation exposure by on-site construction workers to dust,

• potential inhalation of volatile emissions by on-site construction workers, and

• potential ingestion of groundwater from a future drinking water well.

EPA assumed for this assessment that there would be no significant human exposure at the LeMoyne Swamp, since the area is not subject to construction or maintenance activities and is not easily accessible to trespassers from the Mobile River.

TABLE 6-1 — SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN Media Chemical Concentration Detected Units of Frequency of Minimum Maximum Measure Detection Halby Area Soil Carbon Disulfide 4 280 ppb 10/78 Cyanide 0.118 59.6 ppm 32/78 Thiocyanate 3.43 90,000** ppm 52/78 Old Carbon Tetrachlorid Carbon Disulfide 4 840 ppb 10/52 and Carbon Disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride 1 9700 ppb 26/52 WWT Ponds Soil Old Firewater Pond Zinc 1,400 8,790 ppm 3/3 Sediment Chromium 171 260 ppm 3/3 Mercury 3.9* 10.6* ppm 3/3 Cyanide 0.835 0.835 ppm 1/3 Unnamed Tributary Zinc 141 325 ppm 5/5 Sediment Chromium 5.6N 72.1N ppm 5/5 Mercury 0.6N* 3.5N* ppm 5/5 LeMoyne Swamp Sediment Mercury 0.35 1.7 ppm 7/7 Old Firewater Pond Carbon Disulfide 11 14 ppb 3/3 Surface Water Unnamed Tributary Carbon Disulfide 12 28 ppb 3/5 Surface Water Zinc 16.8 46.4 ppb 3/5 ppm — parts per million ppb — parts per billion * — Duplicate analysis not within control limits ** — Result may be a sampling anomaly. Next highest value is 9,000.

The exposure point concentrations for each of the chemicals of concern and the exposure assumptions for each pathway were used to estimate the chronic daily intakes for the potentially complete pathways, with the exception of the groundwater pathway. The chronic daily intakes were then used in conjunction with cancer potency factors and noncarcinogenic reference doses to evaluate risk.

Exposure concentrations are provided in Tables 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4. All exposure concentrations are based on the 95% upper confidence limit on the arithmetic mean concentration for each chemical. Air concentrations were calculated using models from EPA's Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual (USEPA, 1988).

Exposure assumptions for an on-site maintenance worker are as follows:

• Ingestion rate is 50 ml/day for water and 50 mg/day for sediment and soil.

• Exposure frequency is 24 days/year; exposure duration is 25 years.

• Skin surface area exposed is 3,600 cm²inhalation rate is 0.833 m³/hour; body weight is 70 kg.

TABLE 6-2 — EXPOSURE CONCENTRATIONS AT HALBY POND AREA

Maintenance Worker

^{3 3 -3 -5 -9 -1 -6 +1 -5 -3 -4 -8 0 -5 +2 -3}

Chemical Soil Concentration, Air (VOC) Dust Concentration Surface Only (mg/kg) Concentration from from Soil, Trsffic Soil (mg/m) Only (mg/m) Carbon disulfide 1.96 x 10 5.03 x 10 8.65 x 10 Cyanide 2.75 x 10 — 1.21 x 10 Thiocyanate 1.23 x 10 — 5.41 x 10 Construction Workers Carbon disulfide 1.67 x 10 4.28 x 10 7.25 x 10 Cyanide 3.07 x 10 — 1.42 x 10 Thiocyanate 3.46 x 10 — 1.60 x 10 • Averaging time is 25 years for noncarcinogens and 70 years for carcinogens.

• Soil dermal adherence factor is 1 mg/cm²; dermal absorption factor is 0.25 (unitless) for VOCs and 0.01 for inorganics.

Exposure assumptions for an on-site construction worker are as follows:

• Exposure frequency is 40 days/year; exposure duration is 1 year.

• Skin surface area exposed is 3,600 cm²; inhalation rate is 1.25 m³/hour; body weight is 70 kg.

• Averaging time is 1 year for noncarcinogens and 70 years for carcinogens.

• Soil dermal adherence factor is 1 mg/cm²; dermal adsorption factor is 0.25 for VOCs and 0.01 for inorganics.

• Ingestion rate is 50 mg/day; exposure time is 8 hours/day.^{3 3 -2 -4 -7 -2 -4 -7}

Construction Workers

^{-2 -3 -7 -1 -3 -6} TABLE 6-3 — EXPOSURE CONCENTRATION AT CARBON DISULFIDE POND AND OIL CARBON TETRACHLORIDE WWT POND Maintenance Workers Chemical Soil Concentration, Air (VOC) Dust Concentration Surface Only Concentration from from Soil, Traffic (mg/kg) Soil (mg/m) Only (mg/m) Carbon Disulfide 2.67 x 10 6.83 x 10 1.18 x 10 Carbon 2.81 x 10 3.28 x 10 1.24 x 10 Tetrachloride Carbon Disulfide 5.23 x 10 1.34 x 10 2.43 x 10 Carbon 5.59 x 10 6.51 x 10 2.59 x 10 VOC — Volatile organic chemicals

6.3 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT

Toxicity assessment is a two-step process whereby the potential hazards associated with routespecific exposure to a given chemical are (1) identified by reviewing relevant human and animal studies; and (2) quantified through analysis of dose-response relationships. EPA has conducted numerous toxicity assessments that have undergone extensive review within the scientific community. EPA toxicity assessments and the resultant toxicity values were used in the baseline risk assessment to determine both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks associated with each chemical of concern and route of exposure. EPA toxicity values that are used in this assessment include:

• cancer slope factors (CSFs) for carcinogenic effects, and

• reference dose values (RfDs) for non-carcinogenic effects.^{3 -2 -3 -1 -4 -3 -3 -3 +2 -3 -1 -5 0 -2 +1 -2 +3}

TABLE 6-4 — EXPOSURE CONCENTRATION AT OLD FIREWATER POND AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY Maintenance Workers Chemical Surface Water Sediment Air Concentration Concentration Concentration from Surface Water (mg/L) (mg/kg) (mg/m) Carbon Disulfide 1.76 x 10 4.30 x 10 2.49 x 10 Carbon 3.65 x 10 1.33 x 10 3.66 x 10 Tetrachloride Chromium 3.27 x 10 1.54 x 10 — Cyanide 5.00 x 10 3.49 x 10 — Mercury 9.54 x 10 6.05 x 10 — Thiocyanate 2.50 x 10 1.29 x 10 — Zinc 5.41 x 10 3.49 x 10 — Cancer slope factors are route-specific values derived only for compounds that have been shown to cause an increased incidence of tumors in either human or animal studies. The slope factor is an upper bound estimate of the probability of a response per unit intake of a chemical over a lifetime and is usually determined by high-dose to low-dose extrapolation from human or animal studies. When an animal study is used, the final slope factor has been adjusted to account for extrapolation of animal data to humans. If the studies used to derive the slope factor were conducted for less than the life span of the test organism, the final slope factor has been adjusted to reflect risk associated with lifetime exposure. Chromium which is present in the Old Firewater Pond and Unnamed Tributary is considered to be carcinogenic if it is in the hexavalent form and it exposure occurs by the inhalation route. Since the only inhalation pathway at the Old Firewater Pond and Unnamed Tributary is inhalation of volatile compounds, chromium is not an issue as a carcinogen at this Site. Carbon tetrachloride is the only carcinogenic chemical of potential concern (COPC) at this Site. Carbon tetrachloride is classified by EPA as a probable human carcinogen (EPA weight of evidence Class B2). Table 6-5 presents cancer slope factors for carbon tetrachloride. The oral slope factor and inhalation unit risk number were obtained from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). An inhalation slope factor was derived from the unit risk using standards assumptions. The dermal slope factor was established by adjustment of the oral slope factor by the default oral absorption factors.^{-1 -1 -1} TABLE 6-5 — CANCER SLOPE FACTORS FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN Chemical Oral Slope Factor Dermal Slope Factor Inhalation Slope (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) Factor (mg/kg-day) Carbon Tetrachloride 0.13 0.16 0.053 Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. Reference doses are ideally based on studies where either animal or human populations were exposed to a given compound by a given route of exposure for the major portion of the life span (referred to as a chronic study). The RfD is derived by determining dose-specific effect levels from all the available quantitative studies, and applying uncertainty factors to the most appropriate effect level to determine a RfD for humans. The RfD represents a threshold for toxicity. RfDs are derived such that human lifetime exposure to a given chemical via a given route at a dose at or below the RfD should not result in adverse health effects, even for the most sensitive members of the population. Table 6-6 presents the reference doses for the chemicals of potential concern.

Chronic oral toxicity RfDs were obtained from IRIS for all COPCs except thiocyanate. No toxicity data for thiocyanate is available in either IRIS or the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). The EPA Health Risk Superfi.ind Technical Support Center calculated a provisional RfD for thiocyanate, which was used in the risk assessment for this Site.

Subchronic RfDs can be used when the exposure duration is less than seven years. However, to be conservative in this risk assessment, the chronic oral RfDs were used for the subchronic exposures for carbon disulfide, chromium, cyanide, mercury, thiocyanate, and zinc. Carbon tetrachioride has an established subchronic toxicity value.

Dermal toxicity values were calculated from the chronic and subchronic oral RfDs by applying chemical-specific oral adsorption factors. EPA default adsorption values for volatiles (80%), semi-volatiles (50%), and inorganics (20%) were used to adjust the oral toxicity values. Inhalation reference concentrations are not available, except for mercury in IRIS and carbon disulfide in HEAST. These values were converted to RfDs for the risk assessment. For the other COPCs, the oral RfDs were substituted as inhalation RfDs to evaluate inhalation exposure.

6.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION

Human health risks are characterized for potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects by combining exposure and toxicity information. For carcinogens, risks area generally expressed as the incremental probability of an individual's developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the carcinogen. Excess lifetime cancer risk is calculated from the following equation:

Risk = CDI x SF

where: risk = a unitless probability (e.g., 10^-5) of an individual's developing cancer CDI = chronic daily intake averaged over 70 years (mg/kg-day) SF = slope factor, expressed as (mg/kg-day)^-1

These risks are probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 10^-6). For example, an excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10^-6 indicates that an individual experiencing the reasonable maximum exposure estimate has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure. This is referred to as an "excess lifetime cancer risk" because it would be in addition to the risks of cancer individuals fact from other causes such as smoking or exposure to too much sun. The chance of an individual's developing cancer from all other causes has been estimated to be as high as one in three. EPA's generally acceptable risk range for siterelated exposures is 10^-4 to 10^-6.

EPA considers individual excess cancer risks in the range of 10^-4 to 10^-6 as protective; however the 10^-6 risk level is generally used as the point of departure for setting cleanup levels at Superfund sites. The point of departure risk level of 10^-6 expresses EPA's preference for remedial actions that result in risks at the more protective end of the risk range. The risks calculated for human direct contact at this site are below the 10^-6 risk level (Table 6-7).

Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a single medium is expressed as the hazard quotient (HQ) (or the ratio of the estimated intake derived from the contaminant concentration in a given medium to the contaminant's reference dose). A HQ which exceeds one (1) indicates that the daily intake from a scenario exceeds the chemical's reference dose. By adding the HQs for all contaminants within a medium or across all media to which a given population may reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated. The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or across media. An HI which exceeds unity indicates that there may be a concern for potential health effects resulting from the cumulative exposure to multiple contaminants within a single medium or across media.

TABLE 6-6 — REFERENCE DOSES FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN Chemical Chronic Chronic Chronic Subchronic Subchronic Subchronic Oral RfD Dermal RfD Inhalation RfD Oral RfD Dermal RfD Inhalation RfD (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) Carbon Disulfide 0.1 0.08 0.0029 0.1 0.08 0.0029 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0007 0.00056 0.0007 0.007 0.0056 0.007 Chromium 1 0.2 1 1 0.2 1 Cyanide 0.02 0.004 0.02 0.02 0.004 0.02 Mercury 0.0003 0.00006 0.003 0.0003 0.00006 0.0003 Thiocyanate 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.1 Zinc 0.3 0.06 0.3 0.3 0.06 0.3

TABLE 6-7 TOTAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH DERMAL CONTACT, INHALATION AND INGESTION

^{-4 -3 -8 -3 -8 -2 -1 -8 -1 -8 -2} AREA SCENARIO CANCER RISK NON-CANCER RISK (HI) Halby Area Maintenance Worker NA 2.0 x 10 Halby Area Construction Worker NA 6.8 x 10 Carbon Disulfide Maintenance Worker 4.0 x 10 4.4 x 10 and Old Carbon Tetrachloride WWT Ponds Carbon Disulfide Construction Worker 7.9 x 10 2.2 x 10 Old Carbon Tetrachloride WWT Ponds Old Firewater Maintenance Worker NA 5.8 x 10 Pond and Unnamed Tributary Total Current Maintenance Worker 4.0 x 10 5.8x10 Risk Total Future Construction Worker 79 x 10 2.9 x 10 NA — Cancer risks are not applicable to this scenario.

