HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR
PHASE 3 - FEASIBILITY STUDY
SCOPE OF WORK
JUNE 1999
For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District
Book 1 of 1
TAMS Consultants, Inc.
-------
? A ro
^to sr^t,
T <\r
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 2
290 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866
June 10, 1999
To All Interested Parties:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is pleased to release the Responsiveness
Summary for the Phase 3 Feasibility Study Scope of Work (FSSOW) for the Hudson River PCBs
Reassessment Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (Reassessment RI/FS).
This Responsiveness Summary contains USEPA's responses to public comments received on the
September 1998 FSSOW. The FSSOW presented the general approach to be taken by USEPA to
evaluate remedial alternatives for the PCB-contaminated sediments in the Upper Hudson River.
If you have any questions regarding this Responsiveness Summary or the Reassessment RI/FS in
general, please contact Ann Rychlenski, the Community Relations Coordinator for the site, at
(212) 637-3672.
Sincerely yours,
Richard L. Caspe, Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
RecycledfftecycUbl* • Printed with Vegetable CM Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)
-------
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR
PHASE 3 - FEASIBILITY STUDY
SCOPE OF WORK
JUNE 1999
«e° srA^
s&zj
V pr
For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District
Book 1 of 1
TAMS Consultants, Inc.
-------
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR
PHASE 3 - FEASIBILITY STUDY
SCOPE OF WORK
JUNE 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOOK I OF 1 Page
I. Introduction and Comment Directory
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. COMMENTING PROCESS 2
2.1 Distribution of FSSOW 2
2.2 Review Period and Public Availability Meetings 2
2.3 Receipt of Comments 2
2.4 Distribution of Responsiveness Summary 6
3. ORGANIZATION OF FSSOW COMMENTS AND
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 6
3.1 Identification of Comments 6
3.2 Location of Responses to Comments 6
4. COMMENT DIRECTORY 7
4.1 Guide to Comment Directory 7
4.2 Comment Directory 9
II. Response to Comments
GENERAL COMMENTS 13
1. INTRODUCTION 13
1.1 Site History 14
1.2 Objective and Scope 15
1.3 Schedule 16
i TAMS
-------
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR
PHASE 3 - FEASIBILITY STUDY
SCOPE OF WORK
JUNE 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOOK 1 OF 1 Page
2. DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES AND GENERAL
RESPONSE ACTIONS 16
2.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 16
2.2 Remedial Action Objectives 18
2.3 General Response Actions 21
3. IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES AND
PROCESS OPTIONS 22
3.1 Technology and Process Option Identification and Screening 22
3.2 Evaluation of Technologies and Process Options 23
4. DEVELOPMENT, SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES 24
4.1 "No-Action" Alternative 24
4.2 Effectiveness Evaluation 24
4.3 Implementability Evaluation 25
4.4 Cost Evaluation 25
4.5 Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives 26
5. FEASIBILITY STUDY REASSESSMENT REPORT 26
REFERENCES 26
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 26
REVISED TABLES AND FIGURE 29
REVISED TABLES
1 Potential Chemical-Specific ARARs and Criteria. Advisories and Guidance
2 Potential Location-Specific ARARs and Criteria, Advisories and Guidance
3 Potential Action-Specific ARARs
4 Initial Identification of General Response Actions and Remedial Technologies
REVISED FIGURE
1 Hudson River PCBs Reassessment Feasibility Study Modeling Analysis Flowchart
u
TAMS
-------
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR
PHASE 3 - FEASIBILITY STUDY
SCOPE OF WORK
JUNE 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOOK 1 OF 1
III. Comments on Feasibility Study Scope of Work
Federal (FF-1)
State (FS-1)
Local (FL-1)
General Electric (FG-1)
iii
-------
INTRODUCTION
-------
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT Rl/FS
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR
PHASE 3 - FEASIBILITY STUDY SCOPE OF WORK
JUNE 1999
I. INTRODUCTION AND COMMENT DIRECTORY
1. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has prepared this Responsiveness
Summary to address comments received during the public comment period on the Phase 3 Feasibility
Study Scope of Work (FSSOW) for the Hudson River PCBs Reassessment Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (Reassessment Rl/FS), dated September 1998.
For the Hudson River PCBs Reassessment Rl/FS, USEPA has established a Community
Interaction Program (CIP) to elicit on-going feedback through regular meetings and discussion and
to facilitate review of and comment upon work plans and reports prepared during all phases of the
Reassessment Rl/FS.
Because of the large number of CIP participants and associated costs of reproduction, the
FSSOW is incorporated by reference and is not reproduced herein. No revised FSSOW will be
published. The comment responses and revisions noted herein are considered to amend the FSSOW.
For complete coverage, the FSSOW and this Responsiveness Summary must be used together.
The first part of this three-part Responsiveness Summary is entitled, 'introduction and
Comment Directory." It describes the FSSOW review and commenting process, explains the
organization and format of comments and responses, and contains a comment directory.
The second part, entitled "Response to Comments on the Feasibility Study Scope of Work,"
contains USEPA's responses to all significant written comments received on the FSSOW.
Responses are grouped according to the section number of the FSSOW to which they refer. For
example, responses to comments on Section 2.2 of the FSSOW are found in Section 2.2 of the
Responsiveness Summary. Additional information about how to locate responses to comments is
contained in the Comment Directory.
The third part, entitled, "Comments on the Feasibility Study Scope of Work," contains copies
of the comments submitted to USEPA. The comments are identified by commenter and comment
number, as further explained in the Comment Directory.
1
TAMS
-------
2. COMMENTING PROCESS
This section documents and explains the commenting process and the organization of
comments and responses in this document. Readers interested in finding responses to their
comments may skip this section and go directly to the tab labeled "Comment Directory."
2.1 Distribution of FSSOW
The FSSOW, issued in September 1998, was distributed to federal and state agencies and
officials, participants in the CIP, and General Electric Company (GE), as shown in Table 1.
Distribution was made to approximately 100 agencies, groups, and individuals. Copies of the
FSSOW were also made available for public review in 17 Information Repositories, as shown in
Table 2, and on the USEPA Region 2 Internet webpage, entitled "Hudson River PCBs Superfund
Site Reassessment," at www.epa.gov/hudson.
2.2 Review Period and Public Availability Meetings
Review of and comment on the FSSOW occurred from September 23, 1998 to November
2, 1998. On September 23, USEPA held a Joint Liaison Group meeting open to the public at the
Holiday Inn at Latham, New York. Subsequently, on October 20, USEPA sponsored an availability
session at the Marriott Hotel in Albany, New York to answer questions from the public regarding
the FSSOW. These meetings were conducted in accordance with USEPA's Community Relations
in Superfund: Handbook, Interim Version (1988). Minutes of the Joint Liaison Group meeting will
be available for public review at the Information Repositories listed in Table 2.
As stated in USEPA's letter transmitting the FSSOW, all citizens were urged to participate
in the Reassessment process and to join one of the Liaison Groups formed as part of the CIP.
2.3 Receipt of Comments
Comments on the FSSOW were received in two ways: letters and oral statements made at
the September 23, 1998 Joint Liaison Group meeting. USEPA's responses to comments raised at
the Joint Liaison Group meeting are provided in the meeting minutes.
All significant comments received on the FSSOW are addressed in this Responsiveness
Summary. Comments were received from four commenters. Total comments numbered
approximately 70.
TAMS
-------
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY SCOPE OF WORK
HUDSON RIVER PCBs OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEMBERS
USEPA ERRD Deputy Division Director (Chair)
USEPA Project Managers
USEPA Community Relations Coordinator, Chair of the Steering Committee
NYSDEC Division of Hazardous Waste Management representative
NYSDEC Division of Construction Management representative
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) representative
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) representative
US Army Corps of Engineers representative
New York State Thruway Authority (Department of Canals) representative
USDOI (US Fish and Wildlife Service) representative
New York State Department of Health representative
GE representative
Liaison Group Chairpeople
Scientific and Technical Committee representative
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS
The members of the Science and Technical Committee (STC) are scientists and technical
researchers who provide technical input by evaluating the scientific data collected on the
Reassessment RI/FS, identifying additional sources of information and on-going research relevant
to the Reassessment RI/FS, and commenting on USEPA documents. Members of the STC are
familiar with the site, PCBs, modeling, toxicology, and other relevant disciplines.
- Dr. Daniel Abramowicz
- Dr. Donald Aulenbach
- Dr. James Boner, Texas A&M University
- Dr. Richard Bopp, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
- Dr. Brian Bush, New York State Department of Health
Dr. Lenore Clesceri, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
- Mr. Kenneth Darmer
- Mr. John Davis, New York State Dept. of Law
Dr. Robert Dexter, EVS Consultants, Inc.
Dr. Kevin Farley, Manhattan College
Dr. Jay Field, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Dr. Ken Pearsall, U.S. Geological Survey
Dr. John Herbich, Texas A&M University
Dr. Behrus Jahan-Parwar, SUNY - Albany
- Dr. Nancy Kim, New York State Dept. of Health
- Dr. William Nicholson, Mt. Sinai Medical Center
- Dr. George Putman, SUNY - Albany
Dr. G-Yull Rhee, New York State Dept. of Health
- Dr. Francis Reilly, The Reilly Group
3
TAMS
-------
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY SCOPE OF WORK (Cont.)
Dr. John Sanders
Ms. Anne Secord, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dr. Ronald Sloan, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
USEPA Community Relations Coordinator (Chair)
Governmental Liaison Group Chair and two Co-chairs
Citizen Liaison Group Chair and two Co-chairs
Agricultural Liaison Group Chair and two Co-chairs
Environmental Liaison Group Chair and two Co-chairs
USEPA Project Managers
NYSDEC Technical representative
NYSDEC Community Affairs representative
FEDERAL AND STATE REPRESENTATIVES
Copies of the FSSOW were sent to relevant federal and state representatives who have been involved
with this project. These include, in part, the following:
The Hon. Daniel P. Moynihan
The Hon. Alphonse D'Amato
The Hon. Gerald Solomon
The Hon. Michael McNulty
The Hon. Sue Kelly
The Hon. Benjamin Gilman
The Hon. Richard Brodsky
The Hon. Bobby D'Andrea
The Hon. Nita Lowey
The Hon. Maurice Hinchey
The Hon. Ronald B. Stafford
17 INFORMATION REPOSITORIES (see Table 2)
4
TAMS
-------
TABLE 2
INFORMATION REPOSITORIES
Adriance Memorial Library
93 Market Street
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Catskill Public Library
1 Franklin Street
Catskill, NY 12414
A Cornell Cooperative Extension
Sea Grant Office
74 John Street
Kingston, NY 12401
Crandall Library
City Park
Glens Falls, NY 12801
County Clerk's Office
Washington County Office Building
Upper Broadway
Fort Edward, NY 12828
* A Marist College Library
Marist College
290 North Road
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
* New York State Library
CEC Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12230
New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Remediation
50 Wolf Road, Room 212
Albany, NY 12233
* A R.G. Folsom Library
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
Saratoga County EMC
50 West High Street
Ballston Spa, NY 12020
* Saratoga Springs Public Library
49 Henry Street
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
*A SUNY at Albany Library
1400 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12222
* A Sojourner Truth Library
SUNY at New Paltz
New Paltz, NY 12561
Troy Public Library
100 Second Street
Troy, NY 12180
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
* A U.S. Military Academy Library
Building 757
West Point, NY 10996
White Plains Public Library
100 Martine Avenue
White Plains, NY 12601
* Repositories with Database Report
CD-ROM (as of 10/98)
A Repositories without Project
Documents Binder (as of 10/98)
5
TAMS
-------
2.4 Distribution of Responsiveness Summary
This Responsiveness Summary will be distributed to the Liaison Group Chairs and Co-
Chairs and interested public officials. This Responsiveness Summary will be placed in the 17
Information Repositories and is part of the Administrative Record.
3. ORGANIZATION OF FSSOW COMMENTS AND RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY
3.1 Identification of Comments
Each submission commenting on the FSSOW was assigned the letter "F" for FSSOW and
one of the following letter codes:
The letter codes were assigned for the convenience of readers and to assist in the organization of
this document. Priority or special treatment was neither intended nor given in the responses to
comments.
Once a letter code was assigned, each submission was then assigned a number, in the
order that it was received and processed, such as FF-1. Each different comment within a
submission was assigned a separate sub-number. Thus, if a federal agency submission contained
three different comments, they would be designated as FF-1.1, FF-1.2, and FF-1.3. Written
comment letters are reprinted following the fourth tab of this document.
The alphanumeric code associated with each reprinted written submission is marked at
the top right comer of the first page of the comment letter. The subnumbers designating
individual comments are marked in the margin. Comment submissions are reprinted in
numerical order by letter code in the following order: FF, FS, FL, and FG.
3.2 Location of Responses to Comments
The Comment Directory, following this text, contains a complete listing of all
commenters and comments. This directory' allows readers to find responses to comments and
provides several items of information.
The first column lists the names of commenters. Comments are grouped first by: FF
(Federal), FS (State), FL (Local) or FG (GE).
The second column identifies the alphanumeric comment code {e.g., FF-1.1)
F
S
L
G
Federal agencies and officials;
State agencies and officials;
Local agencies and officials; and
GE.
6
TAMS
-------
The third column identifies the location of the response by FSSOW Section number. For
example, comments raised on Section 2.2 of the FSSOW can be found in the
corresponding Section 2.2 of the Responses, following the third tab of this document.
The fourth, fifth, and sixth columns list key words that describe the subject matter of each
comment. Readers will find these key words helpful as a means to identify subjects of
interest and related comments.
Responses are grouped and consolidated by section number of the FSSOW in order that
all responses to related comments appear together for the convenience of the reader interested in
responses to related or similar comments.
4. COMMENT DIRECTORY
4.1 Guide to Comment Directory
This section contains a diagram illustrating how to find responses to comments. The
Comment Directory follows. As stated in the Introduction, this document does not reproduce the
FSSOW. Readers are urged to use this Responsiveness Summary in conjunction with the
FSSOW.
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Find the commenter or the key
words of interest in the
Comment Directory.
Obtain the alphanumeric
comment codes and the
corresponding FSSOW Section.
Find the responses following the
Responses tab. See the Table of
Contents to locate the page of the
Responsiveness Summary for the
FSSOW Section.
Key to Comment Codes:
Comment codes are in this format FX-a.b
F=FSSOW
X=Commenter Group (F=Federal. S-State. L=Local. G=GE)
a=Numbered letter containing comments
b=Numbered comment
Example:
Comment Response Assignment for the FSSOW
AGENCY/
Comment
REPORT
KEY WORDS
Name
CODE
SECTION
1 ' 2
3
NOAA /Rosman FF-l.l 4 Site Mid-Hudson Lower
Hudson
Impacts
7
TAWS
-------
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
-------
COMMENT DIRECTORY
-------
4.2 Comment Directory
AGENCY/
COMMENT
REPORT
KEYWORDS
NAME
CODE
SECTION
1
2
3
Lower Hudson
NOAA/Rosman
FF-1.1
2.2
Site
Mid-Hudson
Impacts
NOAA/Rosman
FF-1.2
2.2
ARARs
FDA
Alternatives
Lower Hudson
NOAA/Rosman
FF-1.3
2.2
Evaluation
Modeling
Impacts
Remedial Action
PCB Inventory
NOAA/Rosman
FF-1.4
2.2
Objectives
Reduction
General Response
Monitored Natural
NOAA/Rosman
FF-1.5
2.3
Actions
Attenuation
Technology
Sediment Cleanup
NOAA/Rosman
FF-1.6
3.2
Evaluation
Levels
Institutional
NOAA/Rosman
FF-1.7
2.3
No Action
Controls
NOAA/Rosman
FF-1.8
2.1
ARARs
NOAA/Rosman
FF-1.9
2.1
ARARs
NOAA/Rosman
FF-1.10
2.1
Editorial Comment
General Response
NOAA/Rosman
FF-1.11
3.1
Actions
Remedial Action
NYSDEC/Ports
FS-1.1
1
Objectives
Modeling
NYSDEC/Ports
FS-1.2
1.2
HHRA
Exposure Routes
Remedial Action
NYSDEC/Ports
FS-1.3
2.2
Objectives
Upstream Sources
Remedial Action
NYSDEC/Ports
FS-1.4
2.1
Objectives
Remedial Action
NYSDEC/Ports
FS-1.5
2.2
Objectives
Risk
PCB
Institutional
NYSDEC. Ports
FS-1.6
2.3
No Action
Controls
NYSDEC/Ports
FS-1.7
2.3
Site Definition
NYSDEC/Ports
FS-1.8
2.1
ARARs
Remedial Action
SCHMC Balet
FL-I.I
2
Objectives
Response Actions
Remedial Action
SCEMC Balet
FL-1.2
2
Objectives
PCB Source
Remedial Action
SCEMCBalet
FL-1.3
2.2
Objectives
PCB Source
Remedial Action
SCEMC/Balet
FL-1.4
2.2
Objectives
PCB Source
SCEMC/Balet
FL-1.5
2.2
Mid-Hudson
Lower Hudson
Modeling
SCEMC/Balet
FL-1.6
2.2
Modeling
Scour
SCEMC/Balet
FL-1.7
2.2
PCB Distribution
SCEMC/Balet
FL-1.8
2.3
Site Definition
SCEMC/Balet
FL-1.9
2.3
Response Actions
Technology
SCEMC/Balet
FL-1.10
3.1
Screening
6 14/99
9
TAMS
-------
AGENCY/
COMMENT
REPORT
KEYWORDS
NAME
CODE
SECTION
1
2
3
SCEMC/Balet
FL-1.11
3.2
Evaluation Criteria
Remedial
Alternatives
Effectiveness
SCEMC/Balet
FL-1.12
4.2
Screening
Evaluation
SCEMC/Balet
FL-1.13
5
FS Report
Recommendations
SCEMC/Balet
FL-1.14
2.1
ARARs
Remedial Action
Mass Removal vs.
GE
FG-I.l
2.2
Objectives
Risk Reduction
Large-Scale,
GE
FG-1.2
3.1
Technologies
Intrusive Remedies
Dredging
GE
FG-1.3
3.2
Evaluation
Effectiveness
Dredging
Remedial Action
GE
FG-1.4
1.1
Objectives
PCB Source
Remedial
Alternatives
GE
FG-1.5
4.2
Evaluation
NCP
GE
FG-1.6
1.1
Site Definition
Alternatives
Short-Term
Risk of
GE
FG-1.7
4.2
Screening
Effectiveness
Implementation
GE
FG-1.8
General
Peer Review
Remedial Action
Mass Removal vs.
