Howard Zar, U.S. EPA  Region 5
                                   (312)  886-1491
1.   Where is the site  located,  how  large is the site, and  what are  the  major environ-
     mental problems and sources of contamination?

The  site  occupies  approximately  10  acres  of  Waukegan  Harbor  and portions  of  the
Outboard  Marine  Corporation  (OMC) property  in  Waukegan  (Lake  Michigan),   Illinois.
Sediments  of  the harbor  are  extensively  contaminated  with   polychlorinated  biphenyls
(PCBs,  at concentrations   exceeding   10,000  mg/kg  dry  weight in   some  places)  from
chronic releases from OMC.
2.   Under what authority is this project being pursued?

The Waukegan Harbor  site is  a  federal Superfund  site under U.S.  Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) lead.
3.    What federal,  state,  and local agencies have either prime responsibility for the project
      or  provide  review and  oversight?   Did  this involvement change  over the course of
      the project?

EPA  has  had prime responsibility for activities at  the site  since discovery  of  contamination
in  the early  1970s.    Other  key  participants  include  U.S.  Army  Corps  of Engineers
(COE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service (FWS), National Oceanic  and Atmospheric Admin-
istration (NOAA), Illinois  EPA,  Illinois Department of Conservation, and  Illinois Department
of Transportation.

4.    What is the time-frame, current status, and approximate cost  of the project?

Contamination of  the site was  first  observed in the early 1970s.   Several  investigations
have  been   completed   since  site   discovery  [including  completion  of  the   remedial
investigation/feasibility  study  (RI/FS)  process].    The  total  cost  to  date  of  studies,
negotiations,  and remedial design  is  approximately  $1.5  million.   A  Record  of  Decision
(ROD) was  signed  in May 1984 for  cleanup  costs of $21  million.   The  case  has been  in
 litigation since  the  signing  of the  ROD.    EPA  is  currently  negotiating  a settlement
 with  the  potentially  responsible  party (PRP) to initiate   remediation.    In  March  1985,
 EPA  revised cleanup  estimates  to  $27  million based on  preliminary  remedial design.   In
 OMC's 1986 annual  report to taxpayers,  the  company  listed  $15 million  in  environmental
 liability, suggesting  that estimated cleanup costs range  from $15 to $27 million.

1.   What factor prompted  the  initial focus on the site?   Why was this site given priority
     over other potential sites in the region?

This site  was  given  high  priority  for  action  primarily  for  two  reasons:   1) very  high
concentrations  of  PCBs  were   present  in  harbor  sediments  (in  some  places exceeding
10,000 mg/kg), and  2) there was a  city of  Waukegan emergency drinking  water intake
in the harbor.
2.   How were the magnitude and  extent of the problem quantified (i.e., what  factor drove
     the analysis of the problem)?

PCB contamination of  sediments  in  the  harbor  drove  problem   area  definition.    Data
from   several  sediment  surveys  (surface  sediments  and  sediment   cores)  defined  the
volume of   contaminated   material  in  the  harbor.     In  addition  to  sediment surveys,
surface water  and fish have  been  sampled in the  harbor, and soils  and groundwater at
the OMC facility have been sampled.

3.   What factor drove the selection and implementation of remedial action?

The preferred  alternative  was  selected  primarily because  of  cost  considerations  for  fund
balancing.    The  alternative  selected  for  maximum  protection  of  human health and the
environment  had   an   estimated  cost  of  $75  million.   The  preferred alternative  is  a
modification  of this alternative.
4.   Were specific  ranking methods applied to different  phases  of this project?   Which
     methods were used?

No  ranking  methods  were  used during  the  course  of  this  project.   Hot  spots  were
identified as areas with sediment PCB concentrations in excess of 10,000 mg/kg dry weight.
1.   Who has formal responsibility for the scoping and final selection of the alternative?

EPA and its contractor,  FWS,  and the  Illinois EPA had prime  responsibility for selecting
the preferred alternative.

2.   What major alternatives were considered?

Approximately   75   alternatives  were  considered  for   remediation  in  Waukegan  Harbor.
Alternatives  were evaluated  for  in  situ remediation,  incineration,  confinement  in  vaults,
and various treatment technologies.

3.   What  procedure  was  used to  evaluate  the  alternatives  (e.g., cost benefit analysis,
     evaluation criteria matrix)?

Cost/benefit  analysis  (including consideration  of human  health  and environmental impacts)
was  used  to  select the  preferred  alternative,  with  the  final  decision  being  driven  by
fund balancing.   The area targeted for remediation was determined  based on a combination
of  cost  and  environmental  modeling.    Modeling  indicated   that  natural  resources  and
human health would be acceptably protected  with  the  removal  of all sediment contaminated
at levels  at  or  above  100  mg/kg  PCBs.    Participating agencies  applied  a  safety  factor
of 2  to  this  estimate, thus  deciding  to  remediate all  sediment contaminated with  PCBs
at concentrations at or above SO mg/kg dry  weight.

4.   What alternative was  chosen?   Was there an overriding  regulatory or  programmatic
     requirement that drove the choice of the alternative?

In situ  remediation was  ruled infeasible  early in  the  remedial evaluation  process.   The
preferred  alternative  involves  removal of  sediment  from  hot  spots,  solidification,  and
disposal at a  facility  approved  by the Toxic  Substances Control  Act (TSCA);  and removal
of ail other  contaminated sediment (i.e,  with  PCBs >50  mg/kg) and  confined  disposal on
OMC property.    Disposal  on  OMC  property  will  consist of construction  of  1)  slurry
walls  to  the  depth of  glacial  till hardpan,  and 2)  an impermeable cap  over  the disposal
areas.   Dredging  undertaken  as  part  of  this project  will  be  coordinated with dredging
in the federal navigation channel by  the Corps  of Engineers,   with  the  net effect that
all contaminated  sediments  (i.e., including those  with 
offered through  Superfund  (especially  SARA  for the  onsite portion of  remediation)  and
3.   What  mechanisms were  established  for  communicating  with  local interests  and the
     public?  Did public perception of risks affect implementation of  the project?

Public   involvement  during  the  ROD  process  included  distribution  of fact  sheets  and
several  public meetings attended  by area residents and  citizen  groups,  the Sierra Club,
and  Lake  Michigan  environmental  groups.    Public  perception  of  risk has  not  affected
the  project  to  date.   Human  health  risks  from  this site  were   quantified  during  the
course  of study and were generally acceptable to public users.

4.   How long did it take, or is it expected to take, to implement the alternative?

The  alternative  has not yet  been implemented.   Once implemented, it  is  expected to be
complete in  2 years.

5.   What criteria were or will be used to  measure the success of remediation?

Specifications for the  removal  of sediment were determined  based on  the knowledge of
the volume  (areal extent and depth) of contaminated  material.   Performance  specifications
will  be  strictly  adhered to  during  dredging.    Soundings  and  some additional sediment
sampling  will be  conducted  after   dredging  is  complete   to  ensure  that  the  specified
grade lines were achieved.
6.   How successful  was  the  alternative  in  solving  the  problem  identified  during the
     setting of priorities?

Remediation of contamination in Waukegan Harbor has not yet begun.