The HQ is calculated as follows:

Non-cancer HQ = CDI/RfD

where:

CDI = Chronic daily intake RfD = Reference dose

CDI and RfD are expressed in the same units and represent the same exposure period (i.e., chronic, subchronic, or short-term).

For direct exposure to soil, surface water, and sediment, the results of the risk assessment indicated that all cumulative non-carcinogenic hazards to human health were several orders of magnitude below the threshold of concern. Table 6-7 presents the results of the risk assessment for direct exposure to soils, sediment and water at the Site.

Utilizing the SUMMERS model for soil contaminants leaching to groundwater, it was determined that soils in the Halby area could continue to leach thiocyanate and cyanide to the underlying groundwater aquifer at levels that would result in the exceedance of groundwater standards established by EPA. The SUMMERS model calculations are included in the RI/FS documents located in the Administrative Record. Although there are uncertainties in the calculation of soil remedial goals for groundwater protection, the SUMMERS model analysis is a conservative approach that does not underestimate the impacts of soil contamination on groundwater quality. Carbon disulfide was not detected in groundwater. Therefore, thiocyanate and cyanide were retained as chemicals of concern. The results of the model are supported by levels of contaminants of concern found in monitoring wells in the vicinity of the Halby area. Thiocyanate concentrations in groundwater currently exceed calculated acceptable groundwater levels (based on potential drinking water source). Cyanide concentrations in groundwater currently exceed EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). The soils pose an unacceptable risk to future users of groundwater as a drinking water source.

Throughout the risk assessment process, uncertainties and variabilities associated with evaluations of chemical toxicity and potential exposures exist. For example uncertainties arise in derivation of toxicity values for reference doses (RfDs) and carcinogenic slope factors (CSFs), estimation of exposure point concentrations, fate and transport modeling, exposure assumptions and ecological toxicity data. Because of the conservative nature of the risk assessment process, risks estimated in this assessment are likely to be overestimates of the true risks associated with current or potential exposure at OU 2 of the Stauffer LeMoyne Site.

6.5 ECOLOGICAL RISK

The LeMoyne Swamp offers habitat for aquatic, aviary, and terrestrial wildlife. Although mercury was detected in the sediments at elevated levels, the mercury fish tissue concentrations are at background levels. Mercury contamination in the LeMoyne Swamp sediment ranged from below 0.22 mg/kg to 1.7 mg/kg. Contamination in a nearby reference area ranged from 0.22 mg/kg to 0.28 mg/kg. Mercury contamination in fish tissue from LeMoyne Swamp ranged from below 0.08 mg/kg to 0.84 mg/kg. Mercury contamination in fish from the reference area ranged from below 0.08 mg/kg to 0.78 mg/kg. Foraging activities, breeding, and resident habitats occur elsewhere, indicating short term and low intensity use and exposure at the LeMoyne Swamp. The contamination at this area poses a limited risk to ecological receptors.

The source areas, except for the LeMoyne Swamp, offer a limited and poor quality habitat for area wildlife. The areas are located a significant distance from any areas capable of supporting substantial numbers of ammals. The wooded areas west of the Halby Area, west of the headwaters of the tributary, and at the junction of the tributary and Cold Creek Swamp have the greatest potential to support wildlife. There is no indication that any ammals in the wooded areas frequently enter these source areas. The mowed and disturbed areas have limited habitat for foraging or movement by most species, although occasional foraging is expected. Access to these source areas is limited due to traffic and physical barriers, such as fencing. The COPCs in these areas pose a limited risk to ecological receptors (Table 6-8).

TABLE 6-8 COMPARISON OF OBSERVED CONCENTRATIONS TO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

^{1 fn1 2 fn2 fn2 fn2 fn1 fn2 fn2}

1 AQUIR.E database. Acute and chronic range for potentially resident species including mosquitofish ( Gambusia affinis), orange spotted sunfish ( Leponis humilis), water flea ( Daphnia magna), and green algae ( Chlorella pyrenoidosa)

2 Based on U.S. EPA freshwater quality criteria.

Chemical Observed Concentration (ug/L) Criteria Range Mean Unnamed Tributary Carbon disulfide 3 — 14 7 2,100 — 162,000 Chromium 1.6 — 3 2.4 11 (Chromium VI) 210 (Chromium 111) Iron 391 — 969 582.8 1,000 Zinc 16.8 — 46.4 35.1 110 Old Firewater Pond Carbon disulfide 11 — 14 12.3 2,100 — 162,000 Iron 664 — 680 667 1,000 Zinc 51.6 — 64.4 59.3 110

6.6 REMEDIATION OBJECTIVES

The remedial action objective (RAO) for 0U2 of the Site is to prevent contamination from migrating to groundwater. This RAO is based on the potential beneficial groundwater use as a drinking water supply. The selected remedy will reduce concentrations of contaminants in subsurface soil to levels which will not result in exceedances of groundwater standards or action levels established by EPA for OU1 of the Site.

The establishment of health-based cleanup goals serves as an important means of guiding remedial activities. A health-based approach is warranted when cleanup standards promulgated by state or federal agencies are not available for contaminants in soil, as well as for certain groundwater contaminants. The approach to developing health-based goals is derived from the risk assessment process. The risk assessment is essentially a process by which the magnitude of potential cancer risks and other health effects at a site can be evaluated quantitatively. A cleanup goal is established by back-calculating a health protective contaminant concentration, given a target cancer risk or hazard index which is deemed acceptable and realistic. The concept of the cleanup goal inherently incorporates the concept of exposure reduction which allows remedial alternatives to be flexible.

For thiocyanate a groundwater performance standard of 3.5 mg/l was used to calculate the protective subsurface performance standard. The thiocyanate performance standard was calculated using the reference dose established by EPA. Assumptions used in calculating the groundwater performance standard are body weight of 70 kg, water ingestion of 2 liters per day, and a provisional reference dose (RfD) of 0.1 mg/kg-day. The SUMMERS groundwater model was used to backcalculate the allowable concentration of thiocyanate in subsurface soil which would not result in exceedance of the groundwater performance standard.

For cyanide, a groundwater performance standard of 200 ug/liter was used to calculate the subsurface soil performance standard. This number is the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level for cyanide in drinking water. The SUMMERS groundwater model was used to backcalculate the allowable concentration of thiocyanate in subsurface soil which would not result in exceedance of the groundwater performance standard.

The subsurface soils at the Site currently contain concentrations of Site-related contaminants at levels which would pose an unacceptable risk to human health for potential future users of groundwater. Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.

The performance standards for subsurface soil are contained in Table 6-9. Cleanup levels for contaminated subsurface soil are based on protection of groundwater.

TABLE 6-9 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SUBSURFACE SOILS

CONTAMINANT PERFORMANCE STANDARD (MG/KG)

Cyanide 0.47 Thiocyanate 8.5

Based on the soil sampling data and risk evaluation for 0U2 and the groundwater monitoring data from OU1, EPA determined that only the subsurface soils at the former Halby area present a risk to human health and the environment. Thirteen potential source areas were eliminated from TABLE 6-10 — STATUS OF ELIMINATED POTENTLALL SOURCE AREAS POTENTIAL SOURCE AREAS STATUS

Maintenance activity to ensure adequate Old Firewater Pond drainage from the pond will eliminate need for further action Maintenance activity to ensure adequate Unnamed Tributary drainage from the tributary will eliminate need for further action Presumptive remedy: Pond capped in 1978-79. Old Carbon Disulfide WWTP Supplemental remedial investigation (RI) demonstrated remedy is protective of groundwater. Pond being filled with sediments removed Old Carbon Tetrachioride WWTP from the Old Firewater Pond and Unnamed Tributary. Pond will be brought to grade and seeded. Supplemental RI demonstrated remedy will be protective of groundwater. LeMoyne Swamp No further action based on supplemental RI. Presumptive remedy: Removal and disposal LeMoyne Landfill Sulphur Spill Area of sulphur in an approved facility in 1994. Presumptive remedy: Removal and disposal LeMoyne Swamp Sulphur Spill Area of sulphur in an approved facility in 1995. Presumptive remedy: Landfill closed and LeMoyne Landfill capped 1994-95. Groundwater monitoring and landfill maintenance required. Presumptive remedy: Pond capped in 1978. Old Chlorine Plant WWTP Groundwater monitoring and cap maintenance required. Presumptive remedy: Pond contents Old Brine Mud Pond approved for delisting as a hazardous waste and pond capped in 1985. Groundwater monitoring and cap maintenance required. Presumptive remedy: Pond contents and liner Chlorine Plant North Check Pond removed. Confirmatory samples taken and pond backfilled in 1992. Presumptive remedy: Pond drained and soils New Carbon Tetrachioride WWTP tested. Pond backfilled in 1993. LeMoyne LeCreek WWTP Managed under EPA's Clean Water Act further consideration. Only the Halby area was carried through for further analysis. The status of the remaining 13 source areas is summarized in Table 6-10.

7.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

EPA evaluated eight alternatives for the remediation of contaminated soil at OU#2 of the Site in the Supplemental Feasibility Study for the Halby Area and in the Proposed Plan for the Site, along with the No Action alternative. The site-specific alternatives analyzed in the Supplemental Feasibility Study represented a range of distinct waste-management strategies addressing the human health and environmental concerns. Eight remedial technologies for containment or treatment were analyzed. Although the selected remedial alternative will be further refined as necessary during the predesign phase, the analysis presented below reflects the fundamental components of the various alternatives considered feasible for this Site.

Time frames for achieving remediation goals were calculated for each of the alternatives. For the No Action alternative and Alternatives 1 and 7, assumptions were made regarding the mass of contamination in the soil and the movement of contamination through the soil. Because of the considerable variability and complex distribution of contaminants in the former Halby area, these assumptions have a great deal of uncertainty. Therefore, the actual time to achieve remediation for these alternatives may vary greatly. However, the relative time frames for these alternatives should remain the same, i.e. Alternative 7 with active soil flushing will achieve remediation goals sooner than the No Action alternative and Alternative 1.

7.1 ALTERNATIVE NO. 0 — NO ACTION

The no action alternative is carried through the screening process as required by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This alternative is used as a baseline for comparison with other alternatives that are developed. Under this alternative, EPA would take no further action to minimize the impact soil contamination has on the groundwater. Contamination could continue to migrate from the Halby area into the groundwater. Groundwater cleanup would continue under OU1. Cleanup times of 13 to 26 years are estimated for this alternative. The O M costs of on-going groundwater treatment is estimated to be $517,000 for a 26 year period.

7.2 ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 — INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

Major components of this alternative would include legal restrictions to ensure no disturbance of existing remedial systems or site soils would occur. Under this alternative, EPA would monitor the impact soil contamination has on the groundwater. Groundwater cleanup and monitoring would continue under the OU1 remediation. Cleanup times of 13 to 26 years are estimated for this alternative. The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $535,000. The costs include legal costs for deed restrictions and operations and maintenance (O M) costs for groundwater treatment and monitoring.

7.3 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 — MULTI-LAYER CAP

Major components of this alternative include site preparation and construction of a multi-layer cap composed of a clay layer, a synthetic membrane cap with heat sealed joints, a drainage layer, a cobblestone layer, and a cover material for vegetation. Groundwater monitoring would be conducted for a minimum of five years to determine if leaching from this area is reduced. O M activities include cap maintenance, lawn care, groundwater treatment for one year, and routime inspections and reviews. This alternative is estimated to reduce the groundwater contaminant levels to below the performance standards within one year. The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $884,000.

7.4 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 — EXCAVATION AND OFFSITE DISPOSAL

This alternative would involve site preparation and excavation activities in the area. The excavated soil would be transported for disposal at a regulated landfill. After confirmation sampling documented that excavation was complete, the excavated area would be backfilled with clean soil fill and revegetated. Excavation beyond 30 feet below ground surface, if required, would require extensive shoring efforts. Groundwater monitoring would be conducted for a minimum of two years to verify that contaminant concentrations are below the OU1 cleanup goal O M costs include routime inspections and reviews. This alternative is estimated to meet soil and groundwater performance standards within one year. The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $6,195,000.