GE
FG-1.9
2.2
Objectives
Risk Reduction
Large-Scale,
GE
FG-1.10
3.1
Technologies
Intrusive Remedies
Dredging
GE
FG-1.11
1.1
Site Definition
Alternatives
GE
FG-1.12
2.3
Evaluation
GE
FG-1.13
2.1
ARARs
Remedial Action
Mass Removal vs.
GE
FG-I.l 4
2.2
Objectives
Modeling
Risk Reduction
Large-Scale,
GE
FG-I.l 5
3.1
Technologies
Intrusive Remedies
Dredging
GE
FG-1.16
3.2
Technologies
Dredging
Risk Reduction
Engineered
GE
FG-1.17
3.2
Technologies
Capping
Thin-Laver
GE
FG-I.l 8
3.1
Technologies
Capping
GE
FG-1.19
3.1
Technologies
Stabilization
GE
FG-1.20
2.3
Site Definition
Remedial
Alternatives
Long-Term
GE
FG-1.21
4.2
Evaluation
NCP
Effectiveness
Remedial
Alternatives
GE
FG-1.22
4.2
Evaluation
NCP
Short-Term Risks
Technology
Technical
GE
FG-1.23
3.1
Screening
Feasibility
6 14-99
10
TAMS
-------
AGENCY/
NAME
COMMENT
CODE
REPORT
SECTION
1
KEYWORDS
2
3
GE
FG-1.24
2.3
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Modeling
GE
FG-1.25
1.2
Site Definition
Upper Hudson
Lower Hudson
GE
FG-1.26
2.1
ARARs
TBCs
GE
FG-1.27
1
Responsiveness
Summary
GE
FG-1.28
Sediments
Terminology
GE
FG-1.29
PCB Sources
Loading
GE
FG-1.30
PCB Sources
GE
FG-1.31
Allen Mill
GE
FG-1.32
Loading
GE
FG-1.33
1.2
Responsiveness
Summarv
C1P
GE
FG-1.34
2.2
PCBs
Contaminant of
Concern
GE
FG-1.35
2.2
PCBs
Target Level
GE
FG-1.36
4.1
Institutional Controls
Fishing Ban
6 14.99
11
TAMS
-------
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
-------
RESPONSES
-------
II. Responses to Comments
GENERAL COMMENTS
Response to FG-1.8
Consistent with the Peer Review Handbook (USEPA, 1998a), USEPA has determined that
the FS is not a candidate for peer review. Although the FS will require the application of major
scientific and technical work products to the process of evaluating remedial alternatives, each of
those work products already will have been the subject of a peer review. Specifically, USEPA has
conducted or will conduct peer reviews for the six reports that comprise the Phase 2 Reassessment
Remedial Investigation: the Preliminary Model Calibration Report (USEPA, 1996). the Data
Evaluation and Interpretation Report (USEPA, 1997a), the Low Resolution Sediment Coring Report
(USEPA, 1998b), the Baseline Modeling Report (USEPA, 1999b), and the upcoming Human Health
Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment. These documents will form the scientific and
technical basis for the evaluation of remedial alternatives presented in the FS. Moreover, the
application of major scientific and technical work products in the FS will not depart significantly
from the situations that those work products were originally designed to address.
1. INTRODUCTION
Response to FS-1.1
The use of computer models to develop the remedial action objectives (RAOs) is described
in the FSSOW (p. 3. pp. 5-6, p. 9, and pp. 12-16). USEPA will use the results of the Human Health
Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment and the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) for the site to develop the RAOs. The computer models will be run to
determine whether any unacceptable risk to human health or the environment and any exceedence
of chemical-specific ARARs would be adequately addressed by the extent of cleanup specified in
the RAOs.
Response to FG-1.27
The Landfill/Treatment Facility Siting Survey (USEPA, 1997b) is not one of the Phase 2
Reassessment reports. To the extent that information from USEPA (1997b) is used in the FS. that
information will be available for public comment during the public comment period on the Proposed
Plan. Following the close of the public comment period on the Proposed Plan. USEPA will respond
to all significant public comments in a responsiveness summary that will be part of the Agency's
Record of Decision.
13
TAMS
-------
1.1 Site History
Response to FG-1.6 and FG-1.11
USEPA disagrees with the comments suggesting that the FSSOW seeks to expand the
definition of the site. As stated in the FSSOW (p. 3), "The Hudson River PCBs Superfund site
encompasses the Hudson River from Hudson Falls to the Battery in New York Harbor, a stretch of
nearly 200 river miles (322 km)." USEPA has consistently defined the site to include the Lower
Hudson River since at least April 1984, when the Agency issued its FS for the site and before the
site was listed on the National Priorities List (codified at 40 CFR Part 300, App. B). In its
September 25,1984 Record of Decision, USEPA defined the site by reference to three figures which,
together, depict the site as the entire 200-mile stretch of the River from Hudson Falls to the Battery
in New York City, plus the remnant deposits. In addition, during the Reassessment RI/FS, USEPA
has consistently defined the site as including the Upper and Lower River (e.g., the Scope of Work
for Hudson River Reassessment RI/FS (December 1990) and the Phase 1 Report for the
Reassessment RI/FS (August 1991)). In no way does the FSSOW expand the areal extent of the site.
Response to FG-1.28
The FSSOW states (p. 3): "...the [Fort Edward] dam was removed in 1973. During
subsequent spring floods. PCB-contaminated sediments were scoured and transported downstream.
A substantial portion of these sediments were stored in relatively quiescent areas of the river. These
areas, which were surveyed by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) in 1976 to 1978 and 1984, have been described as PCB hot spots." In this context, the
term "stored" means "deposited." The phrase "relatively quiescent areas" is intended in a
qualitative, not quantitative, sense to refer to the lower-energy areas where the finer-grained
sediments with higher PCB concentrations are deposited. Specific evidence documenting the
occurrence of PCB deposition in such areas of the Hudson River can be found in Tofflemire and
Quinn (1979). Brown el al. (1988) and USEPA (1998b). Although no stretch of the river is
specifically mentioned in the FSSOW. the hot spots surveyed by New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) extend from Rogers Island at RM 194 to Lock 2 at RV1
163.
Response to FG-1.29
Commercial use of PCBs ceased in 1977. However, PCBs from GE's Ft. Edward and
Hudson Falls plants continued to contaminate the Hudson River after that date due to erosion of
PCB-contaminated remnant deposits, discharges of PCBs from the GE Hudson Falls plant via
bedrock fractures, and erosion of PCB-contaminated soil into the river near the GE Fort Edward
plant outfall (FSSOW, pp. 3-4). Evidence for PCBs emanating from the remnant deposits and the
GE Hudson Falls plant is presented in Tofflemire (1984). Evidence for PCBs in the Hudson River
that originated from the GE Fort Edward plant is presented in NYSDEC's 1999 Proposed Remedial
Action Plan: GE Capacitor Products Division (Ft. Edward). Operable Units 03 & 04.
14
TAMS
-------
Response to FG-1.30
As stated in the FSSOW (p. 4), capping of the remnant deposits was completed in 1991 and
high concentrations of PCBs were detected in the Hudson River surface water in September 1991.
Specifically, the levels of PCBs detected in September 1991 were nearly two orders of magnitude
{i.e., 100 times) higher than those detected the previous month. Such high levels had not been seen
in the Hudson River since the early 1980s.
Response to FG-1.4. FG-1.31 and FG-1.32
USEPA acknowledges the comments noting that GE performed the removal of PCB-bearing
oils and sediments at the Allen Mill and that GE's remediation efforts at the GE Hudson Falls and
Fort Edward plants should result in a decreasing load of PCBs to the Hudson River. USEPA will
model various scenarios with different PCB-loading to the upstream water column to account for
assumed reductions due to GE's remediation efforts associated with its capacitor plants (FSSOW.
p. 5).
1.2 Objective and Scope
Response to FS-1.2
USEPA agrees with the comment. The FS will address all unacceptable risk identified in the
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments.
Response to FG-1.25
The Ecological Risk Assessment will identify any unacceptable risks to the environment in
the Lower Hudson River using the revised Thomann-Farley model, which will also be used in the
FS to evaluate the effects of remedial alternatives in the Upper Hudson on the Mid-Hudson {i.e..
from the Federal Dam at Troy to Poughkeepsie) (FSSOW. pp. 2 and 6). While USEPA expects any
unacceptable risk to be greater in the Upper Hudson than in the Lower Hudson because the PCB
concentrations are higher in the Upper Hudson, nonetheless it is appropriate for USEPA to ensure
that any unacceptable risk to the Lower Hudson posed by PCB-contaminated sediments in the Upper
Hudson is addressed by remediation in the Upper River. See also response to FG-1.6 and FG-1.11.
Response to FG-1.33
USEPA disagrees with the comment that it has not responded to public comment. The
Agency routinely provides written responses to letters from stakeholders regarding their comments
on the Reassessment. Moreover, the Agency is responding to significant comments received from
the public on each of the Phase 2 Reassessment Reports. Specifically, USEPA has responded to
public comment in Responsiveness Summaries issued for the Database Report, the Preliminary
Model Calibration Report, and Data Evaluation and Interpretation Report (USEPA, 1998d). and for
the Low Resolution Sediment Coring Report (USEPA, 1999a), and will issue responsiveness
summaries responding to public comments received on the recently issued Baseline Modeling Report
15
TAMS
-------
(USEPA, 1999b), and the upcoming Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk
Assessment. In addition, USEPA has responded to public comment in Responsiveness Summaries
issued for the Ecological Risk Assessment Scope of Work (USEPA, 1999d) and for the Human
Health Risk Assessment Scope of Work (USEPA, 1999e), and is responding to public comment on
the Feasibility Study SOW (this responsiveness summary). USEPA will also respond to significant
public comment received on the FS and the Proposed Plan, to be released in December 2000.
The comments submitted to date on the Reassessment RI/FS have been voluminous, and
some responses require USEPA to conduct additional technical analysis. While the effort to respond
to comments is substantial, due to both the quantity and nature of the comments, USEPA will
continue to respond to significant public comments in a timely manner.
1.3 Schedule
No significant comments were received on Section 1.3.
2. DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES AND GENERAL
RESPONSE ACTIONS
Response to FL-1.1 and FL-1.2
The FS for the Reassessment will evaluate various remedial alternatives for the PCBs that
are in the Upper Hudson River sediments. As part of the "No Action" alternative required by
CERCLA, USEPA will model a zero-PCB load at Rogers Island to simulate a hypothetical total
elimination of the external PCB load from the source areas north of Rogers Island without any
remedial action to the sediments. This "No Action" alternative will include monitoring, as
recommended by the commenter. Using these model results, USEPA will evaluate the length of
time needed for the river to meet the RAOs in the absence of remediation. USEPA notes that the
remediation of the external sources of PCBs to the river, such as the GE Hudson Falls plant, is being
addressed by NYSDEC and therefore is beyond the scope of the FSSOW.
2.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Response to FG-1.13 and FG-1.26
Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the FSSOW list potential ARARs and TBCs for the site, which is
appropriate for the FSSOW (USEPA, 1989). USEPA will review and modify the list of ARARs and
TBCs as appropriate during the FS (FSSOW, p. 9). The revised ARARs will be identified in
USEPA's Proposed Plan, which will be made available for public comment. The final ARARs will
be set forth in USEPA's Record of Decision.
16
TAMS
-------
Table 1: Potential Chemical-Specific ARARs and Criteria. Advisories and Guidance
Response to FF-1.8
USEPA agrees with the comment with respect to sediment and has revised Table 1
accordingly. Based on the scope of the Reassessment, USEPA does not believe that it is appropriate
to add groundwater standards to Table 1. USEPA will review and modify the list of ARARs and
TBCs as appropriate during the FS (FSSOW, p. 9).
Response to FS-1.8
USEPA agrees with the comment and has revised Table 1 accordingly.
Response to FL-1.14
USEPA's monitoring work for the Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS routinely
achieved detection limits of 0.05 ng/L (parts per trillion) for individual congeners (USEPA, 1997a).
which is significantly lower than the "normal detection limit of 300 ng/L" mentioned by the
commenter. USEPA acknowledges that NYSDEC's standards for Total PCBs in surface water for
the protection of human health and wildlife (0.001 ng/L and 0.12 ng/L. respectively), are below the
detection limits achieved by EPA. Nonetheless, these standards are included in Table 1 because they
are potential ARARs.
Table 2: Potential Location-Specific ARARs and Criteria. Advisories and Guidance
Response to FF-1.9
USEPA agrees with the comment and has revised Table 2 accordingly.
Table 3; Potential Action-Specific ARARs
Response to FF-1.10
USEPA agrees with the comment and has revised Table 3 accordingly.
Response to FS-1.4
USEPA has revised Table 3 of the FSSOW to include the NYSDEC pisciverous wildlife
criterion of 0.1 part per million (ppm) in whole fish. The final selection of RAOs will be made in
the FS following completion of the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments.
17
TAMS
-------
2.2 Remedial Action Objectives
Response to FF-1.2
USEPA agrees with the comment. The sentence (FSSOW, p. 11) has been clarified to read,
"Target concentration limits will also be developed using the geochemical and ecological models
to examine the relationship between various sediment concentrations and attainment of acceptable
PCB levels in fish and other biota (e.g., FDA limit for human consumption of fish)."
Response to FS-1.3
Areas near remnant deposits 3 and 4, which are north of the upstream boundary of the models
at Rogers Island, will not be included explicitly in the modeling runs described in the FSSOW (p.
12). However, the models will be run for constant and zero upstream PCB-load scenarios. This
modeling will assist USEPA in evaluating the importance of the PCB load from upstream sources
and, consequently, the need to consider these upstream sources in developing the RAOs for the site.
Response to FS-1.5
USEPA agrees with the comment. The second bullet on FSSOW (p. 15) has been revised
to read, "reduce human health risk associated with exposure to near-shore contamination to an
acceptable level (to be determined by USEPA. expected to be in the range of lO'4 to 106 incremental
carcinogenic risk and result in a Hazard Index of 1 or less for non-cancer health effects)."
Response to FL-1.3
USEPA has documented that PCBs in the sediments of Thompson Island Pool are not being
sequestered by widespread burial and that the sediments provide a continuing source of PCBs to the
water column and into the food web (USEPA. 1998b; 1999a; 1999b). The Human Health and
Ecological Risk Assessments will evaluate whether the site poses unacceptable risk to human health
or the environment. Assuming the risk assessments show unacceptable risk. CERCLA requires that
the selected remedy comply with ARARs orjustify a waiver under Section 121(d)(4).
Response to FL-1.4
As stated in the FSSOW (p. 11), the geochemical and ecological modeling will be used to
evaluate target contaminant concentration ranges or limits, as well as the specific locations where
the sediment would be remediated.
Response to FF-1.1. FF-1.3 and FL-1.5
The Lower Hudson extends from the Federal Dam at Troy (RM 154) to the Battery (lower
tip of Manhattan. RM 0). The Mid-Hudson is defined as the freshwater portion of the Lower Hudson
River, which extends from the Federal Dam to Poughkeepsie (RM 74) (FSSOW. p. 6). The results
of the Thomann-Farley modeling on the Lower Hudson will not be used to select RAOs for the
18
TAMS
-------
Upper Hudson, but will be used to evaluate the effects of remediation in the Upper Hudson on the
Mid-Hudson water column and biota.
USEPA acknowledges the comment regarding the clarity, conciseness, and thoroughness of
the FSSOW. However, USEPA disagrees with the comment that it is necessary to model the effect
of remedial action taken in the Upper Hudson River on the Poughkeepsie to the Battery portion of
the Lower Hudson River. As described in the FSSOW (pp. 13-14), USEPA will use the Thomann-
Farley model developed for the Hudson River Foundation to model the effects of remedial action
taken in the Upper Hudson River on the Mid-Hudson. It is not necessary for USEPA to model the
effects of remediation on the Poughkeepsie to the Battery stretch of the river because this stretch has
lower concentrations of PCBs in sediments and the water column, and therefore would be expected
to be less adversely affected by the site.
Response to FG-1.34
The contaminants of concern are limited to PCBs by definition of the site. To address this
comment, the sentence (FSSOW, p. 10) has been revised to read. "'The results of the preliminary risk
assessment completed in Phase 1 indicate that the primary exposure route for PCBs, which are the
contaminants of concern, is consumption of aquatic life.'*
Response to FL-1.6
The Depth of Scour Model (FSSOW, Figure 1) is a means of locating areas in the river that
are subject to high shear stress during periods of high flow such as a 100 year flow event. Sediment
in these areas would be subject to remobilization during a flood. These areas would be considered
for remedial action to prevent remobilization of contaminated sediments. The Scour Model does not
determine the fate and transport of the sediments and is not directly connected to the HudTox Model.
Response to FF-1.4 and FL-1.7
USEPA agrees that the RAO of reducing the inventory of PCBs in sediments to acceptable
levels is generalized (FSSOW, p. 16). The specific locations, depth, and areal extent of PCB-
contaminated sediment to be remediated will be determined based on site data, the Human Health
and Ecological Risk Assessments, and the geochemical and ecological modeling. It is not possible
to determine the details of this RAO until completion of the FS modeling. The purpose of this
generalized RAO is to indicate that the FS is expected to include an RAO regarding reduction of the
PCB inventory in sediments. The comment regarding the low resolution coring data is also
addressed in USEPA's Responsiveness Summary for Volume 2C-A Low Resolution Sediment
Coring Report (USEPA. 1999a).
Response to FG-1.1. FG-1.9. and FG-1.14
USEPA agrees with the comment that a fundamental goal of the Reassessment Rl/FS is to
select a remedy that is protective of human health and the environment. As required by CERCLA
and the NCP, the selected remedy must also comply with ARARs (or justify a waiver). These two
19
TAMS
-------
criteria are the threshold criteria that must be satisfied before the remaining five balancing criteria
(long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through
treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost) and two modifying criteria (state
acceptance and community acceptance) are applied in the detailed analysis of remedial alternatives
(FSSOW, pp. 29-30). USEPA will not select a remedy based solely on the need for navigational
dredging. However, assuming remedial action is required under CERCLA for protection of human
health or the environment, USEPA will consider the navigational use of the river in evaluating the
appropriateness of various remedial alternatives, such as capping, consistent with its policy, "Land
Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process," OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04 (May 1995).