7.5 ALTERNATIVE NO. 4 — EXCAVATION AND EX-SITU ONSITE BIOREMEDIATION

This alternative would involve a treatability study to determine the optimal bioremediation techniques. After construction of the bioremediation system, contaminated soil would be excavated and treated onsite. Confirmation sampling would verify that excavation was complete and that soils were clean, before the treated soil was baclcfilled into the excavation area. Groundwater monitoring would be conducted for a minimum of two years to verify that contaminant concentrations are below the OU1 cleanup goals. O M costs include routime inspections and reviews. This alternative is estimated to meet soil and groundwater performance standards within one year. The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $11,720,000.

7.6 ALTERNATIVE NO. 5 — EXCAVATION AND EX-SITU BIOREMEDIATION/IN-SITU SOIL FLUSHING

This alternative would involve a treatabiity study to determine the optimal bioremediation techniques and test to determine design parameters for the soil flushing system. The silty clay layer of soil would be excavated and treated by bioremediation. Because of safety concerns with deep excavation activities, the remaining soil would be treated by soil flushing to move contaminants into the groundwater for capture and treatment. Since the site already has contaminated groundwater under OU1, in-situ soil flushing was considered a viable means for soil remediation. Sampling would be conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the bioremediation and soil flushing. Treated soil which was documented to be clean would be backfllled into the excavated area. Groundwater monitoring would be conducted for a minimum of two years to verify that contaminant concentrations are below the OU1 cleanup goals. O M costs include routime inspections and reviews. This alternative is estimated to meet soil performance standards within five to ten years. The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $5,409,000.

7.7 ALTERNATIVE NO. 6 — EXCAVATION AND OFFSITE DISPOSAL/IN-SITU FLUSHING

This alternative would involve tests to determine the design parameters for the soil flushing system. The silty clay layer of soil would be excavated and transported for disposal at a regulated landfill. The remaining soil would be treated by soil flushing to move contaminants into the groundwater for capture and treatment. Since the site already has contaminated groundwater under OU1, in-situ soil flushing was considered a viable means for soil remediation. Sampling would be conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the excavation and soil flushing. The excavated area would be backfilled with clean soil fill. Groundwater monitoring would be conducted for a minimum of two years to verify that contaminant concentrations are below the OU1 cleanup goals. O M costs include routime inspections and reviews. This alternative is estimated to meet soil performance standards within six to twelve years. The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $3,465,000.

7.8 ALTERNATIVE NO. 7 — IN-SITU SOIL FLUSHING

This alternative involves flushing the affected soil with water to move the contamination into the groundwater and to accelerate the natural breakdown of contamination into non-toxic chemicals. Since the site already has contaminated groundwater under OU1, in-situ soil flushing was considered a viable means for soil remediation. Implementation of this remedy would involve tests to determine design parameters for the soil flushing system. The soil would be treated by soil flushing to move contaminants into the groundwater for capture and treatment. Groundwater monitoring would begin after construction of the remedy is complete and would be conducted for a period of time adequate to establish that the remedy is effective. O M includes groundwater treatment and routime inspections and reviews. This alternative is estimated to meet soil performance standards within six to twelve years. The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $501,000.

7.9 ALTERNATIVE NO. 8 — ASPHALT CAP

This alternative is similar to Alternative 2, except the cap is less complex. Implementation of this alternative would involve site preparation, installation of a gravel base, and installation of an asphalt pavement. Groundwater monitoring would be conducted for a minimum of five years to determine if leaching from this area is reduced. OM activities include cap maintenance, lawn care, groundwater treatment for one year, and routime inspections and reviews. This alternative is estimated to reduce the groundwater contaminant levels to below the performance standards within one year. The cost of this alternative is estimated to be $598,000.

8.0 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

This section of the ROD provides the basis for determining which alternative provides the best balance with respect to the statutory balancing criteria in Section 121 of CERCLA and in 40 C.F.R. § 300.430 of the NCP. The major objective of the Supplemental FS was to develop, screen, and evaluate alternatives for the remediation of Operable Unit Two at the site. The remedial alternatives selected from the screening process were evaluated using the following nine evaluation criteria:

• Overall protection of human health and the environment.

• Compliance with applicable and/or relevant and appropriate Federal or State public health or environmental standards.

• Long-term effectiveness and permanence.

• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances or contaminants.

• Short-term effectiveness, or the impacts a remedy might have on the community, workers, or the environment during the course of implementing it.

• Implementability, that is, the administrative or technical capacity to carry out the alternative.

• Cost-effectiveness considering costs for construction, operation, and maintenance of the alternative over the life of the project.

• Acceptance by the State.

• Acceptance by the Community.

The NCP categorizes the nine criteria into three groups:

(1) Threshold Criteria — overall protection of human health and the environment and compliance with ARARs (or invoking a waiver) are threshold criteria that must be satisfied in order for an alternative to be eligible for selection;

(2) Primary Balancing Criteria — long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume; short-term effectiveness; implementability, and cost are primary balancing factors used to weigh major trade-offs among alternative hazardous waste management strategies; and

(3) Modifying Criteria — state and community acceptance are modifying criteria that are formally taken into account after public comment is received on the proposed plan and incorporated in the ROD.

The selected alternative must meet the requirement for overall protection of human health and the environment and comply with all ARARs or be granted a waiver for compliance with ARARs. Any alternative that does not satisfy both of these requirements is not eligible for selection. The Primary Balancing Criteria are the technical criteria upon which the detailed analysis is primarily based. The final two criteria, known as Modifying Criteria, assess the public's and the state agency's acceptance of the alternative. Based on these final two criteria, EPA may modify aspects of a specific alternative.

The following analysis is a summary of the evaluation of alternatives for remediating the Stauffer LeMoyne 0U2 Superfund Site under each of the criteria. A comparison is made between each of the alternatives for achievement of a specific criterion.

Threshold Criteria

8.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether each alternative provides adequate protection of human health and the environment and describes how risks posed through each exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced or controlled through treatment, engineering controls and institutional controls. The no-action alternative and alternative 1 would not involve any active remediation efforts. However, natural flushing would move contamination from the soil into the groundwater where it would be captured and treated by the OU1 system. Therefore, human health and the enyironment would be protected after approximately 13 to 26 years. Alternative 1 would provide an additional level of protection by using institutional controls to prevent disturbance of surface or subsurface soils which would interfere with the movement of contamination from the soil into the groundwater. Alternative 7 utilizes active soil flushing to remove contamination from the soil into the groundwater where it would be captured and treated by the OU1 system. Alternatives 2 and 8 would prevent contamination from migrating into the groundwater, but would require perpetual cap maintenance. Any breach in the cap would potentially allow contamination to migrate into the groundwater. The remaining alternatives provide adequate protection through proper disposal or treatment.

8.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS

Section 121(d) of CERCLA requires that remedial actions at CERCLA sites at least attain legally applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and State requirements, standards, criteria, and limitations which are collectively referred to as "ARARs," unless such ARARs are waived under CERCLA Section 121(d)(4). Applicable requirements are those substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State law that specifically address hazardous substances, the remedial actions to be implemented at the site, the location of the site, or other circumstances present at the site. Relevant and appropriate requirements are those substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State law which, while not applicable to the hazardous materials found at the site, the remedial action itself, the site location or other circumstances at the site, nevertheless address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the site that their use is well-suited to the site. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of other Federal and State environmental statutes or provides a basis for invoking a waiver.

No chemical specific ARARs exist for soil contamination. Chemical specific ARARs for groundwater are found in the Safe Drinking Water Act (40 C.F.R. § 141) in the form of Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for public water systems. All remedies would be implemented to ultimately reduce migration of contaminants from subsurface soil, so that MCLs would be met.

Location-specific ARARs address remedial activities in specific sensitive locations. Some areas of contamination at the site involve wetlands or 100-year floodplains. Operable Unit 2 of the Site is not within an area affecting national wildlife, scenic, or recreational areas or within environmental significant agricultural areas. Neither is the site a critical habitat area or on property which is included on the National Register of Historic Places. No location-specific ARARs were identified for 0U2 of the Site.

Action-specific ARARs are usually technology or activity based requirements or limitations on actions taken with respect to hazardous substances. All alternatives would be implemented to comply with action-specific ARARs. All excavation, storage, handling, treatment and disposal of contaminated soil would be conducted in accordance with applicable or relevant and appropriate RCRA requirements. Off-site disposal of contaminated soil under Alternatives 3 or 6 would be at a permitted RCRA Subtitle C, or Subtitle D landfill, as appropriate. During treatment, air emissions from the site would be monitored to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act. Air monitoring would be conducted to ensure that contaminant concentrations do not exceed levels considered to be safe for human health. If levels are exceeded, mitigative procedures would be employed to prevent harmful levels of air emissions from impacting on-site workers or from leaving the Site. EPA developed soil performance standards for cyanide and thiocyanate, since chemical-specific ARARs did not exist. Alternatives 2 and 8 would not comply with the soil performance standards which were developed. However, implementation of alternative 2 or 8 would result in OU1 performance standards for groundwater being achieved. The remaining alternatives would be implemented to comply with the soil performance standards.

Primary Balancing Criteria

8.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE

Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to expected residual risk and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once clean-up levels have been met. This criterion includes the consideration of residual risk and the adequacy and reliability of controls.

Alternatives 2 and 8 would not remove contaminated soil from the Halby area. However, the cap would be effective in protecting groundwater by reducing migration of contamination into the groundwater. The cap would require yearly maintenance to ensure protection of groundwater. Alternatives 3 and 4 would provide long-term effectiveness and permanence by removing or treating the entire source area. Alternatives 5 and 6 would provide long-term effectiveness and permanence by removing or treating a portion of the source and by flushing remaining contamination into the groundwater for capture and treatment. Alternative 0, 1 and 7 would provide long-term effectiveness and permanence by flushing contamination into the groundwater for capture and treatment.

8.4 REDUCTION OF TOXICITY. MOBILITY OR VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT

Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment refers to the anticipated performance of the treatment technologies that may be included as part of the remedy. Although Alternatives 2 and 8 would not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment, they would reduce mobility of the contaminants through the soil, if the cap is properly installed and maintained. Over time, contaminant levels in the existing areas of contamination may decrease through natural attenuation. Alternative 3 and the landfill portion of Alternative 6 also would not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. However, placement of the soil in a permitted landfill would reduce mobility of the contaminants. Alternatives 4 and S would reduce toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment of all or some of the contaminated soil. Flushing contaminants into the groundwater in Alternatives 0, 1, 5, 6 and 7 would reduce toxicity and volume, when contaminants are captured and treated by the groundwater remedy system.

8.5 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS

Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to implement the remedy and any adverse impacts that may be posed to workers and the community during construction and operation of the remedy until clean-up goals are achieved. For all alternatives involving construction, impacts such as noise, dust, and odors can be controlled with standard procedures. There would be potential risk to workers during excavation and treatment of soils and construction of the cap, primarily associated with equipment movement and exposure to contaminated dust. Air monitoring, on-site and at the site boundary, and engineering controls would control the potential for exposure. Workers would be required to wear appropriate levels of protection to avoid exposure during excavation and treatment. For Alternatives 4 and S treatability studies would be conducted to determine how to prevent undesirable reactions during treatment.

Alternatives 0 and 1 require the longest time frames to meet soil and groundwater cleanup standards. of the alternatives involving active remediation, Alternatives 4 and 5 would require longer time frames for construction and implementation. of the active remediation alternatives, Alternatives 5, 6 and 7 would require longer time frames for meeting soil and groundwater cleanup standards.

8.6 IMPLEMENTABILITY

Implementabiity addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy from design through construction and operation. Factors such as availability of services and materials, administrative feasibility, and coordination with other governmental entities are also considered.

Alternatives 0 and 1 are most easily implemented, since no active remediation is involved. Alternatives 2, 3 and 8 are easily implemented using readily available materials, equipment, and labor. Alternative 4 involves a technology for which engineering services are available. The technology has proven effective in the past. This alternative would require treatability studies to resolve operational issues. Alternative S involves two technologies for which services, equipment, and labor are available. Treatability studies for bioremediation would be necessary. Services, equipment and labor to implement Alternatives 6 and 7 are available. For Alternatives 3 through 6, excavation beyond 30 feet below ground surface, if require, would require extensive shoring methods, which are available.

8.7 COST

The non-active remediation alternatives are the most cost effective alternatives. of the active remediation alternatives, the treatment remedies are most costly than capping and off-site disposal alternatives. However, the treatment remedies provide more permanence and meet the regulatory preference to reduce toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment. of the treatment alternatives, bioremediation would be the most costly, due to the need for treatability studies and the increased labor requirements to construct and operate the system.