USEPA agrees with the comment that USEPA's geochemical and ecological models, along
with the results of the Human Health Risk Assessment and the Ecological Risk Assessment, will be
useful tools for developing the remedial alternatives that will be compared to the "'No Action"
alternative required by statute. USEPA disagrees with the comment that USEPA's approach for
using the models in developing the RAOs is "backwards" and that the list of remedial scenarios is
"arbitrary." The models will be used in an iterative manner to develop and refine the RAOs
(FSSOW, p. 14 and Figure 1). The list of likely remedial scenarios to be modeled (FSSOW, pp. 12-
13), while not a final compilation, is based on USEPA's knowledge of the site and engineering
experience and is appropriate for the FSSOW. The exact language for the RAOs will be finalized
in the FS after the risk assessments and modeling have been completed.
Mass removal will be evaluated as one of the options for meeting the RAOs. USEPA will
consider site data and the results of its risk assessments and modeling to evaluate the reduction of
risk to acceptable levels for each remedial alternative. The time required for each alternative,
including the "No Action" alternative, to achieve the RAOs will be estimated and compared as part
of the Implementability criterion under the screening and detailed analysis of alternatives (FSSOW.
pp. 28 and 30). The geochemical model, which includes a term for organic matter, and the
ecological model, which evaluates bioaccumulation, will provide important input to this analysis.
PCB loss during a 100-year flood is evaluated in the Baseline Modeling Report (USEPA, 1999b).
Nevertheless. USEPA recognizes that the models are not designed to answer all questions that may
arise during its FS evaluation. See also Response to FF-1.5, FF-1.7. FS-1.6, FG-1.12. and FG-1.24.
Response to FG-1.35
The use of a target maximum range for PCBs in sediment of 1 to 50 mg/kg (FSSOW. p. 16)
is an appropriate assumption for beginning FS work prior to completion of Phase 2. USHPA will
present the final RAOs and remedial alternatives, as well as any final target sediment concentration
range, in the FS.
20
TAMS
-------
2.3 General Response Actions
Response to FF-1.5. FF-1.7. FS-1.6. FG-1.12. and FG-1.24
Consistent with USEPA policy (USEPA, 1999c), "No Action" and monitored natural
attenuation are two distinct general response actions. Specifically, for the site, "No Action" consists
of monitoring and the existing institutional controls (e.g., fish advisories) but no additional
institutional controls; "No Action" would be appropriate if the site poses no current or potential
threat to human health or the environment (FSSOW, pp. 17 and 26). The monitored natural
attenuation response action for the site could include existing and/or new institutional controls and
monitoring, but no active remedial measures; this would be appropriate where in situ processes
would achieve the site-specific RAOs in a timeframe that is reasonable compared to active remedial
measures (FSSOW, p. 17). For clarity, the sentence on p. 17 has been revised to read. "No
additional institutional controls beyond those currently in place {e.g.. fish consumption advisories)
are implemented as part of a "No Action" alternative." USEPA notes that monitored natural
attenuation can be used as one component of a total remedy, either in conjunction with active
remediation or as a follow-up measure (USEPA, 1999c; FSSOW. p. 17).
One commenter identified three factors for USEPA to consider as part of its monitored
natural attenuation alternative: 1) burial of PCB-contaminated sediments by clean sediments. 2)
dechlorination of PCBs, and 3) control of upstream sources. With respect to each of these factors:
1. USEPA has documented that PCBs in the Thompson Island Pool sediments are not being
sequestered by widespread burial (USEPA, 1998b; 1999a; 1999b) (see response to FL-1.3).
Moreover, recent sampling by GE indicates that surface sediments at some locations have
concentrations greater than 30 ppm (USEPA. 1999a) and therefore are not clean.
2. Dechlorination does not account for a substantial loss of mass of PCBs from the
contaminated sediments (USEPA. 1997a). The dechlorination process does not continue
indefinitely and is unlikely to reduce existing sediment inventories much further than has
already occurred (USEPA. 1997a; McNulty. 1997; USEPA. 1999a).
3. The FS will consider GE's efforts to control the upstream sources of PCBs. Specifically, the
modeling performed to evaluate the "No Action" alternative will assume various PCB loads
(including zero load) at the upstream boundary, as requested by the commenter (FSSOW.
p. 5).
Response to FS-1.7. FI.-l .8. and FG-1.20
The term "on-site" in the FSSOW at p. 17, which refers to a corridor that includes the Upper
Hudson River and extends two miles from either bank {i.e., near-river), is intended to be used only
in considering the two general response actions that contemplate removal of PCB-contaminated
sediments. This specific use of the term does not change the extent of the site (see response to FG-
1.6 and FG-1.11) and does not change the requirements for obtaining any necessary permits
21
TAMS
-------
associated with remedial action or the permit exemption provisions of CERCLA §121(e)(1), 42
U.S.C. §9621 (e)(1).
A two-mile corridor was used in the FSSOW because it represents an area that encompasses
a wide variety of locations that could be considered for a local dewatering or disposal facility that
are within a reasonable hauling distance from the river. For the same practical engineering
considerations, "off-site" is used in this context to refer to any dewatering or disposal facility that
would be located outside the two mile corridor. USEPA notes that this engineering consideration
is not the same as an assessment of the implementability of an alternative, including the
administrative feasibility of siting a local landfill within a reasonable time period, which will be used
in developing and screening the remedial alternatives, and it is not the same as the Community
Acceptance criterion, which USEPA will consider in selecting its remedial action.
Response to FL-1.9
The scenario suggested by the commenter will be considered in the modeling. See response
to comments FL-1.1 and FL-1.2.
3. IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES AND
PROCESS OPTIONS
3.1 Technology and Process Option Identification and Screening
Response to FG-1.2. FG-1.10 and FG-1.15
USEPA disagrees with the comment that the FSSOW is biased towards large-scale and
intrusive remedies. As noted in the response to FL-1.10, Table 4 of the FSSOW includes the full
range of technologies identified for consideration. In the FS, USEPA will update and finalize the
list of technologies that pass the initial screening (FSSOW, pp. 20-21). As noted in the FSSOW (p.
21), the actual volume of sediment to be remediated will be dependent on the final RAOs and will
be determined during the FS. Therefore, all technologies that are appropriate for the scale of the
project, based on the Final RAOs. will be carried forward into the second screening step (FSSOW.
p. 21). With respect to the sediment removal alternatives. USEPA will consider the effects to human
health and the environment from implementation of the removal itself as part of the Short-term
Effectiveness criterion. The technical feasibility of sediment removal has been confirmed by past
dredging of the Hudson River for navigational purposes and by dredging of other rivers for
environmental purposes.
Response to FG-1.18
The thin-layer capping, or sediment broadcasting, technique falls into the subaqueous
capping technology listed in Table 4 of the FSSOW under general response action 3: Containment.
USEPA will consider this innovative technology in the FS consistent with the NCP
(§300.430(a)(l )(iii)(E)).
22
TAMS
-------
Response to FG-1.19
Stabilization of sediments by rip-rap or other stabilization materials is similar to the retaining
dikes and berms listed in Table 4 of the FSSOW, under general response action 3: Containment.
USEPA will consider rip-rap and other stabilization materials in the FS, as appropriate.
Response to FG-1.23
USEPA will consider technical feasibility in developing and screening the various
technologies consistent with the NCP (§300.430(e)) and its RI/FS guidance (USEPA, 1989). The
rationale for eliminating any remedial technology for further consideration based on technical
infeasibility will be documented in the FS (FSSOW, p. 20).
Table 4: Initial Identification of General Response Actions and Remedial Technologies
Response to FF-1.11
USEPA agrees with the comment and has revised Table 4 to add a monitoring component
to general response actions 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Response to FL-1.10
Consistent with USEPA guidance (USEPA. 1989), Table 4 includes the full range of
technologies identified for consideration, which is appropriate for the FSSOW. Technologies will
be screened and eliminated as appropriate in the FS. The initial screening will be updated and
finalized in the FS (FSSOW, pp. 20-21).
3.2 Evaluation of Technologies and Process Options
Response to FI.-l .11. FG-1.3. and FG-1.16
Consistent with the NCP (§ 300.430(e)(7)), technologies and process options that are carried
forward from the screening for technical feasibility will be screened for effectiveness,
implementability, and cost (FSSOW. p. 21). The screening criterion of effectiveness will include
an assessment of the extent to which the technology or process option may adversely affect human
health or the environment during construction and implementation (FSSOW. p. 22).
Implementability will be evaluated on both technical and administrative factors (FSSOW, p. 22).
Consistent with USEPA (1989), the screening criterion of cost will assess the relative capital and
operation and maintenance costs (FSSOW, p. 23). Technologies and process options that pass this
second screening will be assembled into remedial alternatives, which then will be screened for
effectiveness, implementability, and cost (FSSOW, pp. 27-28) and undergo a detailed analysis with
respect to USEPA's nine criteria for evaluation (NCP §300.430(e)(9)), which are overall protection
of human health and the environment, compliance with ARARs, long-term effectiveness and
permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment, short-term effectiveness,
implementability, cost, state acceptance, and community acceptance (FSSOW, pp. 29-30).
23
TAMS
-------
USEPA is aware of concerns regarding the economic impact of a remedy on the local
community, and will respond to all significant comments received during the public comment period
on its Proposed Plan in a responsiveness summary. USEPA will consider these public comments
in its decision-making under the Community Acceptance criterion.
Because the FS will contain the results of the screening process and detailed analysis outlined
above and required by the NCP, USEPA disagrees with the comment that the FS will not adequately
analyze the effectiveness of the sediment removal alternative in achieving the RAOs for the site.
USEPA also disagrees with the assertion that environmental dredging has not been proven to be
effective in reducing risk. This assertion is not supported by USEPA's knowledge of environmental
dredging at other sites, such as Lake Jarnsjon (Bremle et al, 1998; Forlin and Norrgren, 1998) and
New Bedford Harbor (Bergen et al, 1998). Nevertheless, USEPA will consider available
information regarding environmental dredging, including the commented s future report regarding
lessons learned at sediment sites, as appropriate, in evaluating remedial alternatives based on
sediment removal.
Response to FF-1.6
USEPA agrees with the comment. For clarity, the sentence (FSSOW, p. 22) has been revised
to read, "It is expected that sediment cleanup levels will be established on the basis of current
sediment inventories, proximity to shore, availability to human and ecological receptors, and
potential for release."
4. DEVELOPMENT, SCREENING AND DETAILED ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES
4.1 "No-Action" Alternative
Response to FG-1.36
USEPA agrees with the comment and has revised the sentence (FSSOW. p. 26) to read. "The
"No Action" alternative...could include...continuation of current institutional controls, such as the
fish consumption ban.".
4.2 Effectiveness Evaluation
Response to FG-1.5
USEPA disagrees with the comment that the proposed method for analyzing remedial
alternatives is inconsistent with the NCP. The development, screening, and detailed analysis of
remedial alternatives described in the FSSOW (pp. 25-30) are consistent with the requirements of
§300.430(e) of the NCP and USEPA guidance (USEPA. 1989).
24
TAMS
-------
Response to FL-1.12. FG-1.7 and FG-1.22
USEPA will evaluate short-term risk during implementation of remedial action quantitatively
or qualitatively, as appropriate. As noted in the FSSOW (p. 27), short-term risk will be considered
during the screening of remedial alternatives for effectiveness, but may be difficult to quantify due
to the lack of information on the nature of PCB releases during implementation of the remedial
action. The FSSOW (p. 27) identifies two sources of short-term risk during sediment removal that
will be addressed qualitatively (resuspension and air-borne releases), but does not limit short-term
risk to these two sources. Addressing resuspension and air-bore releases qualitatively is appropriate
for the FS; these short-term risks would be addressed in a health and safety plan and other documents
during remedial design, if appropriate.
USEPA agrees that model runs to develop and refine the RAOs will assume that various
remedial actions have taken place (FSSOW. p. 12), but this does not mean that USEPA will ignore
short-term risk. Rather, short-term risk will be evaluated during the screening of remedial
alternatives developed to achieve the RAOs, as noted above (FSSOW, p. 27). The length of time
over which the short-term risk would exist will be considered as part of the implementability
screening criterion (FSSOW, p. 22) and the implementability criterion of the detailed analysis of
remedial alternatives (FSSOW. p. 29).
Response to FG-1.21
USEPA agrees with the comment that long-term effectiveness is an important consideration
in the analysis of remedial alternatives. However, USEPA disagrees that the FSSOW implies that
it prefers processes that degrade contaminants to natural attenuation or "No Action" and is therefore
biased towards sediment removal. Rather, the FSSOW correctly states (p. 17) that, when relying on
natural attenuation. USEPA prefers processes that degrade contaminants over other in situ natural
attenuation processes such as dispersion, dilution or volatilization.
USEPA disagrees with the comment that the long-term effectiveness criterion is misapplied
in the FSSOW. The FSSOW correctly states that the long-term effectiveness of sediment removal
is greater than the long-term effectiveness of in-place capping in light of the cap stability concerns
during major floods (FSSOW. p. 30).
4.3 Implementability Evaluation
No significant comments were received on Section 4.3.
4.4 Cost Evaluation
No significant comments were received on Section 4.4.
25
JAMS
-------
4.5 Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives
No significant comments were received on Section 4.5.
5. FEASIBILITY STUDY REASSESSMENT REPORT
Response to FL-1.13
Consistent with USEPA guidance (USEPA, 1989), the FS will contain a detailed analysis
of remedial alternatives, but will not present a preferred alternative (FSSOW, p. 31). USEPA will
present its preferred alternative in a Proposed Plan, which will be released to the public along with
the FS in December 2000.
REFERENCES
No significant comments were received on the References.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
Bain. M. 1997. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons of the Hudson River: common and divergent life
history attributes. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Vol. 48. pp. 347-358.
Bergen, B. J., K.A. Rahn, and W. G. Nelson. 1998. Remediation at a Marine Superfund Site:
Surficial Sediment PCB Congener Concentration. Composition, and Redistribution. Environmental
Science & Technology, Vol. 32, No. 22, pp. 3496-3501.
Bremle. G.. L. Okla and P. Larsson. 1998. PCB in Water and Sediment of a Lake after Remediation
of Contaminated Sediment. Ambio. Vol.27. No. 5. pp. 398-403.
Forlin, L., and L. Norrgren. 1998. Physiological and Morphological Studies of Feral Perch Before
and After Remediation of a PCB Contaminated Lake Jamsjon. Ambio, Vol. 27. No. 5. pp. 418-424.
Ingersoll C.G.. P S. Haverland. E.L. Brunson, T.J. Canfield. F.J. Dwyer. C.E. Henke. N.E. Kemble.
D.R. Mount and R.G. Fox. 1996. Calculation and evaluation of sediment effect concentrations for
the amphipod Hyalella azteca and the midge ('hironomous riparius. J Great Lakes Res
22(3):602-623.
Persaud. D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of
aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy. August 1993.
Smith. S.L., D.D. MacDonald, K.A. Keenleyside. C.G. Ingersoll, and L.J. Field. 1996. A
preliminary evaluation of sediment quality assessment values for freshwater ecosystems. J. Great
Lakes Res. 22(3):624-638.
26
TAMS
-------
Tofflemire, T.J. 1984. PCB Transport in the Fort Edward Area. Northeastern Environmental Science,
Vol. 3 No. 3&4, pp. 203-208.
USEPA. 1996. Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS, Preliminary Model Calibration Report.
Prepared by TAMS Consultants, Inc, Limno-Tech, Inc., TetraTech, Inc. and Menzie-Cura &
Associates, October 1996.
USEPA. 1997a. Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS, Volume 2C - Data Evaluation and
Interpretation Report. Prepared by TAMS Consultants, Inc., Cadmus Group, Inc. and Gradient
Corporation. February 1997.
USEPA. 1997b. Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS, Landfill/Treatment Facility Siting
Survey. Prepared by TAMS Consultants, Inc. December 1997.
USEPA. 1998a. Science Policy Council Handbook: Peer Review (EPA 100-B-98-001). January
1998.
USEPA. 1998b. Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS, Volume 2C-A - Low Resolution
Sediment Coring Report. Addendum to the Data Evaluation and Interpretation Report. Prepared by
TAMS Consultants, Inc., TetraTech, Inc. and Gradient Corporation. July 1998.
USEPA. 1998c. Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS, Phase 3 Feasibility Study Scope of Work.
Prepared by TAMS Consultants, Inc. September 1998.
USEPA. 1998d. Responsiveness Summary for Volume 2A: Database Report. Volume 2B:
Preliminary Model Calibration Report, and Volume 2C: Data Evaluation and Interpretation Report.
Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Prepared by TAMS Consultants. Inc.. Limno-Tech. Inc.,
TetraTech, Inc. and Menzie-Cura & Associates. December 1998.
USEPA. 1999a. Responsiveness Summary for the Phase 2 Report. Volume 2C-A, Low Resolution
Sediment Coring Report. Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Prepared by TAMS Consultants.
Inc. and Tetra Tech, Inc. February 1999.
USEPA. 1999b. Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS, Volume 2D - Baseline Modeling Report.
Prepared by Limno-Tech. Inc., Menzie-Cura and Associates, and TetraTech. Inc. May 1999.
USEPA. 1999c. Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund. RCRA Corrective Action, and
Underground Storage Tank Sites (OSWER Directive 9200.4-17P). April 1999.
USEPA, 1999d. Responsiveness Summary for Ecological Risk Assessment Scope of Work, Hudson
River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Prepared by TAMS Consultants. Inc. and Menzie-Cura &
Associates, Inc. April 1999.
27
TAMS
-------
USEPA, 1999e. Responsiveness Summary for Human Health Risk Assessment Scope of Work,
Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Prepared by TAMS Consultants, Inc. and Gradient Corp.
April 1999.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Creation and Analysis of Freshwater Sediment
Quality Values in Washington State, Publication No. 97-323a. July 1997.
28
TAMS
-------
REVISED TABLES AND FIGURE
29
-------
TABLE 1
POTENTIAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS AND CRITERIA, ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE (Revised)
MEDIUM/
AUTHORITY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
CONSIDERATION IN THE RI/FS
BIOTA
Federal Regulatory
Requirements
Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act Regulations
(21 CFR 109.30(a)(7))
Relevant and
Appropriate
This sets forth FDA tolerance limit of 2 ppm for
PCB concentrations in commercial fish and
shellfish
Applicable.