Modifying Criteria

8.8 STATE ACCEPTANCE

The State of Alabama, as represented by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), has been the support agency during the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study process for the Stauffer LeMoyne 0U2 site. In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 300.430, as the support agency, ADEM has provided inZ.i1t during this process. The State of Alabama, as represented by ADEM, has concurred with the selected remedy.

8.9 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE

Comments were received on the proposed plan for Operable Unit 2 of the Site. The comments and their responses are summarized in the responsiveness summary in Attachment 2.

9.0 SUMMARY OF SELECTED REMEDY

Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the NCP, the detailed analysis of alternatives and public and state comments, EPA has selected a remedy for Operable Unit 2 of the Site. The selected remedy is Alternative 7, In-situ Soil Flushing. This remedy is selected because it provides cleanup of contaminated subsurface soil within six to twelve years, but has the lowest cost of the alternatives.

9.1 SOIL REMEDY

Approximately 39,700 cubic yards of subsurface soil containing thiocyanate and cyanide above the performance standards are present in the Halby Area. Previous data indicate that natural soil flushing is moving subsurface soil contamination from the soil into the groundwater where it is being captured by the existing groundwater pump-and-treat system. The selected remedy for contaminated soils accelerates this natural process with an in-situ soil flushing system. This remedy provides for the following:

• Institutional controls to restrict the Site from being used as residential property and to restrict any construction on the former Halby area which would interfere with the construction and operation and maintenance of the selected remedy,

• Construction of a soil flushing system to accelerate the migration of contaminants from the subsurface soil into the groundwater where it will be captured and treated by the existing OU1 groundwater remedy,

• Monitoring of subsurface soil for cyanide and thiocyanate on an annual basis to determine if contaminants are moving into the groundwater in a controlled manner where they will be captured and treated by the OU1 groundwater remedy, and

• Periodic reporting of annual monitoring results to EPA.

Because a risk assessment for a future residential scenario was not performed for 0U2 of the Site, institutional controls restricting the Site from use as residential property must remain in place until a human health risk assessment is conducted which demonstrates to EPA that the Site does not pose any unacceptable risks to future residents. The institutional controls restricting any construction on the former Halby area which would interfere with the operation and maintenance of the selected remedy can be removed when EPA determines that the subsurface soil monitoring demonstrates that the performance standards have been met.

This remedy is contingent upon the continued operations and maintenance of the Operable Unit 1 groundwater pump and treatment system. Accordingly, if the groundwater pump and treatment system is not operated and maintained for the life of this remedy for 0U2, EPA may, at its sole discretion, select an alternative remedy for 0U2. Similarly, if; at any time, the selected remedy for 0U2 is found to be ineffective at reducing subsurface soil contaminant concentrations, EPA may, at its sole discretion, select an alternative remedy for 0U2.

TABLE 9-1 — SUBSURFACE SOIL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Contaminant Performance Standard Basis for Performance Standard

Cyanide 0.47 mg/kg (ppm) Compliance with MCLs Thiocyanate 8.5 mg/kg(ppm) Risk assessment (HQ = 1)

MCL — Maximum Contaminant Level (EPA Safe Drinking Water Act) ppm — parts per million HQ — Hazard quotient

In order to facilitate this remedy, the former Halby area, which includes the location of the former Halby facility, including the Halby Treatment Pond, located in the northwest portion of the Stauffer LeMoyne site, is designated as an Area of Contamination (AOC) for purposes of this ROD. All waste managed within the AOC must comply with the requirements set out in this ROD for soil remediation. The AOC also includes suitable areas in close proximity to the contamination necessary for implementation of the remedy selected in this ROD.

9.2 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SOIL

Subsurface soil performance standards were developed for the protection of groundwater. Remediation of subsurface soils to these performance standards will reduce migration of contamination to groundwater, so that groundwater will not pose an unacceptable risk to potential users of groundwater as a drinking water source. The subsurface soil performance standards are presented in Table 9-1.

9.3 CONFIRMATION TESTING

Soil testing shall be conducted on the site to determine the effectiveness of meeting the soil performance standards outhned in Table 9-1. This sampling will be conducted in accordance with an EPA approved sampling and analysis plan. Performance standards will be met only when the confirmatory sampling shows to EPA that subsurface soil samples have been remediated to a level at or below the performance standards. Subsurface soil sampling and analysis shall be conducted no less frequently that every 12 months.

Confirmation testing may also require the installation and monitoring of additional piezometers. The purpose of the piezometers is to verify groundwater capture from beneath the former Halby area, as predicted in groundwater models. The piezometers shall be monitored on an annual basis. The piezometers will be required if EPA determines that existing monitoring wells do not adequately confirm the capture of the contaminants. If data from the piezometers and other monitoring wells indicate that groundwater capture from beneath the former Halby area is not occurring as predicted in groundwater models, EPA may, at its sole discretion, select an alternative remedy for 0U2.

9.4 COST

For in-situ soil flushing, the estimated present worth cost of the remedy is approximately $501,000. These costs include fees for institutional controls, as well as operations and maintenance costs. These estimated costs include $197,000 in capital costs and $304,000 in operation and maintenance costs, including a 20% contingency.

9.5 EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

The selected remedy addresses contaminated subsurface soil which is continuing to contaminate underlying groundwater. The remedy will maintain the current land use of the Site, which is industrial use. The contamination from the Halby area is expected to attenuate to acceptable levels (below the performance standards) within six to twelve years. Capital Costs OM Costs TOTAL COST $501,000

TABLE 9-2 — SUMMARY OF SELECTED REMEDY COSTS Quantity Unit Unit Cost Estimated Installed Cost Site preparation 1 LS $57,200 $57,200 Soil flushing components 1 LS $41,100 $41,100 Direct Construction Cost (DCT) $98,300 Indirect Construction Cost (15% of DCT) $15,000 Construction Total (CT) $113,000 Permitting and Legal $40,000 Design/Resident Engineering (10% of CT) $11,000 Total Capital Costs $164,000 Contingency (20%) $33,000 Site Inspections 96 Hour $70 $6,700 Repair/Maintenance 2 LS $1,200 $2,400 Biennial Groundwater Monitoring (Annualized) 1 LS $3,200 $3,200 Recovered Water Treatment 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 5-Year Review of Effectiveness (Annualized) 1 LS $1,800 $1,800 Total Annual OM Cost $39,100 8 Year Present Worth Cost $253,000 Projected OM Cost* $304,000 * Projected OM cost includes 20% contingency LS — Lump sum Notes:

1) Estimated costs are based on conceptual evaluation of the potential remedy and are subject to change based on preliminary and final design

2) Unit costs were obtained from Means Building Construction Cost Data 1995, as well as professional experience

10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATION

Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actions that achieve adequate protection of human health and the environment. In addition, Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory requirements and preferences. These specify that, when complete, the selected remedial action for this Site must comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental standards established under Federal and State environmental laws. The selected remedy also must be cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as their principal element. The following sections discuss how the selected remedy meets these statutory requirements.

10.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The selected remedy protects human health and the environment through monitoring the isolation and treatment of threats at Operable Unit 2 of the Site in the contaminated subsurface soil. The selected remedy provides protection of human health and the environment by reducing and controlling risk through movement of contamination from the subsurface soils to the groundwater and treatment of groundwater (though the existing OU1 remedy). Contamination in the subsurface soils at Operable Unit 2 of the Site will be moved by in-situ soil flushing into the groundwater, where contaminants will be captured and treated. The subsurface soils will be cleaned up to levels that are protective of groundwater.

10.2 ATTAINMENT OF THE APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)

Remedial actions performed under CERCLA must comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). All alternatives considered for 0U2 of the Site were evaluated on the basis of the degree to which they complied with these requirements. The selected remedy was found to meet or exceed all ARARs, which are listed in Table 10-1.

Waivers

Section 121(d)(4)(C) of CERCLA provides that an ARAR may be waived when compliance with an ARAR is technically impracticable from an engineering perspective. No waivers are necessary with respect to the selected remedy.

Other Guidance To Be Considered

Other Guidance To Be Considered (TBCs) include health based advisories and guidance. TBCs have been utilized in estimating incremental cancer and non-cancer risk numbers for the site. The risk numbers are evaluated relative to the normally accepted point of departure risk range of 10^-4 to 10^-6 or a hazard quotient of 1.

10.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS

Cost effectiveness is determined by comparing the cost of all alternatives being considered with their overall effectiveness to determine whether the costs are proportional to the effectiveness achieved. Overall effectiveness is defined by three of the five balancing criteria: long-term effectiveness, short-term effectiveness, and reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. EPA evaluates the incremental cost of each alternative as compared to the increased effectiveness of the remedy. The selected remedy provides long-term effectiveness and reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. Other alternatives provide greater short-term effectiveness, in shorter time frames for completion. However, the costs of these alternatives are much greater. Given that groundwater is not currently used as a drinking water source and is not anticipated to be used in the next 30 years, the selected remedy is the most cost-effective. EPA chose a remedy which accelerates soil remediation over natural flushing because the remedy is more cost effective. In addition, uncertainties in calculating remediation times make it prudent to select a remedy which has greater short term effectiveness when practicable.

The estimated cost of EPA's selected remedy is $501,000. The selected remedy, Alternative 7, is the least costly alternative.

10.4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE

The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable by using treatment to permanently reduce contaminant levels. This remedy provides long-term protectiveness by accelerating and monitoring the migration of contaminants from subsurface soils into the groundwater where it will continue to be captured and treated by the OU1 remedy. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment is provided by removing contaminants from the subsurface soil by flushing contaminants into the groundwater. Contaminants will be captured and removed from the groundwater by the OU1 remedy. Alternative 1, Institutional Controls, would provide the same protection, but over a much longer time period. The capping alternatives, Alternatives 2 and 8, are not as effective in providing longterm effectiveness, since contamination will remain in the subsurface soil. In addition, these remedies do not provide reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. Alternative 3, excavation and off-site disposal, provides long-term effectiveness but does not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. The excavation and treatment alternatives, Alternatives 4, 5, and 6, provide long-term effectiveness and reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. However, these alternatives are not cost effective. Cost and long-term effectiveness were the most decisive criteria in the selection decision.

10.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT

The statutory preference for treatment will be met because the selected remedy treats subsurface soil contamination by flushing contamination into the groundwater where contamination will be captured and treated under the Operable Unit 1 remedy.

10.6 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REQUIREMENTS

This remedy is based on risk assessments for industrial use scenarios. Contamination may be present which would restrict the use of this property for residential use. Because this remedy may result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a review will be conducted within five years after initiation of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.

11.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

The subsurface soil performance standard for cyanide was changed from 0.64 mg/kg to 0.47 mg/kg. The 0.64 mg/kg proposed standard in the proposed plan was a typographical error. In addition, the cost estimate for each alternative was re-evaluated due to the age of some of the estimates. Estimates for all alternatives were modified based on more recent and accurate cost data. The cost of each alternative changed following release of the proposed plan. The most significant cost update was in the cost of treating contaminated groundwater from the active soil flushing alternative (Alternative 7). This change resulted in the total cost for Alternative 7 changing from $3,939,300 to $501,000. The no-action alternative (Alternative 0) and the institutional controls alternative (Alternative 1) also changed significantly due to the addtion of groundwater treatment costs to the cost estimates. EPA understands that the revisions occurred due to the use of more accurate cost measurements, in place of the assumptions previously used by the parties that prepared the RIIFS. Both sets of data are available for review and comparison in the Administrative Record. TABLE 10-1 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS Standard, Requirement, Citation Applicable or Relevant Description Criteria, or Limitation Appropriate Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act Clean Water Act Clean Air Act 40 C.F.R. Part 50 Resource Conservation 42 U.S.C. § and Recovery Act 40 C.F.R. § 261.24 ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS Standard, Requirement, Citation Applicable or Relevant Description Criteria, or Limitation Appropriate 40 C.F.R. § 264.119 State CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS Standard, Requirement, Criteria, Citation Applicable or Relevant Description or Limitation Appropriate Federal

20 U.S.C. § Applicable Regulates worker 651-678 health and safety. 40 CER 122.28 Relevant and appropriate Establishes standards under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for discharges to surface waters 42 U.S.C. § Applicable 7401-7642 National Ambient Air Applicable Treatment technology Standards standard for emissions to air • incinerators (NAAQS) • surface impoundments • waste piles • landfills • fugitive emissions 6901-6907 Characteristics of Hazardous Applicable Describes methods for determining hazardous waste characteristics Releases from Hazardous Waste 40 C.F.R. Relevant appropriate Monitor and respond to releases Management Units 264.90-264.101 to uppermost aquifer beneath SWMU Post-closure notices Relevant appropriate Requires post-closure notices for hazardous waste disposal units NAAQS Particulate Matter ADEM Section R. Applicable Regulates fugitive particulate 335-3-1.03 emissions Underground Injection Control ADEM Section R. Relevant and appropriate Regulates soil flushing 335-6-8 Groundwater Protection ADEM Section R. Applicable Regulates soil flushing 335-6-10 Land Division Solid Waste ADEM Section R. Applicable Procedures for obtaining disposal Programs Procedures 335-13-4 and R. permits 335-13-5 Safe Drinking Water Act 40 C.F.R. § 141 Relevant and Establishes primary drinking water Appropriate regulations and related regulations applicable to public water systems APPENDIX 1 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (LEMOYNE PLANT) SITE OPERABLE UNIT 2 Responsiveness Summary Record of Decision Stauffer LeMoyne Site Operable Unit Two Axis, Mobile County, Alabama The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a public comment period from July 31, 1998 to August 31, 1998 for interested parties to give input on EPA's Proposed Plan for Remedial Action at Operable Unit Two (OU 2) of the Stauffer LeMoyne (Stauffer) Superfund Site in Axis, Mobile County, Alabama. EPA offered the opportunity for a public meeting; however, a public meeting was not requested. The public comment period was extended an additional 30 days, from August 31, 1998 to September 30, 1998, after EPA received a request for an extension.