MYSDEC/
International Joint
L'ommision
Protection of Piscivorous
Wildlife Species
Relevant and
Appropriate
Recommended body burden concentrations (0.1
mg/kg total PCBs) in fish tissue protective of
piscivorous birds and mammals.
A risk based guidance value adopted for
protection of piscivorous wildlife species
from reproductive impariment due to
PCBs.
SURFACE WATER
New York State
Standards
6 NYCRR 703,
NYSDF.C TOGS I.I.I
(June 1998)
Applicable
Establishes water quality standards for various
classes of surface water. Standards for PCBs are
0.09 ng/L. (potable water source) and 0.001 ng/L
for protection of human health (fish
consumption) and 0.12 ng/L for protection of
wildlife.
Potential ARAR for establishing PCB
cleanup criteria for Hudson River water.
Federal Criteria.
Advisories, and
Guidance
Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and Ambient
Water Quality Criteria
(AWQC) [IJSEPA; May
1991]
To Be Considered
Federal AWQC are ecological and health-based
criteria developed for various pollutants,
including total PCBs and individual Aroclors.
Freshwater chronic (ecological) criterion for total
PCBs is 0.014 ng/L.
To be determined.
Safe Drinking
Water Act and
Regulations
42 USC 300f et seq; 40
CFR 141
Relevant and
Appropriate
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for PCBs
in finished drinking water supplied to consumers
of public water supply systems is 0.5 ng/L; goal
(MCLG) is zero (40 CFR 141,part P).
Relevant and appropriate since Hudson
River water is used as a drinking water
supply source for several communities.
Toxic Pollutant
Effluent Standards
Clean Water Act: Pollutants
listed in 40 CFR 401.15 -
401.16; PCB criterion in 40
CFR 129.105
Applicable
The ambient water quality criterion for navigable
waters is established at 0.001 mg/L total PCBs
(40 CFR 129.105(a)(4)). PCB manufacturers
prohibited from discharging PCBs (40 CFR
129.105).
Applicable; Hudson River is a navigable
water. Applicability of manufacturing
discharge prohibition to be determined.
-------
! I \ K I \ 1 1 1 I I I i i i
( (
TABLE 1
POTENTIAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS AND CRITERIA, ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE (Revised)
MEDIUM/
AUTHORITY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
CONSIDERATION IN THE RI/FS
NY SPDES limits
6 NYCRR Parts 700-757;
NYSDECTOGS 1.3.4
Applicable
BAT/BPJ 30-day limit for PCBs is 3.0 ng/L
(TOGS 1.3.4); nothing on PCBs in 6 NYCRR
700-757.
Applicable to activities (e.g., remediation)
involving discharges of water to the
Hudson River.
GROUND WATER
New York State
Standards
6 NYCRR 703.5
NYSDEC TOGS 11.1
(June 1998)
Applicable
Establishes groundwater quality standards.
Standard for total PCBs is 0.09 ng/L for
protection of human health (water source).
Potential ARAR for protection of
groundwater resources (as a potential
source of drinking water).
AIR
Federal Regulatory
Requirements
CAA - National Ambient
Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) 40 CFR 50
Relevant and
Appropriate
These standards were primarily developed for
particulates and conventional air pollutants. No
specific standard for PCBs.
Standards for particulate matter will be
used when assessing excavation and
emission controls for sediment treatments.
Mew York State
Clean Air Act (6 NYCRR
256 and 257)
Applicable
Establishes an air quality classification system
and air quality standards. No specific standard
for PCBs.
Standards for emissions from remedial
activities.
Federal Criteria,
Advisories, and
Guidance
American Conference of
Governmental Industrial
Hygienists Threshold Limit
Values (TLV)
To Be Considered
These standards were issued as consensus
standards for controlling air quality in workplace
environments.
TLVs could be used for assessing site
inhalation risks for soil removal
operations.
New York State
Guidance
Air Guide-1 (NYSDEC
Division of Air Resources;
Draft, 1991)
To Be Considered
Establishes Short-term Guideline Concentrations
and Annual Guideline Concentrations (SGCs and
AGCs) for PCBs (0.1 ng/m1 and 0.00045 ng/m3)
Applicable to emissions of PCBs from the
Hudson River (e.g., volatilization);
potentially applicable to various remedial
actions.
-------
TABLE 1
POTENTIAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS AND CRITERIA, ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE (Revised)
MEDIUM/
AUTHORITY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
CONSIDERATION IN THE RI/FS
SEDIMENT
New York State
(NYSDEC)
Technical Guidance for
Screening Contaminated
Sediment, November 1993;
January 1999 update
To Be Considered
Guidance document used by the Division of Fish,
Wildlife, and Marine Resources, for evaluating
contaminant levels in sediment. Calculated value
based on the concentrations of contaminant and
of organic carbon in the sediment, and the
affinity of the contaminant for the organic carbon
in the sediment.
Criteria for determining water and
sediment levels for protection of human
health (bioaccumulation), benthic aquatic
life (acute and chronic toxicity), and
wildlife (bioaccumulation). Values for
PCBs vary by several orders of magnitude
for the four levels of protection.
National Oceanic
and Atmospheric
Administration
Potential for Biological
Effects of Sediment-Sorbed
Contaminants - Technical
Memorandum NOS OMA
52, March 1990
To Be Considered
Guidance document with estimated
concentrations at which biological effects of
contaminants including PCBs may be observed.
Technical guidance for use in establishing
sediment cleanup levels. Cited in the
Technical Guidance for Screening
Contaminated Sediment, November 1993;
January 1999 update.
Ontario Ministry of
the Environment
(Persaud et a!.,
1992)
Technical guidance for
screening freshwater
sediments
To Be Considered
Guidance document for establishment of
freshwater sediment related effects on freshwater
benthic communities.
Technical guidance for use in establishing
sediment clean up levels. Cited in
NYSDEC Technical Guidance for
Screening Contaminated Sediment,
November 1993; January 1999 update
TSCA Spill
Cleanup Policy
49 CFR 761.120 ,761.123,
761.125, 761.135
To Be Considered
Not an ARAR but specifies allowable levels of
residual PCB contamination from spill cleanup.
Requirement for cleanup to 10 ppm PCBs
in unrestricted access areas may be
relevant as guidance to some areas of site.
-------
TABLE 2
POTENTIAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS AND CRITERIA, ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE (Revised)
MEDIUM/
AUTHORITY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
CONSIDERATION IN THE RI/FS
Federal Regulatory
Requirements for
Wetlands/
Floodplains
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 404 and Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899 (40
CFR Part 230 and 33 CFR
Part 320-329)
Applicable
Under this requirement, no activity that adversely
effects a wetland shall be permitted if a practicable
alternative that has less effect is available. If there
is no other practical alternative, impacts must be
mitigated. A permit is required for construction of
any structure in a navigable water. Section 307,
effluent standards of 1-ppb concentration of PCB,
is incorporated into this section by reference.
During the identification, screening, and
evaluation of alternatives, the effects on wetlands
are evaluated. Effluent levels will be used as
guidance levels to which alternatives will be
evaluated.
RCRA Location Standards
(40 CFR 264.18)
Relevant and
Appropriate
This regulation outlines the requirements for
constructing a RCRA facility on a 100-year
floodplain.
A facility located on a 100-year floodplain must
be designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained to prevent washout of any hazardous
waste by a 100-year flood, unless waste may be
removed safely before floodwater can reach the
facility or no adverse effects on public health and
the environment would result if washout
occurred.
TSCA facility requirements
(40 CFR 761.65 - 761.75)
Applicable
Establishes siting guidance and criteria for storage
(761.65), chemical waste landfills (761.70), and
incinerators (761.75).
Land disposal facilities should not be in 100-year
floodplain; not hydraulically connected to surface
water bodies.
Federal
Nonregulatory
Requirements for
Wetlands/
Floodplains
Executive Order 11990
(Protection of Wetlands);
40 CFR Part 6, Appendix A,
mandated by EPA's 1985
Statement of Policy on
Wetlands and Floodplains
Assessments for CERCLA
Sites.
To Be
Considered
Under this regulation, federal agencies are
required to minimize the destruction loss or
degradation of wetlands, and preserve and enhance
natural and beneficial values of wetlands.
Remedial alternatives that involve construction
must include all practicable means of minimizing
harm to wetlands. Wetlands protection
considerations must be incorporated into the
planning and decision-making about remedial
alternatives.
Executive Order 11988
(Floodplain Management)
To Be
Considered
Federal agencies are required to reduce the risk of
flood loss, minimize impact of floods, and restore
and preserve the natural and beneficial values of
floodplains.
Evaluate potential effects of actions to ensure that
planning and decision-making consider the effect
of the 100-year and 500-year floodplains and
floodplain management, including floodplain
preservation and/or restoration.
-------
TABLE 2
POTENTIAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS AND CRITERIA, ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE (Revised)
MEDIUM/
AUTHORITY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
CONSIDERATION IN THE RI/FS
New York State
Freshwater Wetlands
Law
ECL Article 24 & 71 in
Title 23; 6 NYCRR Part 665
Applicable
Regulates activities conducted in a wetlands area
to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of
the wetlands.
Remedial alternatives that involve construction
must include means to protect wetlands.
New York State
Freshwater Wetlands
Permit Requirements
Regulations
6 NYCRR Part 663
Applicable
Regulates the procedural requirements to be
followed in undertaking different activities in
wetlands and in areas adjacent to wetlands.
Remedial alternatives that involve construction
must include means to protect wetlands. No
permit required for CERCLA but actions must
meet substantive requirements.
NY State Floodplain
Regulations
6 NYCRR 372-2
Applicable
Establishes construction requirements for
hazardous waste facilities in 100-year floodplain
Potentially applicable for remedial activities if
conducted within floodplain
Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as
amended; Fish and
Wildlife
Coordination Act
16 USC 1531;
16 USC 661
Applicable
Federally supported actions are required to not
jeopardize the continued existence of
endangered/threatened species or adversely modify
or destroy the critical habitats of such species.
Consultation with NOAA/NMFS and USFWS
required (Section 7 consultation).
Potential ARAR as threatened or endangered
species (shortnose sturgeon) have been recorded
in the Lower Hudson River between river miles
24 and 148 (Bain, 1997).
Farmland Protection
Policy Act of 1981
(FPPA)
7 USC 4201 et seq
Applicable
Regulates the extent to which federal programs
contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
Potential ARAR for remedial alternatives.
Endangered and
Threatened Species
of Fish and Wildlife
Requirements
6 NYCRR 182
Applicable
Restricts activities in areas inhabited by
endangered species.
Potential ARAR as many fish and wildlife species
inhabit the site.
National Historic
Preservation Act
PL 89-655; 33 CFR
Part 800
Potential ly
Applicable
Proposed remedial actions must take into account
effect on properties in or eligible for inclusion in
the National Registry of Historic Places.
Presence of National Landmarks and NRHP sites
to be determined.
Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act
16 USC 1271-1272;
40 CFR 6 302
Potentially
applicable
Selected rivers of the Nation and their immediate
environments shall be protected for the benefit and
enjoyment of present and future generations.
Wild or scenic status to be determined.
Designation made by States using federal criteria.
Not applicable if Hudson River project area is not
designated as wild and scenic river.
-------
TABLE 2
POTENTIAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS AND CRITERIA, ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE (Revised)
MEDIUM/
AUTHORITY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
CONSIDERATION IN THE RI/FS
NY Wild, Scenic,
and Recreational
Rivers Act and
Regulations
ECL Article 15, Title 27; 6
NYCRR Part 666
Potentially
applicable
Similar to Federal act but adds additional category
of "recreational"
Presence of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers
to be determined.
NY Industrial
Hazardous Waste
Facility Siting Board
6 NYCRR Part 361
Potentially
applicable
Hazardous waste management facilities must
obtain a certificate from the board before a new
facility can be sited.
To be determined.
Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of 1918
as Amended in 1986
16 U.S.C. 703-712
Applicable
Provides for the protection of native species from
unregulated and unintentional takings which
includes poisoning from hazardous wastes.
Potential ARAR for remedial alternatives.
-------
TABLE 3
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS (Revised)
ARAR
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
ACTION TO BE TAKEN TO ATTAIN ARARS
IF A REMEDY IS SELECTED FOR WHICH THESE
REQUIREMENTS ARE ARAR
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) -
Chemical Waste Landfill Requirements
(40CFR 761.75)
Establishes approval and technical requirements for land
disposal (landfilling) of PCBs
Landfills must be approved by Regional administrator,
soil/liners permeability <107 cm/sec, must have groundwater
monitoring, leachate collection and monitoring, etc.
TSCA - Incineration Requirements (40
CFR 761.70)
Establishes requirements for thermal destruction of PCBs in
incinerators (boilers not permitted for non-liquid PCBs [e.g.,
dredged material])
Incinerators must be approved (trial bum at discretion of
regional administrator). For non-liquid PCBs, combustion
efficiency must be >99.9%, air emissions s 1 ng/kg PCB in
feed; feed, stack gas, and operation monitoring required;
shutdown required if monitoring fails.
TSCA - Storage requirements (40 CFR
761.65)
Establishes technical requirements for temporary storage of PCB
wastes prior to treatment or disposal
Must have roof, curbing, impervious floor; check monthly; not
allowed within a 100-year floodplain. Allows storage in RCRA
hazardous PCB facilities.
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) - General Facility Standards
(40 CFR 264.10 - 264.16)
General facility requirements outline general waste analysis,
security measures, inspections and training requirements.
Any facilities will be constructed, fenced, posted and operated
in accordance with this requirement. Workers must be properly
trained. Process wastes will be evaluated for the characteristics
of hazardous wastes to assess further landfilling requirements.
RCRA - Preparedness and Prevention
(40 CFR 264.30-264.37)
This regulation outlines requirements for safety equipment and
spill control.
Safety and communication equipment will be installed at the
site; local authorities will be familiarized with site operations.
RCRA - Contingency Plan and
Emergency Procedures (40 CFR 264.50 -
264.56)
This regulation outlines the requirements for emergency
procedures to be used following explosions, fires, etc. Includes
coordination with and notification of local emergency
responders.
Plans will be developed and implemented during site work
including response to fires, explosions, or unplanned releases to
air, soil, or water.
RCRA - Releases from Solid Waste
Management Units (40 CFR 264.90 -
264.101)
This regulation details requirements for a groundwater
monitoring program to be installed at the site.
A groundwater monitoring program may be a component of
remedial alternatives. RCRA regulations will be utilized as
guidance during development of this program.
RCRA - Closure and Post-closure (40
CFR 264.110-264.120)
This regulation details specific requirements for closure and
post-closure of hazardous waste facilities.
Those parts of the regulation concerned with technical
requirements, long-term monitoring and maintenance of the site
will be incorporated into the design
lource Based or Table C 3-3 of the Phase 1 Report, updated 5/05/95. 9/3/98. I/I 5/99. and 5/1 1/99
Page I of 4
-------
TABLE 3
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS (Revised)
ARAR
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
ACTION TO BE TAKEN TO ATTAIN ARARS
IF A REMEDY IS SELECTED FOR WHICH THESE
REQUIREMENTS ARE ARAR
RCRA - Surface Impoundments Items
(40 CFR 264.220 - 264.232)
This regulation details the design, construction, operation,
monitoring, inspection and contingency plans for a RCRA
surface impoundment.
To comply with clean closure, owner must remove or
decontaminate all waste. To comply with containment closure,
the owner must eliminate free liquid, stabilize remaining waste,
and cover impoundment with a cover that complies with the
regulation. Integrity of cover must be maintained, groundwater
system monitored, and runoff controlled (40 CFR 264.228).
RCRA - Waste Piles (40 CFR 264.250 -
264.259)
Details procedures, operating requirements, and closure and
post-closure options for waste piles. If removal or
decontamination of all contaminated subsoils is not possible,
closure and post-closure requirements for landfills must be
attained.
Waste piles used for treatment or storage of non-containerized
accumulation of solid, non-flowing hazardous waste may
comply with either the waste pile or landfill requirements. The
storage of hazardous waste on-site, therefore, must comply with
one or the other subpart.
RCRA - Landfills (40 CFR 264.300 -
264.317)
This regulation details the design, operation, monitoring,
inspection, record keeping, and closure requirements, for a
RCRA landfill.
Disposal of contaminated materials if determined to be
characteristic hazardous wastes from the river would be to a
permitted facility that complies with RCRA landfill regulations,
including closure and post-closure. On-site disposal would
include a cover meeting the requirements of 264.310 and
relevent technical guidance documents.
USEPA - Covers for Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites (EPA/540/2-85-
002; September 1985)
In order to fulfill most requirements, the most efficient cover
system is made of layers. The minimum specifications, as
dictated by RCRA, should include a vegetated top cover, middle
drainage layer, and low permeability layer.
The low permeability bottom layer consists of an upper
component (at least 20 mil synthetic), which may or may not be
needed, and a lower component (must have at least 2 feet of soil
recompacted to a saturated conductivity).
RCRA - Incinerators (40 CFR 264.340 -
264.351)
This regulation specifies the performance standards, operating
requirements, monitoring, inspection, record-keeping, and
closure guidelines of any incinerator burning hazardous waste.
On-site/off-site thermal treatment must comply with the
appropriate requirements specified in this subpart of RCRA, if
determined to be RCRA characteristic hazardous wastes.
(Incineration of PCB wastes must meet requirements of 40CFR
761.70)
RCRA - Miscellaneous Units (40 CFR
264.600 - 264.603) (Misc. Units defined
in 40 CFR 260.10)
These standards are applicable to miscellaneous units not
previously defined under existing RCRA regulations for
treatment, storage, and disposal units.
Units not previously defined under RCRA must comply with
these requirements.
-------
TABLE 3
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS (Revised)
ARAR
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
ACTION TO BE TAKEN TO ATTAIN ARARS
IF A REMEDY IS SELECTED FOR WHICH THESE
REQUIREMENTS ARE ARAR
TSCA Disposal Requirements (40 CFR
Part 761.60)
Liquid PCBs at concentrations greater than 50 ppm, but less than
500 ppm, must be disposed of either in a high efficiency boiler,
or in a chemical waste landfill. Liquid PCBs at concentrations
greater than 500 ppm must be disposed of in an incinerator.
Other PCB items (dredged materials with PCB concentrations
greater than 50 ppm) may be disposed of by alternative methods
which are protective of public health and the environment, if
shown that incineration or disposal in a chemical waste landfill is
not reasonable or appropriate.