A responsiveness summary is required to document how EPA addressed citizen comments and concerns about the Site, as raised during the public comment period. All comments summarized in this document have been factored into the amended final decision of the remedial action for OU 1 of the Stauffer Site.

This responsiveness summary for the Stauffer Site is divided into the following sections.

I. Overview — This section discusses the recommended alternative for remedial action and the public reaction to this alternative.

II. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns — This section provides a brief history of community interest and concerns regarding the Stauffer Site.

III. Summary of Major Questions and Comments Received During the 1996 Public Comment Period and EPA's Responses — This section presents comments submitted during the public comment period and provides the responses to these comments.

IV. Summary of Major Questions and Comments Received During the 1998 Public Comment Period and EPA's Responses

V. Concerns to be Addressed in the Future — This section discusses community concerns of which EPA should be aware during remedial design.

I. Overview

The remedial alternatives for the Stauffer site were presented to the public in an Proposed Plan released on July 31, 1998. The public comment period was July 31, 1998 through September 30, 1998. A public notice was published in the Mobile Register on July 31, 1998. The public notice indicated the EPA wold hold a public meeting if requested by the public. Notice of the extension to the public comment period was published in theMobile Register on September 3, 1998. A public meeting was not requested by the public.

EPA has organized the work at this Site into three phases or operable units (OUs). OU1 involves the groundwater beneath the Stauffer LeMoyne site, as well as the Stauffer Cold Creek site. Current remedial actions on OU1 are addressing groundwater contamination underneath both Sites. Operable unit three addresses the swamp area located adjacent to the Stauffer LeMoyne and Stauffer Cold Creek Sites. This responsiveness summary addresses comments on operable unit two, which involves source contamination at the Stauffer LeMoyne Site. The contaminated area requiring remediation is limited to the former Halby area of the Site.

For the contaminated soils at 0U2, the selected remedy is Alternative 7: In-situ Soil Flushing. The estimated cost of this alternative is $501,000. This remedy accelerates natural processes which are moving contamination from the subsurface soil into the groundwater where it will be captured and treated. Institutional controls will restrict use of the Site for residential use and will limit the use of surface and subsurface soils in the former Halby area of the Site until the subsurface soil performance standards are met. Regular monitoring of subsurface soil will be conducted to determine if performance standards have been met. In addition, groundwater monitoring piezometers will be installed to confirm groundwater modeling.

This selected remedy differs from the proposed plan recommended remedy in that deed restrictions to prevent residential use of the property were added to the remedy.

II. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns

EPA has taken the following actions to ensure that interested parties have been kept informed and given an opportunity to provide input on activities at the Stauffer 0U2 Site.

Multiple meetings have been held regarding site work at the Stauffer LeMoyne site. The Satsuma Branch Library in Satsuma, Alabama was chosen as the local information repository for the Site. Fact sheets describing remedial investigations at the Site were issued in 1986 and 1989. A public comment period for operable unit one ran from July 13, 1989 to August 13, 1989. A public meeting was held on July 27, 1989. For operable unit three, availability sessions were held in February 1991 and April 1992. The public comment period ran from June 15, 1993 to July 14, 1993. A public meeting was held on June 29, 1993.

The public comment period on the proposed plan for the operable unit two ROD was July 31, 1998 through September 30, 1998. EPA published notice that it would hold a public meeting upon request of the community. However, a public meeting was not requested by the public. The administrative record was available to the public at both the information repository maintained at the Satsuma Branch Library and at the EPA Region IV Library at 61 Forsyth Street in Atlanta, Georgia. The notice of availability of the proposed plan and administrative record were published in the Mobile Register on July 31, 1998. Notice of the extension of the comment period was published in the Mobile Register on September 3, 1998.

III. Summary of Major Questions and Comments Received During the Public Comment Period and EPA's Responses

1. Comment: Several commenters supported the proposed remedy.

EPA Response: EPA concurs.

2. Comment: Several commenters stated that they preferred tbe alternative of excavating contaminated soil and disposing the soil in an off-site landfill.

EPA Response: The excavation and off-site disposal alternative does not result in treatment of contamination to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination. The selected alternative will move contamination into the groundwater, where the existing pump and treat system will capture and treat the contamination. In addition, the cost for the excavation and off-site disposal alternative is not justified given the current site conditions (e.g., no current unacceptable risk to workers, additional groundwater contamination which restricts groundwater use).

3. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that contamination may be migrating offsite into residential property. The commenter asked if the remedy would guarantee the elimination of future problems.

EPA Response: Monitoring data from OU1 wells indicates that contamination has not migrated into residential property. The selected remedy is intended to be a permanent solution for contaminated areas in operable unit two of the Site. Contamination from the soils will continue to be flushed into the groundwater, where the existing pump and treat system captures and treats the contamination. EPA will periodically inspect the groundwater system to ensure that it is operating effectively.

4. Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed plan incorrectly lists cyanide as a contaminant of concern. The commenter discussed previous soil sampling which suggested that the total cyanide detections were false positives arising from conversion of thiocyanate to cyanide during analysis.

EPA Response: EPA reviewed the report submitted by the commenter entitled "Stauffer LeMoyne Superfund Site, Former Halby Area Soil and Groundwater 1998 Sampling Results," dated July 6, 1998. The report does not unquestionably support the contention that the cyanide detected in the soil samples is an artifact of the analytical process. While the data produced by this effort may ultimately support the theory of interferences, the report is inconclusive with respect to the occurrence of false positive cyanide values. Therefore, cyanide will be retained as a contaminant of concern.

5. Comment: One commenter stated that the risk assessment in the proposed plan is premised on an inaccurate fliture use scenario for groundwater. The commenter pointed out that the groundwater is not currently used as a source of drinking water, that the groundwater underlying the Site is classified as Class II and so is not anticipated to be used as a drinking water source, that a public drinking water source is available in the area which has sufficient capacity for projected future use, and that there is no reasonably anticipated future use of groundwater at this industrial site which could result in human exposure risks, because the duration of the site-wide groundwater cleanup is estimated at approximately 30 years.

EPA Response: Although the groundwater beneath the Site is not currently used as a drinking water source, it has been used as a drinking water source in the past and is classified as Class II groundwater. According to EPA's "Guidelines for Ground-Water Classification under the EPA Ground-Water Protection Strategy," Class II groundwater includes groundwater which is currently used, or potentially available, for drinking water and other beneficial use. Future use is not limited to a 30 year time frame. Remediation of this groundwater aquifer will ensure the long-term availability of adequate water supplies. The decision to protect this aquifer is valid.

6. Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed plan mistakenly estimates the duration of groundwater remediation as five years. The feasibility study indicated that a period of 5-10 years would be required for the in-situ flushing system.

EPA Response: EPA agrees. The omission of the 5-10 year time range was an error. Based on new data, the time frame has been changed to six to twelve years

7. Comment: One commenter stated that the recommended remedy is not consistent with the NCP. The proposed plan describes the selected remedy as being equal to the Institutional Controls alternative in all aspects except cost and short-term effectiveness. The commenter stated that no basis exists for accelerating the soil cleanup in the Halby area, since site-wide groundwater cleanup will not occur for an estimated 30 years. The commenter further states that an accelerated remedy is unjustified, since the groundwater beneath the Site is not currently, nor in the near-term, anticipated to be a source of drinking water.

EPA Response: Based on new cost data, the selected remedy is the least costly alternative. In addition, it results in cleanup of contaminated subsurface soils in significantly less time than the Institutional Controls alternative.

The recommendation of an active soil flushing alternative was partly based on Akzo Nobel's desire to have unrestricted use of the Halby area property. Akzo Nobel has indicated that its only current plan for the Halby area is for a railroad spur. A railroad spur could possibly be constructed so that it would not interfere with the selected remedy. To EPA's knowledge, a 30 year time frame for groundwater remediation at the Site is undocumented in the Site files. The Record of Decision (ROD) statement that groundwater well monitoring will continue for 30 years was based on a RCRA requirement to monitor closed RCRA facilities for 30 years. However, the ROD does not provide a time frame for the groundwater cleanup. The 1992 preliminary remedial design report included groundwater modeling which demonstrated that I to 2 years would be required to capture groundwater from the contaminated areas. However, the report does not predict the time frame for reducing groundwater contamination to acceptable levels. The recommendation of an active soil flushing alternative is based on EPA's desire to accelerate subsurface soil clean up, since the potential exists for the groundwater to be cleaned in a shorter period of time than 30 years.

8. Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should be flexible in designing the soil remediation.

EPA Response: In meetings with potentially responsible parties. EPA has indicated its willingness to be flexible in the design of the soil remediation.

APPENDIX 2 STATE CONCURRENCE LETTER STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (LEMOYNE PLANT) SITE OPERABLE UNiT 2

ADEM ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT POST OFF1CE Box 301463 1751 CONG. W. L. DICKINSON DRIVE 36109-2608 MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36130-1463 JAMES W. WARR WWW.ADEM.STATE.AL.US DON SIEGELMAN DIRECTOR (334) 271-7700 GOVERNOR March 18, 1999 Facsimiles: (334) Administration: 271-7950 Ms. Annie M. Godfrey Air: 279-3044 Remedial Project Manager Land: 279-3050 South Site Management Branch Water: 279-3051 U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency Groundwater: 270-5631 Region 4 Field Operations: 272-8131 Atlanta Federal Center Laboratory: 277-6718 61 Forsyth Street, SW Education/Outreach: 213-4399 Atlanta, GA 30303-3104 Re: Draft Record of Decision Stauffer LeMoyne Site, Operable Unit 2 Axis, Alabama Dear Ms. Godfrey:

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) has reviewed the referenced Draft Record of Decision. Based on our review, we concur with the Draft Record of Decision.

If there are questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Keith West of the Industrial Facilities Section at (334) 271-7754.

Sincerely,

Wm. Gerald Hardy, Chief Land Division

WGH/KNW/sem:L:Akzo OU-2 Draft ROD (3-18-99)

File: Akzo/CERCLA/Rod Correspondence

Birmingham Decatur 110 Vulcan Road 2708 6th Avenue, SE, Suite B Birmingham, Alabama 35209-4702 Decatur, Alabama 35603-1508 (205) 942-6168 (256) 353-1713 (205) 941-1603 Fax (256) 340-9359 (Fax)

Mobile Mobile — Coastal 2204 Perimeter Road 4171 Commanders Drive Mobile, Alabama 36615-1131 Mobile, Alabama 36615-1421 (334) 450-3400 (334) 432-6533 (334) 479-2593 (Fax) (334) 432-6598 (Fax)

APPENDIX B STATEMENT OF WORK STATEMENT OF WORK FOR RD/RA CONSENT DECREE EPA — REGION 4 APPENDIX B STATEMENT OF WORK FOR THE STAUFFER LEMOYNE SITE OPERABLE UNIT 2 AXIS, MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA TABLE OF CONTENTS Section

I. INTRODUCTION

II. OVERVIEW OF THE REMEDY

III. REMEDY

A. Components B. Treatment C. Performance Standards D. Compliance Testing

IV. PLANNING AND DELIVERABLES

TASK I — Project Planning

A. Site Background B. Project Planning

TASK II — Remedial Design

A. Remedial Design Planning B. Prefinal (95%)/Final Design

TASK III — Remedial Action

A. Remedial Action Planning B. Preconstruction Conference C. Prefinal Construction Inspection D. Final Construction Inspection E. Final Construction Report F. Remedial Action Report

TASK IV — OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

A. Operation and Maintenance Manual

TASK V — PERFORMANCE MONITORING FOR THE FORMER HALBY AREA REMEDY

A. Performance Standards Verification Plan B. Completion of Work

TASK VI — OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR REMAINDER OF 0U2 AREA

A. Ground Water Monitoring B. Maintenance Activities C. Operation and Maintenance Plans

References

Summary of Major Deliverables

Schedule for Major Deliverables

STATEMENT OF WORK FOR THE REMEDIAL DESIGN AND REMEDIAL ACTION FOR OPERABLE UNIT #2 AT THE STAUFFER LEMOYNE SITE

I. INTRODUCTION

This Statement of Work (SOW) outhnes the work to be performed by Settling Defendants at Operable Unit Two of the Stauffer LeMoyne Superfund Site in Mobile County, Alabama ("the Site"). The work outhned is intended to fully implement the remedy as described in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site, dated March 18, 1999, and to achieve the Performance Standards set forth in the ROD, Consent Decree, and this SOW. The requirements of this SOW will be further detailed in work plans and other documents to be submitted by the Settling Defendants for approval as set forth in this SOW. It is not the intent of this document to provide task specific engineering or geological guidance. The definitions set forth in Section IV of the Consent Decree shall also apply to this SOW unless expressly provided otherwise herein.

Settling Defendants are responsible for performing the Work to implement the selected remedy. EPA shall conduct oversight of the Settling Defendants' activities throughout the performance of the Work. The Settling Defendants shall assist EPA in conducting oversight activities.

EPA review or approval of a task or deliverable shall not be construed as a guarantee as to the adequacy or outcome of such task or deliverable. If EPA modifies a deliverable pursuant to Section XII of the Consent Decree, such deliverable as modified shall be deemed approved by EPA for purposes of this SOW. A summary of the major deliverables that Settling Defendants shall submit for the Work is attached.

A written, monthly report of all site-related activities is required. The first monthly report will be initiated on the tenth day of the month following the entry of the Consent Decree and subsequent reports must be submitted once every month by 5:00 p.m. on the tenth day of the month.

II. OVERVIEW OF THE REMEDY

THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS REMEDIAL ACTION AND ASSOCIATED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ARE TO:

Prevent or mitigate the continued release of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants to the groundwater;

Eliminate or minimize the threat posed to human health and the environment from current and potential migration of hazardous substances in the subsurface soil at the Site;

Reduce concentrations of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants in subsurface soil within 0U2 of the Site to levels specified by the Performance Standards; and

Reduce the volume, toxicity and mobility of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at the Site.

III. REMEDY

The remedy includes treatment of subsurface soils, as well as institutional controls.

A. Components

The major components of the remedy are described in Section 9.0, Selected Remedy, of the attached Record of Decision.

Subject to EPA's approval of the remedial design, detailed components of the remedy consist of the following:

• in situ soil flushing of areas where thiocyanate concentrations are 100 mg/kg or greater at the former lialby area of OU#2;

• monitored natural attenuation of areas below 100 mg/kg thiocyanate at the former Halby area;

• institutional controls;

• operation of the flushing remedy until Performance Standards are met; and

• continued recovery of ground water from well IW-5 (as part of the OU#1 remedy for the site) subject to conditions that will allow for continued discharge to Owner Settling Defendant's treatment system at a flow rate and concentration of constituents that will not require new treatment plant construction or cause effluent from the system to be in non-compliance with applicable effluent discharge requirements. These activities will continue until Performance Standards have been met.

B. Treatment

The treatment technology for the remedy is described in Section 9.0, Selected Remedy, of the attached Record of Decision. It is anticipated that recovered ground water will continue to discharged to Owner Settling Defendant's existing treatment system at a flow rate that will not require new treatment plant construction. Settling Defendants may modify the existing treatment system to adequately treat the recovered groundwater consistent with the ROD and other treatment requirements. If adequate treatment with the existing system cannot be provided, Settling Defendants shall provide to EPA information sufficient to demonstrate that the existing treatment system cannot be adequately modified to properly treat the recovered groundwater.

C. Performance Standards

Settling Defendants shall meet all Performance Standards, as defined in the Consent Decree including the standards set forth in the attached Record of Decision.

Settling Defendants shall monitor and maintain the soil treatment system until Settling Defendants have demonstrated compliance with the respective Performance Standards, in accordance with the Performance Standards Verification Plan. If EPA determines that ground water monitoring data have demonstrated that the ground water criteria of 3.5 mg/l thiocyanate and 0.2 mg/l cyanide have been met and will continue to be met even though soil concentrations exceed the Performance Standards, Settling Defendants may petition EPA to initiate the process for a Record of Decision amendment modifying the Performance Standards.

D. Compliance Testing

Settling Defendants shall perform compliance testing to ensure that all Performance Standards are met. The soil shall be tested in accordance with the Performance Standard Verification Plan developed pursuant to Task V of this SOW. If the selected remedy for 0U2 is found to not be effective in reducing volume, mass or concentration of subsurface soil contaminants, EPA may, at its sole discretion, select an alternative remedy for 0U2.

IV. PLANNING AND DELIVERABLES

The specific scope of this work shall be documented by Settling Defendants in a Remedial Design (RD) Work Plan and a Remedial Action (RA) Work Plan. Plans, specifications, submittals, and other deliverables shall be subject to EPA review and approval in accordance with Section XI of the Consent Decree.

Settling Defendants shall submit a technical memorandum documenting any need for additional data along with the proposed Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) whenever such requirements are identified. Settling Defendants are responsible for fulfilling additional data and analysis needs identified by EPA during the RD/RA process unless determined by EPA to be unnecessary for the installation and effective operation of the remedy.

Settling Defendants shall perform the following tasks:

TASK I — PROJECT PLANNING

A. Site Background

Settling Defendants have previously conducted project planning activities. Settling Defendants shall gather and evaluate any additional information regarding the former Halby area of the Site and shall conduct a visit, if deemed necessary by EPA, to the Site to assist in planning the RD/RA as follows:

1. Collect and Evaluate Existing Data and Document the Need for Additional Data

Before planning RD/RA activities, all existing Site data shall be thoroughly compiled and reviewed by Settling Defendants. Specifically, this shall include the ROD, RI/FS, and other available data related to the Site. This information shall be utilized in determining additional data needed for RD/RA implementation. Final decisions on. the necessary data and DQOs shall be made by EPA.

2. Conduct Site Visit

If deemed necessary by EPA, Settling Defendants shall conduct a visit to the Site with the EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) during the project planning phase to assist in developing a conceptual understanding of the RD/RA requirements for the Site. Information gathered during this visit shall be utilized to plan the project and to determine the extent of the additional data necessary to implement the RD/RA.

B. Prolect Planning

Once Settling Defendants have collected and evaluated existing data and, if necessary, conducted a visit to the Site, the specific project scope shall be planned. If deemed necessary by EPA, SettlThg Defendants shall meet with EPA at the completion of this evaluation regarding the following activities and before proceeding with Task II.

TASK II — REMEDIAL DESIGN

The Remedial Design shall provide the technical details for implementation of the Remedial Action for the former Halby area in accordance with currently accepted environmental protection technologies and standard professional engineering and construction practices. The design shall include clear and comprehensive design plans and specifications. Remedial Action shall be performed by Settling Defendants to implement the response actions selected in the ROD.

A. Remedial Design Planning

At the conclusion of the project planning phase, Settling Defendants shall submit a RD Work Plan; and, if RD sampling is proposed, a Sampling and Analysis Plan; and, if any site work if proposed, a Health and Safety Plan, to EPA. All plans, except the Health and Safety Plan, must be reviewed and approved by EPA prior to the initiation of field activities. The Health and Safety Plan must be reviewed and commented on by EPA prior to the initiation of field activities. Upon approval of the RD Work Plan, Settling Defendants shall implement the RD Work Plan in accordance with the design management schedule contained therein. Plans, specifications, submittals, and other deliverables shall be subject to EPA review and approval in accordance with Section XI of the Consent Decree. Review and/or approval of design submittals only allows Settling Defendants to proceed to the next step of the design process. It does not imply acceptance of later design submittals that have not been reviewed, nor that the remedy, when constructed, will meet Performance Standards.

1. RD Work Plan

Settling Defendants shall submit a Remedial Design (RD) Work Plan to EPA for review and approval. The Work Plan shall be developed in conjunction with any required Sampling and Analysis Plan and Health and Safety Plan, although each plan may be delivered under separate cover. The Work Plan shall include a comprehensive description of the additional data collection and evaluation activities to be performed, if any, and the plans and specifications to be prepared.

Specifically, the Work Plan shall present the following:

a. A statement of the problem(s) and potential problem(s) posed by the Site and the objectives of the RD/RA.

b. A background summary setting forth the following:

1) A brief description of the Site including the geographic location and the physiographic, hydrologic, geologic, demographic, ecological, and natural resource features;

2) A brief synopsis of the history of the Site including a summary of past disposal practices and a description of previous responses that have been conducted by local, State, Federal, or private parties;

3) A summary of the existing data including physical and chemical characteristics of the contaminants identified and their distribution among the environmental media at the Site.

c. A concept design summary for the remedial system showing the following:

2. the proposed system location;

3. volumes and characteristics of soils to be treated;

4. the anticipated flushing system layout;

5. projected area access and utility hookups; and

6. Performance Standards for affected soil.

d. A list and detailed description of the tasks to be performed, information needed for each task, information to be produced during and at the conclusion of each task, and a description of the work products that shall be submitted to EPA. This description shall include the deliverables set forth in the remainder of Task II.

e. A schedule with specific dates for completion of each required activity and submission of each deliverable required by the Consent Decree and this SOW. This schedule shall also include information regarding timing, initiation and completion of all critical path milestones for each activity and/or deliverable.

f. A project management plan, including a description of data management for any proposed RD field sampling, and provision for monthly reports to EPA, and meetings and presentations to EPA at the conclusion of each major phase of the RD/RA. EPA's Project Coordinator and the Settling Defendants' Project Coordinator will meet or confer, at a minimum, on a quarterly basis, unless EPA determines that such process is unnecessary. This document shall also address the management approach for implementing the Remedial Action, including procurement methods and contracting strategy, and planned construction management, implementation, and coordination with EPA during the RA. The data management plan shall address the requirements for project management systems, including tracking, sorting, and retrieving the data along with an identification of the software to be used, minimum data requirements, data format and backup data management. The plan shall address both data management and document control for all activities conducted during the RD/RA.

g. A description of the community relations support activities to be conducted during the RD. At EPA's request, Settling Defendants will assist EPA in preparing and disseminating information to the public regarding the RD work to be performed.

2. Sampling and Analysis Plan

Settling Defendants shall (if RD field sampling is proposed) prepare a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) to ensure that sample collection and analytical activities are conducted in accordance with technically acceptable protocols and that the data generated will meet the DQOs established. The SAP shall include a Field Sampling and Analysis Plan (FSAP) and a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).

The FSAP shall define in detail the sampling and data-gathering methods that shall be used on the project. It shall include sampling objectives, sample location (horizontal and vertical) and frequency, sampling equipment and procedures, and sample handling and analysis. The Field Sampling and Analysis Plan shall be written so that a field sampling team unfamiliar with the Site would be able to gather the samples and field information required. The QAPP shall describe the project objectives and organization, functional activities, and quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) protocols that shall be used to achieve the desired DQOs. The DQOs shall, at a minimum, reflect use of analytical methods for obtaining data of sufficient quality to meet National Contingency Plan requirements as identified at 300.435(b). In addition, the QAPP shall address personnel qualifications, sampling procedures, sample custody, analytical procedures, and data reduction, validation, and reporting. These procedures must be consistent with the Region IV Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual and the guidances specified in Section IX of the Consent Decree.

Settling Defendants shall demonstrate in advance and to EPA's satisfaction that each laboratory it may use is qualified to conduct the proposed work and meets the requirements specified in Section IX of the Consent Decree. Laboratories previously used by Settling Defendants during the RI/FS may be deemed qualified without further submittals. However, EPA may require that Settling Defendants submit detailed information to demonstrate that the laboratory is qualified to conduct the work, including information on personnel qualifications, equipment and material specification, and laboratory analyses of performance samples (blank and/or spike samples). In addition, EPA may require submittal of data packages equivalent to those generated by the EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP).