PCB treatment must comply with these regulations during
remedial action. 40 CFR 761 clarifies that approval of Regional
Administrator is required for any destruction method other than
incineration per 761.70. Only requirements applicable to non-
liquid PCBs and dredged material are likely to be applicable for
the Hudson River site.
Occuptational Safety and Health Act
(OSHA) - Occupational Safety and
Health Standards (29 CFR Part 1910)
These regulations specify the 8-hour time-weighted average
concentration for various organic compounds. Training
requirements for workers at hazardous waste operations are
specified in 29 CFR 1910.120.
Proper respiratory equipment will be worn if it is impossible to
maintain the work atmosphere below the specified
concentrations. Workers performing remedial activities would
be required to have completed specified training requirements.
OSHA - Safety and Health Regulations
for Construction (29 CFR Part 1926)
This regulation specifies the type of safety equipment and
procedures to be followed during site remediation.
All appropriate safety equipment will be on-site. In addition,
safety procedures will be followed during on-site activities.
OSHA - Recording and Reporting
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (29
CFR 1904)
This regulation outlines the record keeping and reporting
requirements for an employer under OSHA.
These requirements apply to all site contractors and
subcontractors and must be followed during all site work.
Clean Water Act (CWA) - 40 CFR Part
403
This regulation specifies pretreatment standards for discharge to
a publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
If a leachate collection system is installed and the discharge is
sent to a POTW, the POTW must have an approved
pretreatment program. The collected leachate runoff must be in
compliance with the approved program. Prior to discharging, a
report must be submitted containing identifying information, list
of approved permits, description of operations, flow
measurements, measurement of pollutants, certification by a
qualified professional, and a compliance schedule (40
CFR403.12).
Regulations on Disposal Site
Determinations Under the Clean Water
Act (40 CFR 231)
These regulations apply to all existing, proposed, or potential
disposal sites for discharges of dredged or fill materials into U.S.
waters, which include wetlands.
The dredged or fill material should not be discharged unless it
can be demonstrated that such a discharge will not have an
unacceptable adverse impact on the wetlands.
iource Based on Table C 3-3 ofthe Phase I Report, updated 5/05/95. 9/3/9X. 1/15/99. and 5/11/99
Page 3 or4
-------
TABLE 3
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS (Revised)
ARAR
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
ACTION TO BE TAKEN TO ATTAIN ARARS
IF A REMEDY IS SELECTED FOR WHICH THESE
REQUIREMENTS ARE ARAR
DOT Rules for Transportation of
Hazardous Materials (49 CFR Parts
171.1-171.5)
This regulation outlines procedures for the packaging, labeling,
manifesting and transporting of hazardous materials.
Contaminated materials will be packaged, manifested and
transported to a licensed off-site disposal facility in compliance
with these regulations.
New York State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (6 NYCRR 750-757;
TOGS 1.3.4)
Establishes water quality standards, effluent limitations,
standards of performance, toxic effluent standards and
prohibitions, and pretreatment standards (6 NYCRR 750.1).
BAT/BPJ 30-day limit for PCBs is 3.0ng/L.
New York State RCRA Hazardous
Waste Regulations (6 NYCRR 372)
Outlines standards for generators and transporters of hazardous
waste, and standards for generators, transporters, and treatment,
storage or disposal facilities relating to the use of manifest
systems. Floodplain requirements in 6 NYCRR 372-2.
To be determined.
New York State RCRA Hazardous
Waste Regulations (6 NYCRR 373)
The regulations for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous
waste; the permit requirements; the construction and the
operation standards are established.
To be determined.
New York State Solid Waste Regulations
(6 NYCRR 360-361)
Requirements for landfill operation and closure and other solid
waste management activities. Facility siting requirements in 6
NYCRR Part 361.
To be determined.
New York State Air Pollution Control
Regulations (6 NYCRR 200-221); the
sections that pertain to emissions are
200, 202, 205, 211, 212, 219; the exact
citations that are relevent to the project
are yet to be determined
The emissions of air contaminants that jeopardize human, plant,
or animal life, or is ruinous to property, or causes a level of
discomfort is strictly prohibited (6 NYCRR 211).
To be determined. PCBs are not VOCs. NYSDEC Division of
Air Resources Air Guide-1 may be applicable to PCB
emissions.
NY Environmental Conservation Law,
Article 15, Title 5
Regulates excavation and fill of the navigable waters of the state.
To be determined; applicable to consideration of any alternative
involving dredging or filling.
Pao^ A rtfi
-------
TABLE 4
INITIAL IDENTIFICATION OF GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS
AND REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES (Revised)
GENERAL RESPONSE ACTION
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY
1 NO ACTION
None (with or without continuation of existing monitoring
and institutional controls)
2 MONITORED NATURAL
None
ATTENUATION
3 CONTAINMENT
Subaqueous Capping
Retaining Dikes and Berms
Ground Freezing
4 IN SITU TREATMENT
Bioremediation
Solidification/Stabilization
Dechlorination/Solidification
Solvent Extraction
Chemical Dechlorination
5 REMOVAL
Environmental Dredging (with or without dispersion
controls)
Excavation
SEDIMENT PRETREATMENT
Dewatering
Solids Classification
DISPOSAL
Beneficial Use
Land Disposal (Landfills)
Confined Disposal Facility
6 REMOVAL
Environmental Dredging (with or without dispersion
controls)
SEDIMENT PRETREATMENT
Dewatering
Solids Classification
EX SITU TREATMENT
Dechlorination
Solvent Extraction
Thermal Desorption
Combined Physical/Chemical
Incineration
Soil Washing
Bioremediation
Solidification/Stabilization
Dechlorination/Stabilization
DISPOSAL
Beneficial Use
Land Disposal (Landfills)
Confined Disposal Facility
Notes:
I. Response action numbering on this table corresponds to numbering in Section 2.3.
2 The continuation of existing monitoring and institutional controls or additional monitoring and institutional
controls will be performed as a part of each general response action with the possible exception of the No
Action response.
-------
i
Hudson River
HudTox Model
Database
• Data from USEPA/TAMS.
• Fate and Transport
Model for the Upper
Average
Sediment and
Water
Concentrations
Hudson River
TAMS
LTI
"f jj D in a 7i siJf a r] i*y
F Dull fJiiiJ g/j
FUTjdaLl)
Fate & Transport
Model
• Fate and Transport Model
for the Lower Hudson
Manhattan College
Average
Sediment and
Water
Concentrations
Scour Model
Thompson Island Pool
Model
LTI
Geochemical Models
Bivariate Statistical Model
• Purely statistical model (no biological mechanisms)
• Minimum number of data parameters, but large historical
data set
TetraTech
Average
Fish Body
Burdens
Cross check
Validate
Gobas Mechanistic Model
A time-varying model
Both a deterministic version and a probabilistic version
ware developed
Simulates fish growth, feeding and respiration uptakes on
an annual basis
Large number of parameters MCA
Cross check
Validate
Average Fish
and
Invertebrate
Body Burdens •
Upper Hudson Probabilistic Model
Yields probability distributions of expected body burdens
Incorporates food web structure
Uses empirical distributions of "transfer" coefficients or
bioaccumulation factors between trophic levels
Large number of parameters
MCA
Fish and
Invertebrate
Body Burden
Oistnbutions
Lower Hudson Food Web Model
• Bioenergetic Food Web Model for the Lower Hudson
River
* Large number of parameters
Manhattan College
Average
Fish Body
Burdens
Development of
Remedial Action
Objectives
4
Human
Health and
Ecological
Risk
Assessments
TAMS/Gradient/MCA
Feasibility
TAMS
Proposed
Plan
USEPA
Ecological Models
Notes:
1. Bolded path arrows and shaded boxes indicate the model iteration
loop for the development of remedial action objectives.
TAMS Consultants, Inc.
05/29/98
Figure 1
Hudson River PCBs Reassessment Feasibility Study Modeling Analysis Flowchart
-------
III. Comments on the Feasibility Study Scope of Work
Copies of the comments received during the public comment period follow.
31
-------
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Ocaanic and Atmoapharie Admlniatratlon
National Ocaan Sarvtca
Off lea o< Ocaan (laaouicaa Oonaarvatnn and Asaasamant
Hazardous Matariala Raaponaa and AssMsmant Oiviaion
Coastal Raaourcas Coordination Branch
290 Broadway, Rm 1831
Nmv York, Naw York 10007
FI
November 2,1998
Doug Tomchuk
U.S. EPA
Sediraem Projects/Caribbean Team
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
Dear Doug:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the September 1998 Hudson River PCBs Reassessment
RI/FS Phase 3 Feasibility Scope of Work. The following comments are submitted by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Background
The Hudson River Reassessment is divided into three phases. Phase I was the Interim
Characterization and Evaluation. Phase 2, which is ongoing, consists of Further Site
Characterization and Analysis. The Feasibility Study is conducted under Phase 3 . The subject
document, the Feasibility Study (FS) Scope of Work (SOW), focuses on PCB-contaminated
Hudson River sediment between Hudson Falls and the Federal Dam at Troy ("the Upper
Hudson").
The Feasibility Study describes potential remedial alternatives for reducing environmental and
human health PCB exposure. Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) and General Response Actions
(GRAs) will be developed. RAOs will be developed to reduce risk to human and ecological
receptors, achieve water quality criteria and meet other applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs).
Geochemical and ecological models will be employed to investigate the spatial extent of remedial
actions and the anticipated reduction in biota PCB body burdens. Remedial scenarios to be tested
range from "no action", removal or isolation based on various concentrations or inventories of
sediment PCBs, removal by grain-size type, dredging bank to bank, hot-spot removal, and
nearshore vs offshore variations. The FS report will integrate modeling, human health risk
assessment and ecological risk assessment conclusions and ARARs.
Comments
The authors oftheFS SOW present a concise and clear description of the approach to document
and evaluate potential remedial alternatives for Hudson River PCB-corrnminntrd sediment The
SOW is relatively thorough. However, the assessment of remedial alternatives for the Upper
Hudson does not evaluate their impact on the entire Hudson River Superfiind site, excluding the
yortion of the site between Poughkeepsie and the Battery. In addition, only the impact of "select"
remedial alternatives will be evaluated for the Mid-Hudson (freshwater portion of the Hudson
River from the Federal Dam in Troy to Poughkeepsie. Although it may be true that remedial
Summary
-------
NOAA comments on Hudson River Feasibility Snidy Scope of Woriu September, 1998
(11/2/K)
actions in the Upper Hudson may affect Upper Hudson biota to a greater extent than those in the
Lower Hudson, biota in the lower river may also be substantially affected. As pointed out in the
Data Evaluation and Interpretation Report (EPA 1997), approximately one-half of the PCB lining
to the New York/New Jeney Harbor originates from the Upper Hudson River PCB load. By not
fully evaluating the pocenhal reduction in risk associated with different remedial alternatives
throughout the entire Hudson River Superfund site, critical information to support the
decision-making process will not be available. NOAA strongly urges EPA to reconsider this
decision and include the entire site in the evaluation of remedial alternatives.
Page 11 Section 2JL Para I: This paragraph combines target contaminant concentration limits for
human and ecological receptora. Toe last sentence irimtifirs FDA limits as an example of
acceptable PCB level in fish and Other biota. PT>A fhr«rrilogir>.]
thresholds.
Page 13 Section 22 Para 2: Remedial action alternatives in the Upper Hudson will be evaluated to
assess their capacity to reduce risk to biota (and their consumers) in the Upper and Mid-Hudson.
The esmarine portion of the Hudson between Poughkeepsie and. die Battery has been
from these modeling efforts. The basis for this decision is the assumption that remedial actions in
the Upper Hudson will have less of an effect on the Lower Hudson biota than resident Upper
Hudson biota. However, any substantial change in PCB loading from the Upper Hudson would
be expected to impact the entire river. Because the PCB body burdens in fish from tŁe lower
portion of die estuary are considerably lower than in the Mid or Upper Hudson, reduction in PCB
loading may result in a more rapid recovery for fish and other biota in this section of die river, even
though the magnitude of the change may be smaller. The importance of quantitative information on
the effects of aU remedial options over the entire site should not underestimated.
Page 16 Section 2J2 Last Bullet: AU of the other goals are quite specific and applicable, but the last
seems too ill defined to be useful, because it is not based on any specific, readily quantifiable
criteria.
Page 16 Section 2.3: NOAA does not agree with listing "Monitored Natural Attenuation" as an
alternative that is distinct from the "No Action" alternative. There appears to be no discernible
difference between"no action" and "monitored natural attenuation" other than syntax. Typically,
any response action should be monitored to determine effectiven«^« and gir»inmHitnfwm«fai
action objectives (RAOs). Historically, the "No Action" alternative was selected as the pxefaied
alternative when either there was no current or potential threat to human health or the environment
or when the no action option would achieve the RAOs within a equivalent time frame to a more
active remedy. Dilution, dispersion, sorption, transformation or volatilization of contaminants
identified as in situ processes do not (a) prevent or eliminate the exchange of PCBs between
media, (b) remove all routes of exposure, (c) impede the redistribution of the contaminants within
and throughout the river or (d) preclude negative impacts associated with contaminant
bioavailability.
Page 22 Section 32 Item 2: It is stated that "sediment cleanup levels will be established on the
basis of current sediment inventories, proximity to shore and human receptors, and potential for re-
release." Availability to ecological receptors should be included as well.
Page 26 Section 4.1: The second bullet and third paragraph are internally contradictory with each
other and with the first paragraph on page 17. If me site poses no current or potential threat to
human health, then fish advisories or a fish ban would not be in effect Furthermore, fishing
bans/advisories are not "remedial" in nature whether they exist currently or are implemented in the
future.
Table 1 lists potential chemical-specific ARARs and critiexia. advisories and guidance. A separate
heading should be added for groundwater, the authority being the NYS Standards, 6 NYCRR
703.6. The maximum allowable concentration of PCBs of 0.09 ug/L Under the Sediment
2
-------
NOAA comments on Hudson River Feasibility Study Scope of Wok, September. 1998
(11/2/98)
heading, include other freshwater sediment guidelines (Smith et aL 1996, Ingersoil et al. 1996,
EPA 1996, Washington Department of the Ecology (1997). Most are referenced in the September
1998 Ecological Risk Assessment SOW.
Table 2 lists the Endangered Species Act as an ARAR. Shortnose sturgeon arc not limited to the
Esopus Meadows area in the Lower Hudson estuary. They have been recorded in the Hudson
River between km 38 and km 239. Their distribution varies seasonally and by life stage and
reproductive condition (Bain 1997). Also, the Migratory Bud Treaty Act (1972) should be
to this table. It provides for protection of native species from unregulated and unintentional takings
including poisoning from hazardous wastes.
In the first row and column of Table 3, "dean" is missing from "Water Act".
The remedial technology column in Table 4 should contain a monitoring component for each
general response action.
Thanks you for your continual efforts in keeping NOAA apprised of the progress at this site.
Please contact me at (212) 637-3259 or Jay Held at (206) 536-6404 should you have any
questions or would like further assistance.
uisa iwsman
NOAA Coastal Resource Coordinator
References'
Bain. M1997 Atlantic and shonnose sturgeons of the Hudsoo River: comon and divergent life history attributes.
Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:347-358.
EPA. 1996. Calculation and evaluation of sediment effect concentraaotn forthcarophipod Hyaltila azteca and the
midge CMmnomm riparms. EFA Report No. 9Q5-R96-008. September 1996.
EPA 1997, Phase 2 Report, Further Site Characterization and Analysis, Volume 2C • Data Evaluation and
Interpretation RepocUiudson River PCS Reassessment Rife, February 1997.
Ingersoil. CO., P.S. Haverland, Ei. Branson. TJ. Canfield, FJ. Dwyer, CJE. Henke. N.E. Kemble. DJR. Mount,
and R.G. Fox, 1996. Calculation and evaluation of sediment effect concentrations for the amptoipod
Hyaieilaaucca and the m0^tCUronoitmriparius.J. Great Lakes Res. 22(3): 602-623.
Migratory Bud Treaty Act 1972. 16 USC 703-712 and 50 CFR 20.71.
Petsaud. P.. R. Jaagnmagi, and A. Hayton, 1993. Guidelinei for the protection and management of aquatic sedime«
quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy. August 1993.
Smith, SDJ3. MacDonakL. KA. Koenleyside, CG. Ingersoil, and LJ. Field 1996. A preliminary evaluation of
set&ment quality assessment values for freshwater ecosystems. /. Great lakes Res. 22(3): 624-638.
Washington State Department of Ecology, 1997. Creation and Analysis of Freshwater Sediment Quality Valuea in
Washington Slate, Publication No. 97-323a. July 1997.
oc Mindy Pensak, DESA/HWSB
Robot Hargrove, DEPP/SPMM
Doug Fischer, ORC/NYCSFB
William Ports, NYSDEC
Charles Merckd, USFWS
Ann Secord, USFWS
Anton P. Giedt, NOAA
3
-------
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
-------
STATE
-------
FS-1
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Remediation
Bureau of Central Remedial Action. Room 228
SO Wolf Road, Albany. New York 12233-7010
Phone: (518) 457-1741 FAX: (518) 457-7925 vt
November 9,1998
Mr. Douglas Tomchuk
United States Environmental Protection Agency •
Region II
290 Broadway • 20th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Re: Hudson River PCBs Site Reassessment Rl/FS
Site No.: 5-46-031
Dear Mr. Tomchuk:
The following comments are on the Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS, Phase 3 Feasibility Study
Scope of Work and Phase 2 Ecological Risk Assessment Scope of Work, dated September 1998.
Feasibility Study Scope of Work
Section 1, Page 3. The text states, "computer models will be employed to assist in the selection of
remedial objectives as well as to assess the likely success of any remedial action in attaining these goals"
Generally, the remedial action objectives are based on applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) and/or risk assessment findings. Models are generally used to assist in predicting
whether specific remedial measures will enable the goals to be achieved. The scope of work should
explain how the computer models will be used to select remedial objectives.
Section 1.2, Page S. The Scope of Work should clearly state that all of the exposure routes found to be of
concern in the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) are addressed in the Feasibility Study.
Section 22. Page 12 and 13 and Section 4. We suspect that the depositionai areas just south of Remnant
Site 3 and adjacent to Remnant Site 4 contain PCB contaminated sediments. Remedial alternatives
should include consideration of such areas above Rogers Island.
Section 2.2 Page IS and 16. The DEC piscivorus wildlife criteria(0.1 ppm in whole fish) must be
included in the Final Selection of Remedial Action Objectives, particularly where the reference to the
'desired level in fish' occurs.