3. Health and Safety Plan

A Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared (if any RD site work is proposed) in conformance with Settling Defendants' health and safety program, and in compliance with OSHA regulations and protocols. The Health and Safety Plan shall include a health and safety risk analysis, a description of monitoring and personal protective equipment, medical monitoring, and provisions for site control. EPA will not approve Settling Defendants' Health and Safety Plan, but rather EPA will review it to ensure that all necessary elements are included, and that the plan provides for the protection of human health and the environment.

B. Prefinal (95%)/Final Design

Prefinal (95%)/Final Design shall begin with initial design and shall end with the completion of approximately 95 percent of the design effort. At the approximate 50 percent design level, the Settling Defendants shall give EPA an oral presentation on the design and shall solicit and use EPA recommendations. The Settling Defendants shall submit the Prefinal Design for soils when the design work is approximately 95 percent complete in accordance with the approved design management schedule. Essentially, the Prefinal Design (95%) shall function as the draft version of the Final Design. After EPA review, comment, and directions on the Prefinal (95%) Design, the Final Design shall be submitted along with a memorandum that describes how the Prefinal (95%) Design comments and directions were fully incorporated into the Final Design. All Final Design documents shall be certified by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Alabama. EPA written approval of the Final Design shall be obtained before initiating physical on-site construction of the RA.

To begin the Prefinal (95%) Design stage, the Settling Defendants shall field verify, as necessary, the existing conditions of the Site. The following items shall be submitted with or as part of the Prefinal (95%)/Final Design:

1. Results of Data Acguisition Activities

Any field data gathered pursuant to the project planning phase or RD Work Plan shall be compiled, summarized, and submitted along with an analysis of the impact of the results on design activities. In addition, surveys conducted to establish topography, rights-of-way, easements, and utility lines shall be documented. Utility requirements and acquisition of access, that require purchases or easements, and that are necessary to implement the RA shall also be discussed.

2. Desian Criteria

The concepts supporting the technical aspects of the design shall be defined in detail in the Prefinal Design. Specifically, this section of the prefinal design shall include the preliminary design assumptions and parameters, including:

a. Waste characterization

b. Volume of soil and groundwater requiring treatment

c. Treatment schemes (including all media and by-products)

d. Input/output rates

e. Materials and equipment

3. Complete Design Analysis

The selected design shall be presented along with an analysis supporting the design approach. Design calculations shall be included.

4. Final Plans and Specifications

A complete set of construction drawings and specifications shall be submitted which describe the selected design.

5. Final Construction Schedule

The Settling Defendants shall submit a final construction schedule to EPA for approval.

6. Construction Cost Estimate

An estimate within +15 percent to -10 percent of actual construction costs shall be submitted.

7. Plan for Satisfying Permitting Reguirements

All activities must be performed in accordance with the requirements of all applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Any off-site disposal shall be in compliance with the policies stated in the Procedure for Planning and Implementing Off-site Response Actions (Federal Register, Volume 50, Number 214, November, 1985, pages 45933-45937) and Federal Register, Volume 55, Number 46, March 8, 1990, page 8840, and the National Contingency Plan, Section 300.440. The plan shall identify the off-site disposal/discharge permits that are required, the time required to process the permit applications, and a schedule for submittal of the permit applications.

TASK III — REMEDIAL ACTION

A. Remedial Action Planning

1. RA Work Plan

A Work Plan which provides a detailed plan of action for completing the RA activities for the former 1-lalby area shall be submitted to EPA for review and approval. The objective of this work plan is to provide for the safe and efficient completion of the RA. The Work Plan shall include a comprehensive description of the work to be performed and the Final Construction schedule for completion of each major activity and submission of each deliverable. The Work Plan shall be developed in conjunction with the Construction Quality Assurance Plan, and the Construction Health and Safety Plan, although each may be delivered under separate cover.

Specifically, the Work Plan shall present the following:

a. A detailed description of the tasks to be performed and a description of the work products to be submitted to EPA. This includes the deliverables set forth in the remainder of Task III.

b. A schedule for completion of each required activity and submission of each deliverable required under Task III.

2. Construction Ouality Assurance Plan

The Settling Defendants shall develop and implement a Construction Quality Assurance Program to ensure, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the completed Remedial Action meets or exceeds all design criteria, plans and specifications, and Performance Standards. The Construction Quality Assurance Plan shall incorporate relevant provisions of the Performance Standards Verification Plan (see Task V). EPA, in its sole discretion, may require the Settling Defendants to include the following items:

a. A description of the quality control structure, including a chart showing lines of authority, identification of the members of the Independent Quality Assurance Team (IQAT), and acknowledgment that the IQAT will implement the control system for all aspects of the work specified and shall report to the project coordinator and EPA. The IQAT members shall be representatives from testing and inspection organizations and/or the Supervising Contractor and shall be responsible for the QA/QC of the Remedial Action. The members of the IQAT shall have a good professional and ethical reputation, previous experience in the type of QA/QC activities to be implemented, and demonstrated capability to perform the required activities. They shall also be independent of the construction contractor.

b. The name, qualifications, duties, authorities, and responsibilities of each person assigned a QC function.

c. Description of the observations and control testing that will be used to monitor the construction and/or installation of the components of the Remedial Action. This includes laboratory certification that personnel and laboratories performing the tests are qualified and the equipment and procedures to be used comply with applicable standards. Any laboratories to be used shall be specified. Acceptance/Rejection criteria and proposed corrective measures shall be listed. Inspections related to the on-site remedial action operations shall also verify compliance with environmental regulations for air quality and waste disposal.

d. An approach for managing submittals, testing, inspections, and any other QA function (including those of contractors, subcontractors, fabricators, suppliers, purchasing agents, etc.) that involve assuring quality workmanship, verifying compliance with the plans and specifications, or any other QC objectives.

e. Reporting procedures and reporting format for QA/QC activities including such items as daily summary reports, schedule of data submissions, inspection data sheets, problem identification and corrective measures reports, evaluation reports, acceptance reports, and final documentation.

5. Construction Health and Safety Plan/Contingency Plan

The Settling Defendants shall prepare a Construction Health and Safety Plan/Contingency Plan in conformance with the Settling Defendants' health and safety program, and in compliance with OSHA regulations and protocols. The Construction Health and Safety Plan shall include a health and safety risk analysis, a description of monitoring and personal protective equipment, medical monitoring, and site control. EPA will not approve the Settling Defendants' Construction Health and Safety Plan/Contingency Plan, but rather EPA will review it to ensure that all necessary elements are included, and that the plan provides for the protection of human health and the environment. This plan shall include a Contingency Plan (with discussion of the need for spill controls and countermeasures) and an Air Monitoring Plan if determined by EPA to be applicable for the Site. The Contingency Plan is to be written for the onsite construction workers and nearby industrial entities and potentially affected residents and shall include the following items:

a. Name of person who will be responsible in the event of an emergency incident.

b. Plan for initial site safety training for all employees, name of the person who will give the training and the topics to be covered.

c. A list of the first aid and medical facilities including, location of first aid kits, names of personnel trained in first aid, a clearly marked map with the route to the nearest medical facility, all necessary emergency phone numbers conspicuously posted at the job site (i.e., fire, ambulance,)

d. Plans for protection of public and visitors to the job site.

e. Air Monitoring Plan which incorporates the following requirements:

1) Air monitoring shall be conducted on Site and, if determined by EPA or the Settling Defendants to be warranted by on-site measurements, at the perimeter of the Site. Monitoring shall be performed, at a minimum, for any naturally occurring explosive gases, particulates, and cyanide. The Settling Defendants shall clearly identify the detection and notification levels required for these compounds.

2) Personnel Monitoring shall be conducted according to all applicable regulations and guidance.

3) Onsite Area Monitoring shall consist of initial and periodic monitoring at pipe trenches as they are constructed. Measurements shall be taken in the breathing zones of personnel. If levels exceed health-based criteria, personnel shall be cleared from the area, and upwind and downwind sampling conducted. Re-sampling at specified intervals shall be conducted until criteria acceptable to EPA are reached. Equipment shall include the following, at a minimum: explosion meter, particulate monitoring equipment, Draeger tube assembly (or equivalent), and on-site windsock.

4) Perimeter Monitoring shall be conducted, if levels exceed health-based criteria in the work zone. EPA approved methods shall be used for sampling and analysis. The results of the perimeter air monitoring and the on-site windsock shall be used to assess the potential for off-site exposure to toxic materials. The air monitoring program shall include provisions for notifying any potentially affected residents, adjacent plant personnel, and local, state and federal agencies in the event that unacceptable concentrations of, at a minimum, cyanide are migrating off-site. The Settling Defendants shall report detection of unacceptable levels of airborne contaminants to EPA in accordance with Section XV of the Consent Decree.

B. Preconstruction Conference

A Preconstruction Conference shall be held after selection of the construction contractor but before initiation of construction. This conference shall include the Settling Defendants and federal and state government representatives, and (if desired by EPA) local government agencies and shall:

1. Define the roles, relationships, and responsibilities of all parties;

2. Review methods for documenting and reporting inspection data;

3. Review methods for distributing and storing documents and reports;

4. Review work area security and safety protocols;

5. Review the Construction Schedule;

6. Conduct a site reconnaissance to verify that the design criteria and the plans specifications are understood and to review material and equipment storage locations.

The Preconstruction Conference must be documented, including names of people in attendance, issues discussed, clarifications made, special instructions issued, etc.

C. Prefinal (95%) Construction Inspection

Precertification inspections for the completion of the remedial action shall be conducted in accordance with Section XIV of the Consent Decree. Upon preliminary project completion the Settling Defendants shall notify EPA for the purpose of conducting a Prefinal Construction Inspection. Participants should include the Project Coordinators, Supervising Contractor, Construction Contractor, and other federal, state, and local agencies with a jurisdictional interest. The Prefinal Inspection shall consist of a walk-through inspection of the entire project site. The objective of the inspection is to determine whether the construction is complete and consistent with the Consent Decree. Any outstanding construction items discovered during the inspection shall be identified and noted on a punch list which shall be submitted to EPA. Additionally, treatment equipment shall be operationally tested by the Settling Defendants. The Settling Defendants shall certify that the equipment has performed to effectively meet the purpose and intent of the equipment specifications. Retesting shall be completed where deficiencies are revealed.

D. Final Construction Inspection

Upon completion of all outstanding construction items, the Settling Defendants shall notify EPA for the purpose of conducting a Final Construction Inspection. The Final Construction Inspection shall consist of a walk-through inspection of the entire project site. The punch list shall be used as a check list with the Final Construction Inspection focusing on the outstanding construction items identified in the Prefinal Construction Inspection. All tests that were originally unsatisfactory shall be conducted again. Confirmation shall be made during the Final Construction Inspection that all outstanding items have been resolved. Any outstanding construction items discovered during the inspection still requiring correction shall be identified and noted on a punch list. If any items are still unresolved, the inspection shall be considered to be a Prefinal Construction Inspection requiring another punch list submittal to EPA and subsequent Final Construction Inspection.

E. Final Construction Report

Within thirty (30) days following the conclusion of the Final Construction Inspection, the Settling Defendants shall submit a Final Construction Report. EPA will review the draft report and will provide comments to the Settling Defendants. The Final Construction Report shall include the following:

1. Brief description of how outstanding items noted in the Prefinal Inspection were resolved;

2. Explanation of modifications made during the RA to the original RD and RA Work Plans and why these changes were made;

3. As-built drawings.

4. Synopsis of the construction work defined in the SOW and certification that the construction work has been completed.

F. Remedial Action Report

As provided in Section XIV of the Consent Decree, within 90 days after the Settling Defendants conclude that the Remedial Action for soils has been fully performed and the Performance Standards for soils have been attained, the Settling Defendants shall so certify to the United States and shall schedule and conduct a pre-certification inspection to be attended by EPA and the Settling Defendants. If after the pre-certification inspection the Settling Defendants still believes that the Remedial Action for soils has been fully performed and the Performance Standards for soils have been attained, the Settling Defendants shall submit a Remedial Action (RA) Report for Soils to EPA in accordance with Section XIV of the Consent Decree. The RA Report shall include the following:

1. A copy of the Final Construction Report;

2. Synopsis of the work defined in this SOW and a demonstration in accordance with the Performance Standards Verification Plan that Performance Standards have been achieved;

3. Certification that the Remedial Action has been completed in full satisfaction of the requirements of the Consent Decree, and;

4. A description of how the Settling Defendants will Implement any remaining part of the EPA approved Operation and Maintenance Plan.

After EPA review, the Settling Defendants shall address any comments and submit a revised report. As provided in Section XIV of the Consent Decree, the Remedial Action shall not be considered complete until EPA approves the RA Report.

TASK IV — OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Operation and maintenance (OM) for the former Halby area remedy shall be performed in accordance with the approved Operation and Maintenance Manual.

A. Operation and Maintenance Manual

At the 90 percent construction stage, Settling Defendants shall submit an Operation and Maintenance Manual for review. The Operation and Maintenance Manual must be reviewed and approved by EPA prior to initiation of Operation and Maintenance activities. If necessary, the Operation and Maintenance Manual shall be modified to incorporate any design modifications implemented during the final stages of the Remedial Action.

Upon approval of the Operation and Maintenance Manual, Settling Defendants shall implement the Operation and Maintenance Manual in accordance with the schedule contained therein. This manual shall describe start-up procedures, operation, troubleshooting, training, and evaluation activities that shall be carried out by Settling Defendants. The manual shall address the following elements:

1. Equipment start-up and operator training;

a. Technical specifications governing treatment systems;

b. Equipment identification;

c. Installation of monitoring components;

d. Maintenance of site equipment;

e. Replacement schedule for equipment and installation components;

f. Requirements for providing appropriate service visits by experienced personnel to supervise equipment replacement, adjustment, start-up and operation of the systems; and,

g. Schedule for training personnel regarding appropriate operational procedures once start-up has been successfully completed.

2. Description of normal operation and maintenance;

a. Description of tasks required for system operation;

b. Description of tasks required for system maintenance;

c. Description of prescribed treatment or operating conditions; and

d. Schedule showing the required frequency for each O M task.

3. Description of potential operating problems;

a. Description and analysis of potential operating problems;

b. Sources of information for problem evaluation; and

c. Common remedies or anticipated corrective actions.

4. Description of routime monitoring and laboratory testing;

a. Description of monitoring tasks; and

b. Schedule of monitoring frequency and date, if appropriate, when monitoring may cease.

5. Description of alternate O M;

a. Should system fail, alternate procedures to prevent undue hazard; and

b. Analysis of vulnerability and additional resource requirements should a failure occur.

6. Safety Plan;

a. Description of precautions to be taken and required health and safety equipment, etc., for site personnel protection, and

b. Safety tasks required in the event of systems failure.

7. Records and reporting;

a. Monthly monitoring logs;

b. Mechanism for reporting emergencies;

c. Personnel and Maintenance Records; and

d. Monthly reports to State/Federal Agencies.

TASK V — PERFORMANCE MONITORING FOR THE FORMER HALBY AREA REMEDY

A. Performance Standards Verification Plan

The purpose of the Performance Standards Verification Plan is to provide a mechanism to ensure that both short-term and long-term Performance Standards for the Remedial Action at the former Halby area are met. Guidances used in developing the Sampling and Analysis Plan during the Remedial Design phase shall be used. Settling Defendants shall submit a Performance Standards Verification Plan with the Operations and Maintenance Manual. Once approved, Settling Defendants shall implement the Performance Standards Verification Plan on the approved schedule. The Performance Standards Verification Plan shall include:

1. The Performance Standards Verification Field Sampling and Analysis Plan that provides guidance for all fieldwork by defining in detail the sampling and data gathering methods and laboratory tests to be used. The Performance Standards Verification Field Sampling and Analysis Plan shall be written so that a field sampling team unfamiliar with the Site would be able to gather the samples and field information required. This plan shall include a provision for ground water monitoring of well 0-79 in the former Halby area for thiocyanate and cyanide. Monitoring shall be conducted, at a minimum, on an annual basis, unless otherwise approved by EPA. The results shall be reported to EPA upon receipt and validation by the Settling Defendants.

2. The Performance Standards Verification Quality Assurance/Quality Control plan that describes the quality assurance and quality control protocols which will be followed in demonstrating compliance with Performance standards.

3. Specification of those tasks to be performed by Settling Defendants to demonstrate compliance with the Performance Standards and a schedule for the performance of these tasks.

B. Completion of Work

As provided in Section XIV of the Consent Decree, within 90 days after Settling Defendants conclude that all phases of the work (including OM) have been fully performed, the Settling Defendants shall so certify to the United States and shall schedule and conduct a final pre-certification inspection to be attended by EPA and the Settling Defendants. If, after the pre-certification inspection, the Settling Defendants still believe that the Work has been fully performed, the Settling Defendants shall submit a written report (to be entitled "Supplemental Remedial Action (Remedy Completion) Report") as provided in Section XIV of the Consent Decree. If deemed acceptable by EPA and otherwise consistent with the terms of the Consent Decree, a single inspection may be suitable for both the precertification inspection to be conducted after Settling Defendants conclude the Remedial Action has been fully performed and the Performance Standards attained and the pre-certification inspection to be conducted after Settling Defendants conclude that all phases of the Work (including O M) have been performed.

TASK VI — OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR REMAINDER OF 0U2 AREA

A. Ground Water Monitoring

Ground water potentially affected by the LeMoyne Landfill, the Old Chlorine Plant WWTP, and the Old Brine Mud Pond shall be monitored by the Settling Defendants. Samples from monitoring wells MW-3, O-58, and NM-1 shall be collected by the Settling Defendants, at a minimum, on an annual basis, unless otherwise approved by EPA, and analyzed by an outside laboratory. The samples shall be analyzed for carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, and thiocarbamates. The results shall be reported to EPA upon receipt by the Settling Defendants.

B. Maintenance Activities

Maintenance activities described in Table 6-10 of the Record of Decision for 0U2 of the Site shall be conducted by the Settling Defendants. A summary of maintenance activities shall be reported to EPA, at a minimum, on an annual basis, unless otherwise approved by EPA.

C. Operation and Maintenance Plans

The Settling Defendants shall submit to EPA a ground water monitoring plan for the activities specified in Paragraph A above. The monitoring plan shall define in detail the sampling and data-gathering methods that shall be used on the project. It shall include sampling objectives, sample location and frequency, sampling equipment and procedures, and sampling handling and analyses. The monitoring plan shall be written so that a field sampling team unfamiliar with the Site would be able to gather the samples and field information required.

The Settling Defendants shall submit to EPA a maintenance plan for the activities specified in Paragraph B above. The maintenance plan shall describe the maintenance activities required for each Solid Waste Management Unit listed in Table 6-10 of the Record of Decision for 0U2 of the Site and the frequency of each maintenance activity.

The plans must be reviewed and approved by EPA before operation and maintenance activities begin on the remainder of the 0U2 area.

REFERENCES

The following list, although not comprehensive, comprises many of the regulations and guidance documents that apply to the RD/RA process. Settling Defendants shall review these guidances to the extent Settling Defendants are not otherwise familiar with these documents, and shall use the information provided therein in performing the RD/RA and preparing all deliverables under this SOW.

1. "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, Final Rule", Federal Register 40 C.F.R. Part 300, March 8, 1990.

2. "Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, June 1986, OSWER Directive No. 9355. O-4A.

3. "A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods," Two Volumes, U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA/540/P-87/001a, August 1987, OSWER Directive No. 9355.0-14.

4. "The Data Quality Objective Process for Superfund: Interim Final Guidance." EPA/540/R-93/071, September 1993.

5. "Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans," U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, QAMS-004/80, December 29, 1980.

6. "Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual," U.S. EPA Region IV, Environmental Services Division, February 1, 1991; (revised periodically).

7. "USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Inorganics Analysis," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, ILM-01, July 1995.

8. "Interim Guidance on Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, July 9, 1987, OSWER Directive No. 9234.0-05.

9. "CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual," Two Volumes, U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, August 1988 (Draft), OSWER Directive No. 9234.1-01 and -02.

10. "Health and Safety Requirements of Employees Employed in Field Activities," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, July 12, 1981, EPA Order No. 1440.2.

11. "Standard Operating Safety Guides," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, November 1984.

12. "Standards for General Industry," 29 C.F.R. Part 1910, Occupational Health and Safety Administration.

13. "Standards for the Construction Industry," 29 C.F.R. § 1926, Occupational Health and Safety Administration.

14. "NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods," 2d edition. Volumes I — VII, or the 3rd edition, Volumes I and II, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.

15. "Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities," National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health/Occupational Health and Safety Administration/United States Coast Guard/Environmental Protection Agency, October 1985.

16. "TLVs — Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices for 1987-88," American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

17. "Quality in the Constructed Project — Volume 1," American Society of Civil Engineers, 1990.

SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR DELIVERABLES FOR THE REMEDIAL DESIGN AND REMEDIAL ACTION AT THE STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (LEMOYNE PLANT) SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NUMBER 2 DELIVERABLE EPA RESPONSE TASK I PROJECT PLANNING

No deliverables planned as part of Task I.

TASK II REMEDIAL DESIGN — FORMER HALBY AREA

RD Work Plan (5*) Review and Approve

Sampling and Analysis Plan (5) Review and Approve (if required by EPA)

Health and Safety Plan (5) Review and Comment (if required by EPA)

Prefinal/Final Design (5)

Results of Data Acquisition Review and Approve Activities (5) (if required by EPA)

Design Criteria Report (5) Review and Approve

Complete Design Analysis (5) Review and Approve

Final Plans and Specifications (5) Review and Approve

Final Construction Schedule (5) Review and Approve

Construction Cost Estimate (5) Review and Approve

Plan for Satisfying Permitting Review and Approve Requirements (5)

TASK III REMEDIAL ACTION

RA Work Plan (5) Review and Approve

Construction Quality Assurance Review and Approve Plan (5)

Construction Health and Safety Review and Comment Plan/Contingency Plan (5)

Prefinal Remediation Review and Approve Inspection Punch List(5)

Final Construction Inspection Review and Approve Punch List (5) (if required by EPA)

Final Construction Report (5) Review and Approve

Remedial Action Report (5) Review and Approve

TASK IV OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Operation and Maintenance Manual (5) Review and Approve

TASK IV MONITORING

Performance Standards Verification Review and Approve Plan (5)

Supplemental Remedial Action (Remedy Review and Approve Completion) Report (5)

Ground Water Monitoring Plan (5) Review and Approve

Maintenance Plan (5) Review and Approve

Sampling Results (5) Review and Approve

Maintenance Reports (5) Review and Approve

* NOTE: The number in parenthesis indicates the number of copies to be submitted by Respondents. Respondent shall verify number required by EPA before submittal. One copy shall be unbound, the remainder shall be bound. In addition, two copies must be submitted to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division.

SCHEDULE FOR THE MAJOR DELIVERABLES FOR THE CONSENT DECREE FOR REMEDIAL DESIGN AND REMEDIAL ACTION AT THE STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (LEMOYNE PLANT) SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 2

DELIVERABLES FOR FORMER DATE DUE HALBY AREA DELIVERABLES FOR REMAINDER OF OU2

Selection of Supervising 30 days after entry of CD Contractor Designation of project coordinator 20 days after entry of CD Assurance of ability to complete work 30 days after entry of CD Notification of Access Problems 45 days after entry of CD Progress reports Tenth day of every month following the entry of the CDL RD Work Plan 60 days after authorization to proceed (ATP). ATP will follow Settling Defendants's's selection of Supervising contractor. Sampling and Analysis Plan 60 days after ATP (if required by EPA) Health and Safety Plan 60 days after ATP (if required by EPA) Prefinal/Final Design TBD Results of Data Acquisition TBD Activities Design Criteria TBD 50% Design Oral Presentation TBD Complete Design Analysis TBD Final Plans and TBD Specifications Final Construction Schedule TBD Construction Cost Estimate TBD Plan for Satisfying TBD Permitting Requirements RA Work Plan 30 days after EPA approval of final plans and specifications Notification of RA Contractor 10 days after EPA approval of RA Work Plan Construction Quality Assurance 60 days after submittal of final plans and specifications Construction Health and Safety 60 days after submittal Plan/Contingency Plan of final plans and specifications Prefinal Construction Inspection TBD Punch List Notification of construction TBD completion Final Construction Inspection TBD (within 90 days after notification of construction completion) Final Construction TBD Inspection Punch List (if required) Final Construction Report TBD (within 30 days after conclusion of the Final Construction Inspection) Remedial Action Report TBD (within 30 days after EPA concurrence on the Remedial Action Pre-Certification Inspection) Operation and Maintenance Manual TBD (at 90% completion of construction) Performance Standards TBD (at 90% completion of Verification Plan construction) Notification of remedy completion TBD Remedy Completion Inspection TBD (within 90 days after notification of remedy completion) Supplemental Remedial Action TBD (within 90 days after EPA (Remedy Completion) Report concurrence on remedy precertification inspection) Ground Water Monitoring Plan 180 days after entry of CD Maintenance Plan 180 days after entry of CD Sampling Results TBD Maintenance Reports TBD

APPENDIX C MAP OF THE SITE