-------
Section 2.2 Page 15. The second bullet on the page cites cancer risk as the basis for determination of
acceptable PCB levels in near-shore sediments. This bullet should be clarified to indicate that the basis
for determination of acceptable PCB levels in near-shore sediments will be based on any appropriate
risks, cancer or non-cancer, as determined in the HHRA.
Section 23. The report between Section 2 J (Development of Remedial Action Objectives and General
Response Actions, page 17) and Section 4 ( Development, Screening and Detailed Analysis Remedial
Alternatives, page 26) is not consistent as to whether institutional controls are part of a no action
alternative. This apparent discrepancy needs to be clarified.
Section 23 Page 17. The term 'on-site* as used in conjunction with identifying general response actions
should be more clearly defined. As it is currently defined in the text, one might conclude that the
superfund site includes a 2-mile corridor along either bank of the river.
Table 1 Potential Chemical -Specific ARARS and Criteria, Advisories and Guidance state that the
inclusion of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration tolerance limit for PCBs in fish (2 ppm) as an ARAR
is relevant and appropriate but that its consideration in the RI/FS is to be determined. Hits is confining
and should be clarified. Regardless of what is done with the Table, the FDA tolerance limit should be
used as an ARAR.
Ecological Risk Assessment Scope of Work
Page 1, at bottom and top of Page 2 - The removal of the Fort Edward Dam is overstated as a defining
event for the impact on contaminating the Hudson River. The write-up on page 3 of the Feasibility Study
Scope of Work provides a better perspective on the dam removal and this should be reiterated in place of
the referenced passage in the Ecological Risk Assessment Scope of Work.
htti, fourth bullet - It is recommended that this passage be revised for clarity to read as follows:
Estimi^dPCB concentrations in the diets of fish eating birds and mammals at the site are similar to or
higher tha^tigtary concentrations recommended by USFWS or NYSDEC (TAMS/Gradient, 1991).
Page 11, last line - cfe^Uin a little further about the 'whorled pogonia.' Is this a plant or animal?
Page 12 & 13, Section 22 Conthunants of Concern - There needs to be some rationale provided for
limiting the discussion to PCBs. InlR^sto be an 'ecological assessment,' recognition at least of the
existence of other contaminants in the sy^ltonis in order.
Page 16, 'Measurement endpoints', third bullet- Tbi^ody burdens' are not included in the
measurement endpoints as listed in Table i. For exampleSi^he second page of the table the only species
mentioned that would have body burdens measured is the tree^n^ilow. Where actual Hudson River
samples which provide body burden data are not available, literatwfei^lues may be used Also, please
note that other species of animals mentioned may not be feeding in therN^and hence, may not be
accumulating high levels or may not be impacted.
Table 1 - Why is the short nose sturgeon listed as a forage species? If it is truly endangfe*a(^s it expected
to comprise a large part of the food base for piscivorus species? Under piscivorus fish at th?bqJtom of
the first page, it would be more accurate to recognize many of these as omnivorous. Any piscivora*.
habits of the species may be functions of life stage and size.
-------
Nft 20. paragraph 4 - There are data available on PCBs in mink for New York State in Foley et al. The
fullchuion is available if desired. In the next paragraph. Palmer and Fowler are not in the literature cited
sectjofuwtaeas Hornshaw et al. from the paragraph above is in the literature cited On page 21, the
Gilbert l98^taion is not in the literature cited section either.
Page 31, section 3.3.^More data on bald eagles may soon be available based on ongoing NYSDEC
research. If this will be oHqe, please let us know.
Throughout Sections 3,4 and 5, tn&tuessment approach described is 'linear/ The focus is almost
exclusively on the river, not as an ccos^nu, but as a north-south geographic feature. The species
outlined for the Ecological Risk AssessmraN» considered to derive their energy from the river itself and
there is little weight given to some of the most pNjhictive habitats or ecological zones. Except for some
forage species and benthic invertebrates the shallowSttr shore littoral areas are not evaluated. There is
no mention of the transition zone from aquatic to terrestnfeUiabitats and likewise the riparian, wetted
perimeter, and flood plain habitats are absent from discussioiNfcptiles, amphibians, soil invertebrates
(e.g., earthworms, burrowing insect larvae), mammals (e.g., shievH^nd moles), birds sucivas woodcock
form a diverse complex anay of organisms inhabiting these peripheraHi^bitats which may be larger in
spatial extent than those directly associated with the river. In addition theiN^the direct exposure to
animals in these habitats, there is the re-exposure to the aquatic system of PC^wining off the surface of
the flood-plain. Although the concentrations are relatively low, it represents a wid«pread surficial
phenomenon which should be taken into account in the risk assessment.
On page 53, paragraph 2 - This paragraph should be rewritten and expanded for clarity. Otherwwik
eliminate it since it does not impart useful information.
If you have any questions on the above, please call me at (518) 4S7-S637.
Sincerely,
William T. Ports, P.E.
Project Manager
Bureau of Central Remedial Action
Division of Environmental Remediation
Enclosure
cc: John Davis, NYSDOL
Robert Montione, NYSDOH
Jay Fields, NOAA
Lisa Rosman, NOAA
Anne Seacord, USF&WS
-------
E. Grotty
R. Tramontano
J, Lobby
R. Slow
S. Sanfbrd
I. Carcich
M. OToole
W. Daigle
W. Demick
fC Farrar
-------
r
o
o
>
r
-------
FL-]
SARATOGA COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
PETER BALET
CHAIRMAN
GEORGE HOOQSON
DIRECTOR
November 2. 1998
Mr. Douglas Tomchuk
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway 20th Floor
New York. New York 10007
Dear Doug:
Enclosed you will find Saratoga County EMC's comments on EPA's Phase 2 Ecological
Risk Assessment Scope of Work and Phase 3 Feasibility Study Scope of Work for the
Hudson River PCB Reassessment RI/FS, both dated September, 1998. prepared by David
Adams. SCEMC. Member-at-Large.
The principal comment on the Ecological Risk Assessment Scope of Work is that due to
the highly qualitative nature of the Risk Assessment, it should be confined to those areas
(water and sediment) and species (invertebrates and fish) for which Hudson River data
are available.
The principal comments on the Feasibility Study Scope of Work are that the sediments
significant as a source of PCBs to the food chain must first be identified before possible
remedial action are defined, and that the elimination of PCB inflows to the river and
subsequent monitoring of the river's recovery should be added to the list of possible
remedial action.
incerely,
Peter Balet
Chairman
PB/cts
Ends.
-------
cc: Ms. Carol Browner. Administrator, USEPA
Ms. Jeanne Fox, Regional Administrator, Region 2, USEPA
Mr. Richard Caspe, Director, ERRD, Region 2, USEPA
Mr. William McCabe, Deputy Director, ERRD, Region 2. USEPA
Ms. Ann Rychlenski, Public Affairs Specialist, Region 2, USEPA
The Honorable Gerald Solomon
The Honorable Alphonse D'Amato
The Honorable Daniel Moynihan
The Honorable George Pataki
Mr. John Cahill, Commissioner, NYSDEC
Mr. Stuart Buchanan, Region 5 Director, NYSDEC
The Saratoga County Board of Supervisors
Mr. David Wickerham, Administrator, Saratoga County
Hudson River PCB Liaison Group Chairs
SCEMC members & staff
-------
HUDSON RIVER PCSs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
COMMENTS ON PHASE 3 FEASIBILITY STUDY
SCOPE OF WORK, DATED SEPTEMBER, 1998
Prepared by David D. Adams, Member-at-Large
Saratoga County Environmental Management Council
1. Section 2, P. 9: Provisions should be made for the inclusion as a possible remedial
action the elimination of any significant in-flow of PCBs to the river, particularly the
in-flow in the vicinity of the GE Hudson Falls Plant site, with followup monitoring over a
suitable time period to determine if stopping the in-flow of PCBs allows the river to
recover.
2. Section 2.2, P. 10: Consideration should be given to the probability that the real source
>r PCBs is the continuing in-flow of PCBs to the river with the sediments acting as an
intermediary path of storage and transport to the food chain.
3. Section 2.2, P. 11: If the PCBs in the buried sediments are determined not be be a
source of PCBs to the water columns and the food chain, would "ARARs or other
criteria" still be a basis for considering removal of the buried PCBs?
4. Section 2.2, P. 12: Before defining what remedial action to evaluate for sediment, it is
first necessary to determine which sediments are significant contributors of PCBs to the
water column and the food chain. Also, see comment "1 ** for another scenario that needs
to be evaluated.
5. Section 2.2, PP 13 & 14: Are the "Mid-Hudson" and "Lower-Hudson" different
regions of the river or the same? Will results from the Lower-Hudson models be used in
the decision for remedial action in the Upper Hudson?
6. Section 2.2. P. 13: Fig. 1 shows the Scour Model output going directly to the
Feasibility StiHv. Shouldn't the Scour Model output instead be an input to the HUDTOX
fate and tra- c model?
7. Section 2.2, P. 16: How arc areas of high PCB concentration "at or near the surface" to
be determined? The high resolution core data are inadequate as there are far too few
samples and the low resolution core data, besides also being of inadequate sample size,
are impossible to use for this purpose as the homogenization of the upper 9-12" of there
cores has destroyed any ability to determine PCB concentrations in the active surface
layer which is probably only about 2 inches deep. See EMC's previous comments on
EPA's Low Resolution Core report
8. Section 2.3, P. 17: Why is it necessary to use a two-mile wide swath from each river
bank to define "on-site"? It is the EMC's understanding of the Superfund process that
EPA can take any remedial action it deems appropriate 'on-site" without the need for
considering other laws or regulations such as those governing hazardous waste landfills.
-------
-2-
Defining "on-site" including a corridor extending two (2) miles on each side of the river
appears necessary only to give EPA an option to site a landfill for dredged material
without going through the normal permitting process.
9. Section 2.3, P. 18: The "response action" identified in Comment "1" should be
included.
10. Section 3.1, P. 21: It would seem to make more sense to make Table 4 reflect the
current situation rather than including technologies that have already been eliminated
from consideration.
11. Section 3.2, P. 21: Evaluation criteria for remedial action should be added for
ecological damage to the Hudson River system and for impacts to Hudson River
communities and people including economic impacts as these are important aspects of
any remedial action.
f 1.12 ^ 12. Section 4.2, P. 27: Only doing a "qualitative" evaluation of the risk of resuspension
V. y and air-bom PCBs due to remedial actions is inadequate for the ecological system of the
Hudson River and for the population exposed to these risks. A more thorough evaluation
is needed to be sure action like the evacuation of people isn't required to protect against
exposure to PCBs during a remedial action.
13. Section 5, P. 31: Is the implication in the last paragraph of this section that the
Feasibility Study Report will not make any recommendations correct?
14. Table 1: What is the use of standards for PCB concentrations that are below the
normal detection limit of 300 ppt (e.g. .001 ppt & .12 ppt for surface water)?
-------
GENERAL ELECTRIC
-------
GE Corporate
Environmental Programs
MeMn B. Schweiger
Manager. Hudson River Protect
New York State EHS Attain
General Electric Company
1 Computer Drive South
Albany, New York 12205
Telephone (518) 458-6648
Fax: (518) 458-1014
November 2, 1998
Mr. Douglas Tomchuk
USEPA- Region 2
290 Broadway - 20"1 Floor
New York, N Y. 10007-1866
RE: FS SOW Comments
Dear Mr. Tomchuk:
The General Electric Company ("GE") is pleased to submit the enclosed
comments on the Scope of Work for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
Feasibility Study ("SOW").
The SOW has several shortcomings. Most important, it is not focused on the
three central questions posed at the beginning of the reassessment that EPA set
out to answer, namely:
©
When will PCB levels in fish meet human health and ecological risk criteria
under continued No Action?
Can remedies other than No Action significantly shorten the time required to
achieve acceptable risk levels?
Would buried PCBs become "reactivated" following a major flood?
Without focusing on these issues, the Agency will be unable to evaluate whether
any remedial alternative in the Upper River can achieve meaningful risk reduction
materially faster than No Action. Instead of directing its analysis towards defined
risk reduction, which must be the focus of the Feasibility Study, the SOW
confuses mass removal with risk reduction.
-------
©The SOW raises other important issues as well:
• It is improperly biased toward large-scale and intrusive remedies - namely,
dredging - even though other nature-friendly, nondisruptive remedies exist
and ought to be equally considered;
• It does not call for an adequate analysis of the effectiveness of dredging to
achieve remedial objectives in a river system of this size or complexity;
• It does not properly incorporate the present and future benefits from GE's
continued source control and clean-up work at Hudson Falls;
• Its proposed method for analyzing remedial alternatives diverges from the
requirements of the National Contingency Plan;
• It arbitrarily seeks to expand the Hudson River Superfund Site without need
or justification; and,
• It proposes a Feasibility Study that will not quantitatively evaluate the short-
term risk resulting from implementation of remedial alternatives, some of
which could take years to complete.
Based on these and other deficiencies (discussed in attached comments), we
urge the Agency to submit the Feasibility Study to an independent peer review
panel. EPA has already committed to the peer review process to ensure the
Hudson River remedial decision is based on sound science. The document that
results from this SOW is central to the Agency's remedial decision. Accordingly, it
is not enough that only the documents that preceed this upcoming report will be
reviewed by independent scientists. The Feasibility Study, too, ought to be
subject to a review by independent experts.
If you would like to discuss these comments in greater detail, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
ft. %&****[*-h***
Melvin B. Schweiger
cc: Richard Caspe
William McCabe
Melvin Hauptman
John Cahill
Douglas Fischer
Albert DiBernardo
-------
COMMENTS OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ON
HUDSON RIVER PCBS REASSESSMENT RI/FS
PHASE 3 FEASIBILITY STUDY SCOPE OF WORK
November 2, 1998
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I Introduction and Executive Summary 1
II The Remedial Analysis Must Assess Whether Remedial Alternatives Can Achieve a
Meaningful Reduction in Risk in Materially Less Time Than No-Action 4
III. Remedial Technologies 11
A. The SOW Is Improperly Skewed Toward Large-Scale Remediation Through
Dredging II
B. Specific Comments on Remedial Technologies 13
1. Remedial Dredging Has Not Been Demonstrated to be Effective in
Reducing Risk 13
2. Engineered Capping 17
3. Thin-Layer Capping 18
4. Stabilization 19
IV The SOW Attempts to Expand The Site By 160 Square Miles Without Providing a
Practical Need or Legal Justification 20
V The SOW Does Not Describe or Apply the NCP Analytical Criteria Accurately or
Appropriately 22
A. Given Improving Conditions, the "No Action" Alternative can be Effective in the
Long-Term 22
B. Short-Term Risks Associated with a Remediation Project Must Be Identified and
Quantified and Cannot Be Qualitatively Dismissed 23
C The Feasibility of Remedial Alternatives Must be Carefully Assessed 25
\1 The Monitored Natural Attenuation Alternative Must Incorporate Burial. Dechlorination
and Source Control 27
A. Burial of PCB-Containing Sediments by Clean Solids 27
B. PCB Dechlorination 28
C. Upstream Source Control 29
VII EPA Can Not Justify Upper River Remediation Based on Presumed Benefits to the Lower
River 31
VIII. EPA Should Not Blindly Apply ARARs and TBCs at the Site 33
A. EPA Should Give Preference to Site-Specific Information 33
B. EPA Should Reject Many of the Proposed ARARs or TBCs 36
1. Surface Water Criteria 38
2. Sediment Criteria 40
3. Air Criteria 42
IX. Miscellaneous Comments
44
-------
I. Introduction and Executive Summary
General Electric Company ("GE") welcomes this opportunity to submit comments
on the "Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS Phase 3 Feasibility Study Scope of Work"
("SOW") These comments present a number of major issues.
I. The Agency established an appropriate remedial goal for the Hudson River PCBs
Superfund Site ("Site") through three central questions posed at the beginning of
this reassessment. The remedial objectives listed in the SOW diverge from this
goal.
The questions as originally set forth were:
When will PCB levels in fish populations recover to levels meeting human health
and ecological risk criteria under continued No Action?
Can remedies other than No Action significantly shorten the time required to
achieve acceptable risk levels?
Are there contaminated sediments now buried and effectively sequestered from the
food chain that are likely to become "reactivated" following a major flood, possibly
resulting in an increase in contamination of the fish population9
The Feasibility Study ("FS") must be directed at answering these questions. First, EPA must
determine the PCB concentration in fish that constitutes an acceptable level of risk. Second.
reiving on the knowledge of the exposure pathways of PCBs to fish derived from its fate,
transport and bioaccumulation models, the Agency must identify an array of possible remedial
alternatives that would achieve the defined acceptable risk level. This is an important step;
knowledge of the source of PCBs (buried vs. surficial sediments; upstream source vs TIP) is
essential to selection of a remedial alternative Third, because "No Action" at this Site
encompasses natural recovery, all possible remedial alternatives must be compared to "No
-------
Action" to evaluate whether any will achieve the defined acceptable risk level at a materially
earlier date than would "No Action."
Risk reduction is the proper remedial goal at this Site. Because most of the PCBs
are not bioavailable, mass removal does not equate to risk reduction and violates the National
Contingency Plan ("NCP") mandate of cost effectiveness here. EPA's remedy selection must not
be driven by a vague affinity for mass removal, but by achieving a defined, targeted concentration
of PCBs in fish that is deemed acceptable materially faster than would occur naturally. The logic
of the remedial selection process directs this order of procedure.
2. The SOW is improperly biased toward the consideration of large-soaie and
intrusive remedies — namely, dredging; other nature-friendly, nondisruptive
remedial alternatives get little or no discussion but deserve far more thorough
i evaluation.
In considering large-scale and intrusive remedial alternatives, such as dredging,
careful consideration must be given to their actual performance at other sites. First, there must be
assurance that dredging in the Hudson would be focused on the actual source of PCBs to fish and
the water column. Remediation of PCBs in locations that do not predominantly affect fish, such
as the so-called "hot spots. " will accomplish little or nothing Second, the efficacy of dredging
must be demonstrated, which is a difficult task given both the limited experience and the paucity
of post-dredging analysis at other sites. Third, in light of the consistent pattern of remedial
dredging at other sites taking far longer to implement and costing far more than was anticipated,
realistic construction schedules and cost estimates must be developed. Fourth, the destructive
ecological impacts of dredging must be accurately weighed in the remedial calculus. Finally, the
practical feasibility of dredging must be addressed.
-------
i. EPA can not expand the Site down the river or along us shorelines without
providing a reasoned explanation.
The SOW provides neither a practical need nor a logical justification for the expansion of the Site
by 160 square miles.
4. The evaluation of the monitored natural attenuation alternative must consider the
significant factors that affect recovery of the Hudson.
These factors include burial of sediments containing PCBs by cleaner solids; PCB dechlorination
in the river; and control of the upstream source, which must precede the commencement of any
downstream remedy.
©5. The application of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
("ARARs") and "To Be Considered" benchmarks ("TBCs") at this Site should be
constrained by the voluminous site-specific information.
This information includes the quantitative PCB fate, transport and bioaccumulation models that
are being prepared by EPA and GE and the baseline human health and ecological risk assessments
for the Site In addition, many of the requirements identified in the SOW are not properly
considered ARARs or TBCs for this Site for legal reasons or because of insufficient data and
anaiysis to support them
3
-------
O. The Remedial Analysis Must Assess Whether Remedial Alternatives Can Achieve a
Meaningful Reduction in Risk in Materially Less Time Than No-Action
The fundamental remedial goal at all Supertund sites is derived from the core
instruction in section 121(b)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation,
and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9621(b)(1), that remedial actions be "protective of
human health and the environment." See also 40 C.F.R. § 3OO.43O(aXlX0 ("The national goal of
the remedy selection process is to select remedies that are protective of human health and the
environment"). To translate this broad goal to this Site, EPA posed the three questions set out
above. These questions properly characterize what should be the overriding question of the
Agency's remedial analysis: Will any remedial alternative achieve the targeted, defined and,
measurable reduction in risk to humans or biota from PCBs in fish materially faster than would
occur under No Action within the time frame for which the models can reliably forecast
conditions?
The best tools for answering the three questions are the quantitative fate, transport
and bioaccumulation models that the Agency is developing. When properly calibrated and
validated, these models have important uses beside projecting the No Action scenario: (1) to
identify the source(s) and pathways, of PCBs to fish {e.g., the upstream source vs. the Thompson
Island Pool ("TIP") sediments; surface sediments vs. buried sediments), and (2) to screen possible
remedial alternatives. Once the analyses are complete, EPA should then be able to use the models
to distinguish one source of PCBs from another, identify which is the primary source, and assess
and quantitatively compare the risk-reduction benefits of various remedial alternatives, including
natural recovery. Because "No Action" will achieve the acceptable risk level in time, a central
4
-------
criterion for remedy selection is whether the remedy will materially accelerate the date at which
the desired risk level is achieved If models show that a remedial alternative cannot materially
accelerate the achievement of the risk target, it must be rejected. The goal of remediation must be
acceleration of the achievement of the target risk level.1
For example, assume the models predict that PCB levels in fish after 20 or 30 years
under the No Action scenario will be X. Under one remedial alternative, the models predict that
PCB leveis in fish after the same time period will be Y If the risks from human consumption of
fish with X concentrations of PCBs are not materially different from the risks of human
consumption of fish with Y concentrations, then this remedial alternative has not met the basic
test at this Site and should be excluded from further consideration EPA's site-specific fate,
transport and bioaccumulation models make this sort of analysis possible because they permit the
risk manager to calculate PCB levels in fish directly instead of using inferior and indirect
measurements of PCB leveis in other media (e.g., sediment and the water column) which are
assumed to lead to an acceptable PCB concentration in fish. To be sure, the baseline risk
assessments and ARARs wiil provide numerical criteria at the direct points of exposure, such as
fish, water (for direct human contact or consumption), or sediment (for direct human contact).
By providing a direct link to evaluate a specific action against a specific remedial goal (e.g., PCB
1 EPA cannot utilize CERCLA to achieve goals unrelated to the protection of human health and
the environment, such as increasing the depths of navigational channels. Thus, the statement in
the SOW that "[rjemoval, rather than containment (capping) or in situ treatment will be
considered the preferred action for contaminated sediments within the limits of the navigation
channel, if necessary," (SOW at 18) is improper Any action selected with the intent of increasing
the depth of navigational channeis, rather than attaining risk-derived objectives, would be
inconsistent with the NCP
5
-------
concentrations in fish), however, the models make indirect remedial criteria, such as sediment
concentrations intended to achieve a protective level in fish, unnecessary
Unfortunately, the SOWs proposed use of the models does not consistently match
this approach. On the one hand, the SOW correctly states that the "main point of the modeling is
to provide a basis on which to evaluate various remedial action scenarios in view of attaining
acceptable PCB body burdens in fish within an acceptable time frame" (SOW at 15). Here, EPA
makes clear that the model should be used to compare the relative effectiveness over time of
different remedial alternatives to achieve a pre-determmed remedial action objective — acceptable
PCB body burdens in fish. A few pages earlier, however, the SOW suggests that EPA will back
into this process by selecting an arbitrary list of remedial scenarios first (i.e., those set out on
pages 12 and 13) and then inputing these scenarios to the models to develop a list of potential
remedial objectives. This approach is backwards; one must first establish remedial objectives and
then develop and evaluate remedial scenarios for their ability to meet them
Thus, the basic focus of EPA's remedial analysis must be comparative risk
reduction over time. Remedial alternatives not aimed at reduction of nsk to acceptable levels
should be eliminated from consideration. Quantitative models provide the primary tool upon
which to make this analysis.2
2 The SOW suggests that EPA may abandon its modeling effort, "due to the scale and complexity
of PCB contamination in the Hudson, there remain a number of less well-understood issues or
parameters which may add a degree of uncertainty to model output. As a result, the model output
cannot be used as the sole basis for the selection of remedial action objectives" (SOW at 14).
EPA must not abandon the best quantitative tool for making rational and informed decisions in
favor of some unspecified criteria that may be subject to even greater uncertainty. Instead, EPA
is obliged to assess the uncertainty associated with the model and determine what assumptions
and parameters are most critical in controlling achievement of the remedial action objectives.
(continued. )
6
-------
Unfortunately, the remedial objectives identified at pages 15-16 of the SOW are
not focused on reduction of risk to acceptable levels While the first two listed objectives
(achieving PCB levels in fish protective of human health and achieving PCB levels in near-shore
sediments that protect against direct human contact) fall squarely within the risk reduction
framework, they do not contain an element of time. The remaining three (reducing "ecological
risk" generally, reducing water column concentrations of PCBs to water quality standards, and
reducing the inventory of PCBs) neither relate to achieving a defined level of acceptable risk nor
reference the time element. Further, they are too vague to be useful. Almost any remedial action
could satisfy these criteria, and almost any remedial action might be disqualified from
consideration because it could not.
The SOWs focus on goals other than risk reduction is also evident from the
proposed remedial scenarios set out on pages 12-13 These scenarios involve the removal or
isolation of sediments based on one of four criteria:
PCB leveis (M/L3) exceeding a threshold value,
PCB inventory (M/L") exceeding a threshold value.
location (i.e., the NYSDEC hot spots; NYSDEC dredge locations; bank-to-bank
within the TIP), or
sediment type (i.e., fine-grained sediments).
2 ( continued)
Abandoning the models in favor of subjective analyses of data would not reduce uncertainty; it
would increase it .Any remedial decision made without substantial reliance on quantitative
models that can project the effectiveness of remedial alternatives over an extended period of time
will be arbitrary and capricious.
7
-------
These criteria are all based on the false notion that remediation in the areas of greatest PCB mass
— mass reduction — will maximize risk reduction. This presumption is false Risk reduction will
be achieved by reducing PCB flux to the water column and exposure of biota to PCBs, not by
simply removing an arbitrary quantity of contaminated sediments. This is because: (1) most of
the PCB mass is sequestered from the water column in deep sediments; (2) water column PCB
flux is controlled by PCB concentrations in surface sediments, not local, buried deposits of PCB
mass; and (3) biotic exposure to PCBs is driven by PCB concentrations in surface sediments, not
local, buried deposits of PCB mass. At this Site, mass removal does not equate to risk reduction.
Most of the PCB mass is sequestered from the water column in subsurface sediments
GE's 1991 sediment PCB data, EPA's Phase 2 high resolution coring, and GE's
1998 sediment coring all demonstrate that PCB concentrations are highest in buried sediments or
those sediments greater than 10 cm below the sediment-water interface (GE 1997, 1998) The
100-vear flood mode! described in EPA (1996a) demonstrates that contaminated sediments more
than several centimeters below the sediment-water interface are not affected by extreme flood
events GE's own modeling effort confirms this.
PCB concentrations in surface sediments, not local, buried regions of PCB mass,
control the PCB flux to the water column.
Flux to the water column occurs via diffusion from sediment pore water and event-
driven resuspension of surface sediments. Surface sediment pore water PCB concentrations are
controlled by the PCB concentrations in sediment organic matter {i.e., mg PCB/kg organic
carbon) because PCBs preferentially adsorb to this component of the sediment. Local areas of
PCB deposits (i.e., the so-called hot spots or regions of fine sediment) are not regions of highest
8
-------
PCB concentration in sediment organic matter. In fact, surficial sediment organic carbon-
normalized PCB concentrations are similar in and out of the so-called hot spots as well as between
coarse-and fine-grained areas (QEA 1998a). The diffusive flux of PCBs is similar across the
various sediments, and a remedial program that targets areas of PCB mass can only reduce the
diffusive flux of PCBs to the water column in proportion to the fraction of total sediment surface
remediated. Since the so-called hot spots comprise only a small part (on the order of 10%) of the
total sediment surface area in the Upper Hudson, simply targeting the hot spots for removal will
not achieve meaningful risk reduction. Furthermore, the regions of high PCB mass tend to be the
deposuional regions of the river and, therefore, are not the dominant components of the erosive
flux to the water column.
PCB concentrations in surface sedimentsf not local, buried areas of PCB mass control
exposure of biota to PCBs.
Biota derive their PCBs partially from the water column (and thus from both
upstream sources and diffusive flux from surface sediments) and partially from the ingestion of
sediments by deposit-feeding invertebrates. Deposit feeders, such as worms, consume a certain
amount of sediment organic matter each day to fulfill their energy requirements. The PCB dose
they receive depends on the PCB concentration in the organic matter. Because this average
concentration in organic matter is similar in and out of the areas of buried PCB mass, the dose to
the food web does not come preferentially from high PCB mass areas.
EPA must consider the mechanisms and routes of PCB transfer and
bioaccumulation when analyzing possible remedial actions. Thus, EPA must not emphasize
sediment PCB mass removal, but must focus on the risk-related goals of: (1) elimination of
9
-------
ongoing sources that contribute to surface sediment contamination; (2) broad-scaie reduction of
PCB flux iiom surface sediments by natural and active remediation; and (3) stabilization of areas
subject to erosion, if necessary, to reduce downstream transport.
10
-------
HI. Remedial Technologies
A The SOW Is Improperly Skewed Toward Large-Scale Remediation Through
Dredging
The SOW is improperly biased toward large-scale remediation projects involving
removal of sediments. This bias is evident from its screening out certain technologies as infeasible
because of the assumed large-scale of remediation, while not acknowledging that a large-scale
remedial action would call into question the feasibility of remedial dredging.
EPA has eliminated potential technologies based on a premature judgment that
they are inappropriate or infeasible for a large cleanup when, in fact, the size of the cleanup has
not yet been determined. For example:
"several technologies were screened out based on the scale of the potential cleanup
effort"
"solvent extraction of PCBs in sediments was eliminated as an in-situ treatment
option based on the large scale of the remediation required"
"centrifuge techniques were eliminated as a potential sediment
pretreatment/dewatenng process based on the anticipated large volumes of
sediment to be treated "
SOW at 21 (emphasis supplied) As the SOW acknowledges: "[t]he actual volume to be
remediated will of course be dependent on the selected remedial action objectives and will be
determined in Phase 3 after the final selection of objectives is made by EPA" (SOW at 21) Thus,
EPA's elimination of technologies on the grounds that they are inappropriate for the scale of
remediation is improper and suggests that the Agency has already determined that it wishes to
pursue a large-scale remediation project.
11
-------
While EPA has used the assumed large-scale of remediation to screen out certain
treatment technologies, it failed to analyze removal technologies (dredging) in the same manner.
Table 1 presents estimated removal volumes associated with 8 of the 10 remedial scenarios set out
in on pages 12-13 (two cannot be estimated due to insufficient characterization data). As an
initial matter, the SOW provides no explanation for how these remedial scenarios were identified
and selected. For example, on what basis were the PCB target levels used to define the different
scenarios (e.g., 1 ppm, 10 ppm, 50 ppm) selected? On what basis were the areas for remediation
(e.g., hot spots in the TIP, hot spots elsewhere, bank to bank) identified9 Why has EPA focused
on mass reduction instead of risk reduction?
In any event, it must be acknowledged that even the smallest of these remedial
scenarios is six to nine times larger than any remedial dredging project accomplished in the United
States to date. Yet, their inclusion in the SOW suggests that the Agency has already concluded
that removal or capping of sediment at this scale is technically feasible. This assumption is
misplaced and must await the screening of technologies and remedial alternatives in the FS GE's
analysis shows that most of the ten remedial scenarios are technically infeasible for this Site for
several reasons: they all would take years or decades to implement; the ability to dredge to low
cleanup levels (e.g., 1 ppm PCBs) in a river has never been demonstrated; isolation (capping) of
such extensive areas in a river has not been demonstrated.
To inject reality into its evaluation of remedial scenarios, the SOW must evaluate
what has and has not been accomplished at other sites where remedial dredging has been
implemented (discussed further in the next Section) For example, consider that the average size
of a single NYSDEC hot spot is 7 7 acres (309 total acres divided by 40 hot spots) A single 7 7
12
-------
acre hot spot dredged to a 3 foot depth would generate 36,400 cy of sediment, more material than
has been removed at all but a handful of remedial dredging projects to date. Applying average
monthly removal rates of 3.000 to 8,000 cy, derived from ten of the 14 actual dredging projects
implemented to date (those for which such data are available), illustrates that removal time for
one such hot spot would be 4.5 to 12 operating months - one to two construction years. Further,
one hot spot in the Hudson typically is one construction project, distinct from each successive hot
spot EPA presents these potential scenarios as routine removals, assuming they be accomplished
in a single, broad sweep. This would not be the case.3
Recognition of these factors and assessing and incorporating them into the analysis
of remedial alternatives is vital to a credible FS.
B. Specific Comments on Remedial Technologies
1 Remedial Dredging Has Not Been Demonstrated to be Effective in
Reducing Risk
The SOWs apparent bias toward large-scale dredging seems to be premised on the
assumption that remedial dredging has proven to be effective in reducing risk. An exhaustive
3 To illustrate, consider the construction requirements and factors for a single hot spot, each with
unique logistical characteristics, and geographical and physical constraints. These requirements
include: (1) obtaining permits and access agreements; (2) siting and constructing land-based
dewatenng and water-treatment facilities and a TSCA disposal site; (3) constructing access roads
across private shoreline property for certain hot spots; (4) installing sheetpile or silt curtains
adjacent to the hot spots, as the case may be; (5) selecting, making available, and providing access
for the removal equipment; (6) identifying and implementing methods and means of removing and
managing rocks, boulders, vegetation, and debris; (7) identifying and implementing the means of
transport of the removed material to land-based dewatering or disposal sites (e.g., pipelines,
barges, or trucks'); and (8) designing and putting in place pre-, during, and post-dredging
monitoring programs
13
-------
examination of the 27 sediment remediation projects in progress or completed in the United States
undermines this assumption:4
Remedial dredging was performed at fourteen of the 27 projects; eleven used dry
excavations (after temporary diversion of the water). Two were natural recovery.
Combined removal volume for all of these projects was 1,350,000 cubic yards
(cy), a volume about equal to the smallest of the ten removal scenarios identified
by EPA.
At least eight different types of sediment target goals have been identified for the
27 sites. While this could be attributed to the complexity and unique features at
each site, it is symptomatic of the confusion surrounding the subject of sediment
remediation and the absence of a clearly articulated remedial goal for sediment
sites.
Overall costs for removal projects ranged from $83 to $1,670 per cubic yard, with
a median of about $350 to 400 per cubic yard. (Navigational dredging typically
costs $1 to $10 per cubic yard). The high costs are typically due to a combination
of low production rates (i.e., extended time for implementation due to the
inefficiency of remedial dredging) and high disposal costs
Treatment was seldom a component of disposal. Two projects employed
incineration; two projects, in part, used thermal desorption. The predominant
method of disposal (17 of the 24 removal projects) was in commercial landfills.
Disposal in near-shore confined disposal facilities was employed at two projects.
At three projects, removed material is being stockpiled pending a final disposal
decision
Specialty dredges or excavators were generally not used on the 24 removal
projects. Thus, recent claims of substantial advances in dredging equipment are
not borne out. This is not surprising in that specialty dredges tend to focus only on
improving limited aspects of the remedial dredging process (such as minimizing
4 GE, with the assistance of Applied Environmental Management and Blasland, Bouck & Lee,
has been collecting information about and preparing a documented analysis of lessons learned
from sites where sediment remediation has been implemented. GE anticipates that this document
will be completed soon, and we intend to submit it to EPA for inclusion in the Administrative
Record The Agency must consider this information in its remedial analysis for the Site.
14
-------
resuspension or allowing passage of larger-size solids) and, by their nature and due
to their specialized features, tend to have low production rates.5
These 27 projects underscore the important problems and limitations of not only the technologies
employed but also the process by which these projects were selected and implemented.
First, the objectives of remedial dredging are often not presented in terms of
measurable benefits to human health or the environment, but typically focus on achieving a
reduction in PCB mass or a target contaminant concentration level. As we show above, mass
removal can not be equated to risk reduction. If the contamination is buried so that it is
effectively not bioavailable. mass removal may remove the protective layer and leave higher
concentrations of contaminants in the bioavailable surface layer. Unless the source of
contaminants has been controlled, the sediments will be re-contaminated in a few years and no
long-term benefit will be derived.
Second, it is rare to find post-dredging monitoring data that determines whether
the objective (such as reduced contaminant concentrations in fish) has been met. At sites where
post-dredging measurements are available, target concentration levels in sediments have often not
been attained.
Third, the schedule and costs of implementing dredging are typically far greater
than originally estimated, in part because the production rates are dramatically lower than
originally estimated The reduction in production rates results from several factors: the need for
care in removal to keep resuspension to a minimum; the need to make several passes because
target concentration levels have not been achieved with the first pass (or ever); and the presence
5 Tables 2 and 3 present additional data concerning these projects.
-------
of impediments to dredging, such as rocks, vegetation and debris An additional factor reducing
the speed with which remedial dredging projects can be implemented is the inability of the land-
based dewatering and treatment facilities to process the amount of material removed. Indeed,
remedial dredging projects always generate significant volumes of water that must be treated.
Fourth, the short- and long-term ecological impacts of remedial dredging are not
addressed in any systematic manner. This is a particularly important issue for the Hudson because
the areas that EPA has identified as potentially subject to dredging (SOW at 12-13) are
predominantly shallow shoreline and backwater areas which provide important ecological
functions. Dredging in these areas can result in direct mortality of valued organisms, including
submerged aquatic vegetation, aquatic invertebrates, juvenile and adult fish, reptiles, and
amphibians. Similarly, the need to provide a staging area for equipment to support the dredging
operations has the potential to adversely impact riparian soils and vegetation and ripanan habitat.
Resuspension of sediment and contaminants also remains an issue that must be squarely
addressed
Fifth, the practical difficulty of implementing a remedial dredging program is often
not considered These issues, again, are very important to the Hudson. As EPA is aware, there
has been fierce public opposition to remedial dredging and to the siting of a dewatering/treatment
facility and landfill near the Upper Hudson River. A prior attempt by New York State to site a
landfill to support a dredging project was successfully blocked by a local citizens groups lawsuit
in a case that was decided by New York's highest court. The remedial alternatives set out at
pages 12-13 are orders of magnitude greater than any previously attempted remedial dredging
16
-------
project Any of them is likely to provoke vigorous public and political opposition and to present
unprecedented logistical problems.
In short, EPA must not prematurely assume that remedial dredging is feasible, will
achieve risk-based goals, can be performed in a cost-effective and timely manner and will be
deemed acceptable by the State of New York and the local community. EPA must carefully
examine the information from other sites where remedial dredging has been implemented and
recognize that the Hudson presents fundamentally different site-specific considerations that must
be practically and carefully evaluated 6
/"""\ 2. Engineered Capping
C"7)
An alternative to removal by remedial dredging often considered is m-site
confinement of contaminants by placement of an engineered cap. There are few sites where such
caps have actually been employed, and questions remain about their effectiveness. Additionally,
many of the same logistical, access and physical constraints associated with remedial dredging
appiy equally to the construction of engineered caps.
An engineered cap is designed to (1) accomplish short and long-term isolation of
chemicai contaminants; (2) compensate for consolidation of both the underlying sediments as well
as the cap materials after placement; (3) protect against bioturbation, erosion, or groundwater
intrusion, and (4) be hydraulically compatible with the waterway Multi-layer cap designs
typicallv include: (1) rocks or cobbles to serve as a top, armor layer; (2) geotextile to act as a
5 As pan of its remedial analysis, EPA must also consider H R. Rep. 105-769 (Conference
Report for VA-HUD FY 1999 Appropriations Bill), which directs EPA not to select dredging as a
remedy at contaminated sediment sites until the National Academy of Science issues its report on
sediment remediation technologies. SssH R Rep. 105-769 at 271-72 (1998)
17
-------
divider between layers, to limit mixing of cap materials between layers, and to limit intrusion of
biota by bioturbation; (3) sandy upper layers, which are readily placed, relatively stable, and
resistant to burrowing organisms; and (4) fine-grained lower layers, which promote binding
(adsorption) with the contaminants at the sediment surface.
In-situ capping for remediation of sediment has been accomplished at a handful of
freshwater sites but not in an extended stretch of river, such as the Hudson. Capping was rejected
at New Bedford Harbor, the GM Massena site and the Manistique River primarily because of
concerns about the permanence of an engineered cap and uncertainty about the types of materials
to be used, their sequence and thickness, and the cap's potential effectiveness Additional
concerns include the potential for advection (by groundwater intrusion) and bioturbation
(burrowing organisms).
3 Thin-Laver Capping
Sediment broadcasting or thin-layer capping is an alternative to engineered
capping The goal of sediment broadcasting is to accelerate the natural recovery of the svstem by
increasing the rate of contaminant burial over a broad area, thus reducing the bioavailability of the
contaminants Sediment broadcasting, in essence, augments the natural burial processes. An
important design element in sediment broadcasting is the solids mix, which must be selected based
on river hydraulics. An advantage of sediment broadcasting is that it is less intrusive than either
dredging or engineered capping, and thus has the potential for reduced adverse impacts to the
environment While innovative, EPA should consider thin-layer capping as a remedial alternative,
since it focuses on the source of PCBs to fish (surface sediments), is ecologically-friendly, and will
not present the community acceptability issues associated with the large-scale removal
18
-------
©4 Stabilization
.
Stabilization ot sediments in specific areas of the river also should be evaluated as
a remedial technology. Stabilization might involve the addition of rip-rap or other stabilizing
materials along transitional zones between coarse-grained and fine-grained sediment deposits.
19
-------
IV. The SOW Attempts to Expand The Site Bv 160 Square Miles Without Providing a
©Practical Need or Legal Justification
The SOW, in one sentence, unilaterally attempts to expand substantially the scope
of the "Site," apparently to avoid the New York State permitting process to site and approve a
treatment, storage or disposal facility to manage dredge spoils removed during a dredging project.
The SOW states that for purposes of dredging, '"on-site1 refers to a corridor including the Upper
River and extending two miles from either bank." SOW at 17.
When the Site was listed on the NPL, the Agency included only the upper river
itself, not any adjacent lands. GE recognizes that, for purposes of implementing remedial actions,
the NCP defines "on-site" to mean "the area! extent of contamination and all suitable areas in very
close proximity to the contamination necessary for implementation of the response action " 40
C.F R. § 300 5 Nevertheless, the SOW provides no justification for expanding the Site by two
miles on each side of the River to encompass lands that are not impacted by PCBs and which have
no relationship to the PCBs found in the river.
The expansion of the Site appears to be an attempt by EPA to avail itself of the
"permit exemption" found in CERCLA § 121(e)(1) ("[n]o Federal. State, or local permit shall be
required for the portion of any removal or remedial action conducted entirely onsite"). This
provision allows the Agency to avoid the procedural requirements associated with implementation
of a remedy, including the need to apply for and obtain necessary permits or approvals. As the
Agency well knows, a person seeking to site a landfill or treatment facility to accept dredge spoils
in New York State would normally need to submit a permit application to NYSDEC, proceed
through public hearings and government and community scrutiny to ensure that the proposed
20
-------
landfill meets all applicable legal and environmental requirements and then ultimately obtain a
permit Prohibitions established by state law (against siting a landfill in certain agricultural lands
or in a floodplain, for instance) would normally have to be satisfied, as would certain applicable
requirements established by local governments. Before taking so drastic a step to foreclose public
scrutiny, the Agency must demonstrate both the necessity and relationship of these areas to PCB-
impacted areas in the River. EPA has done neither. Fierce public opposition to a landfill along
the Hudson has blocked previous attempts to site such a facility. A single, unsupported sentence
in the SOW should not be used to bypass the public scrutiny demanded by state law designed to
balance legitimate community and environmental concerns raised by projects exactly like this.
Community acceptance is an important principle at Superfund sites.
21
-------
v. The SOW Does Not Describe or Apply the NCP Analytical Criteria Accurately or
Appropriately
A. Given Improving Conditions, the "No Action" Alternative can be Effective in rhe
Long-Term
An important consideration in the analysis of remedial alternatives is to assess the
long-term effectiveness of each alternative As the NCP explains, this analysis involves, in part,
an assessment of the degree to which each alternative reduces the volume, toxicity, mobility and
propensity to bioaccumulate. 40 C.F R. § 300 430(e)(9)(iii)(c)(l) The SOW, however, seems to
use the long-term effectiveness criteria inappropriately to favor sediment removal First, the
SOW states that EPA "prefers those processes which degrade contaminants" and implies that this
factor outweighs natural attenuation and No Action (SOW at 17) Second, the SOW states that
removal of sediment would be more effective over the long-term than capping or No Action:
"long-term effectiveness will consider the degree to which the contamination is effectively isolated
from, the river over a long period of time" (SOW at 30)
Both these discussions of long-term effectiveness misconstrue the NCP criterion
and understate the long-term etfectiveness of the No Action/natural attenuation alternative The
No Action alternative, through natural attenuation, reduces the toxicity, bioavailability and
mobility of sediment-bound PCBs (GE 1996, 1997, 1998) Toxicity is reduced through
dechlorination Bioaccumuiation potential is reduced through dechlorination and burial. Mobility
is also reduced through burial, as the results of EPA's 100-year flood model demonstrate. In fact,
the 100-vear flood model provides a persuasive analysis of the long-term effectiveness of the No
Action alternative Capping alternatives, moreover, have the potential to accelerate the reduction
m bioaccumuiation and reduction in mobility of sediment-bound PCBs. EPA must not use the
22
-------
long-term effectiveness criterion to favor removal of sediments over natural attenuation or
capping
B. Short-Term Risks Associated with a Remediation Project Must Be Identified and
Quantified and Cannot Be Qualitatively Dismissed
Another important aspect in the consideration of alternatives is to assess the short-
term effectiveness and risks associated with the implementation of each alternative. While EPA
intends to consider the long-term effectiveness of each alternative using the quantitative fate,
transport and bioaccumulation models, the SOW indicates that the Agency does not intend to
analyze the short-term risks with the same degree of specificity. For example:
[s]hort-term risks associated with the period of remediation are
much more difficult to quantify due to the lack of information on
the nature of PCB release during this time. Although both
resuspension and air-borne releases may take place during removal
and treatment, the ultimate fate of these materials will not be well-
known As a result, any risks will be handled qualitatively
only.
SOW at 27 EPA must examine the short-term risks quantitatively.
As an initial matter, the SOW incorrectly implies that short-term risks are limited
to the effects of PCB releases by resuspension and air-borne releases. There are numerous other
short-term risks associated with any remedial action. For example, any large construction and
transportation project has the potential to create risks to the community and the workers.
Actuarial data is available to estimate the predicted number of major injuries and deaths that are
likely to occur during such a project. In addition, as explained previously, there is a significant
potentiai for severe ecological harm during and following remediation, particularly for the massive
23
-------
projects identified in the SOW These risks need to be considered and compared to the
hypothetical reduction in risk to be obtained by any project
Furthermore, the SOW appears to ignore or downplay the potential for short-term
risks. For example, the SOW states that the models will be "run assuming various remedial
actions have taken place" (SOW at 12). This approach effectively avoids consideration of short-
term risks As the SOW notes, short-term risks include resuspension and downstream transport
of bottom sediments, and temporary increases in water column PCB concentrations as PCBs
sequestered in the sediments are released to the water column during remediation. These
processes may result in a short-term increase in PCB levels in fish, and consequently, human
health and ecological risks. The short-term risks associated with the larger scenarios may negate
much of the long-term risk reduction achieved by remediation, particularly when compared
against other, less intrusive options, such as source control and natural attenuation. For this
reason, remediation-related processes, such as sediment resuspension, increased water column
PCBs. and downstream PCB transport, need to be incorporated into the model projections and
the FS process
Moreover, "short-term," in the case of some of the removal scenarios listed on
pages 12 and 13, is likely to mean years and possibly decades. A quantitative assessment of risk
of implementation is thus essential to judge the effectiveness of a remedial alternative when
compared to No Action. The extended time frames likely required to implement the remedial
scenarios set out on pages 12-13 have two critical consequences First, the timing and scale of
the impact of remediation on fish PCB body burdens relative to No Action will be increased
compared to other, less extensive actions which can be implemented in less time This obviously
-------
reduces the actual benefits of remediation, a fact that will be ignored if the actions are assumed to
have taken place instantaneously, as currently proposed. Second, it is important to consider the
length of time for implementation of a remedial action when comparing its outcome with No
Action. For example, if the models predict that fish PCB body burdens would decline below the
target remedial action objective within ten years under the No Action scenario, but it requires ten
years to perform a remedial scenario, the benefits to be derived by the remediation would, in fact,
be non-existent.
To account for the short-term risk and the time required to perform remediation,
the EPA needs to parameterize the models with real world data and quantify:
sediment resuspension during dredging,
redistribution of PCBs within the system during and post dredging,
achievable sediment cleanup levels, and
start dates and durations for the different remedial scenarios
Information from remedial dredging at other sites, combined with available information at this
Site, should be used to develop input data for the models.
C The Feasibility of Remedial Alternatives Must be Carefully Assessed
The definition of "technical feasibility" is critical to the screening of technologies.
The definition on page 20 -- "[technologies or process options will be determined to be
technically infeasible based on study area-specific factors" -- is too narrow and vague. Greater
specificity is required. Criteria that should be considered for assessing "technical feasibility"
include whether the technology (1) has been successfully demonstrated at full-scale, (2) is
25
-------
exorbitantly costly.7 (3) is unacceptablv risky to implement, or (4) is incapable of achieving the
targeted goal and, even if demonstrated at full scale, can be applied to be a project far larger and
more complicated than any project completed to date. Technologies that fail to satisfy one of
these criteria must be judged technically infeasible.
7 The SOW's use of the term "relative cost" of technologies as one of the screening criteria (SOW
at 21) is incorrect. The NCP directs that technologies can be eliminated if their costs are "grossly
excessive' compared to their overall effectiveness. 40 C.F R. § 300 430(e)(7)(iii)
26
-------
VI. The Monitored Natural Attenuation Alternative Must Incorporate Burial.
Dechlorination and Source Control
The SOW states that H[n]atural attenuation could occur by in situ processes such
as biodegradation, dispersion, dilution, sorption, volatilization, and chemical and biological
stabilization, transformation, or destruction ofPCBs" (SOW at 17). This discussion of natural
attenuation ignores three significant factors affecting natural recovery: (1) burial of PCB
contaminated sediments by clean sediment, (2) PCB dechlorination, and (3) control and reduction
of upstream sources ofPCBs These factors must be incorporated into the quantitative modeling
framework.
A. Burial of PCB-Containing Sediment;; hv Clean Solids
Burial of PCB-containing sediment represents an important natural recovery
process because exposure of aquatic organisms to PCBs in the Upper Hudson River is through
PCBs found in surface sediments, not PCBs at depth. Burial is the process by which clean solids
entering the Upper Hudson River from upstream and from tributaries settle within depositional
zones and effectively sequester sediment containing elevated PCB concentrations from the food
chain and from the impacts of a flood event. Rigorous data and modeling analysis conducted by
both EPA and GE show that widespread burial is occurring within the Upper Hudson River.
These analyses include:
tributary and river solids balance calculations (LTI 1998),
rigorous sediment transport modeling (GE 1998),
deposition rates estimated from 137Cs dating of EPA's high resolution cores (EPA
1997),
7Be presence in EPA low resolution cores (GE 1998), and
27
-------
PCB concentration and composition profiles obtained from EPA high resolution
cores (EPA 1997) and 1998 GE cores (QEA 1998b).
Previous Phase 2 reports (EPA 1997, 1998) focus on the buried PCBs in the so-called hot spots
and claim that these PCBs are finding their way into the water column and fish. As we have
explained previously (GE 1996; 1997; 1998), these reports provide no cogent explanation of how
such PCBs become available to the river. In fact, other than erosion, there is no known
mechanism for making buried PCBs bioavailable, and EPA's own 100-year flood model
demonstrates that even the maximum-design flood does not displace a significant amount of
sediment or PCBs. The FS must recognize that burial is an important aspect of natural
attenuation.
B. PCB Dechlorination
PCB dechlorination is an important natural recovery process. PCB dechlorination
involves the microbially mediated removal of meta- and para-chlorines from the biphenvl molecule
and resuits in the depletion of highly chlorinated PCB congeners with a corresponding increase in
lower-chlorinated PCBs. The principal products of this process are ortho-substituted mono- and
dichlorinated PCBs. Although PCB dechlorination may not represent a significant mass loss
mechanism (EPA 1997), this is not its chief benefit. Dechlorination does have a dramatic effect
on the pnysiochemical and toxicological properties of PCBs including: reduced toxicity, reduced
carcinogenicity, and reduced bioaccumulation potential (GE 1997) Therefore, PCB
dechlorination results in meaningful risk reduction and should be considered in the assessment of
natural attenuation of Hudson River PCBs
28
-------
C. Upstream Source Control
Control of the most important PCB source in the upper Hudson is perhaps the
most significant element of the river's natural recovery, and it must be carefully considered in any
credible evaluation of the efficacy of remedial alternatives. The SOWs limited discussion of GE's
major source-control activities at Hudson Falls and their beneficial results for the river suggests
that EPA is not closely following GE's work and does not fully appreciate the benefits of
controlling the source and the magnitude of the clean-up and monitoring program. Indeed, the
SOW marches out the same flawed and so-vague-as-to-be-useless conclusion initially presented in
the DEER that the TIP sediments are "a major, if not the major" source of PCBs to the water
column in the upper Hudson (SOW at 10). GE submitted extensive comments on the DEIR more
than 18 months ago, challenging the soundness of its conclusions and demonstrating the
importance of source control EPA has not responded to these comments, and the SOW does not
even acknowledge that the DEIR's conclusions have been called into question The importance of
the Hudson Falls source to PCB dynamics in the Upper Hudson River is obvious, and its impact
must be evaluated against each remedial alternative
The mathematical models being developed by EPA and GE represent the best
means of assessing the impact of plant site sources and their control on surface sediment and biota
PCB levels When calibrated with the 20 years of water column, sediment, and biota PCB data,
the models can assess the impact of plant site loadings on PCBs in the TIP sediments and water
column and simulate the impact of plant site source control by making varied assumptions
regarding the PCB concentrations at the upstream boundary of the model. These assumptions
may include projection of PCB loadings in the river at the Fort Edward Station at 1980s levels.
-------
current levels and zero. In this manner, the models can simulate the effects of past and future
source control efforts, and the results can be compared to other remedial action scenarios and No
Action.
30
-------
VTI. EPA Can Not Justify Unoer River Remediation Based on Presumed Benefits to the
Lower River
The SOW does not explain how conditions in the lower river will be used in the
evaluation of remedial alternatives. As GE has previously advised EPA, the Company believes
%
that the Supertund Site is limited to the area above the Federal Dam at Troy and does not include
the lower river. We base this view on the administrative record supporting the addition of the
Site to the NPL, which limited its analysis to the upper Hudson. EPA cannot expand the Site by
more than 150 miles without proceeding first through notice and comment rulemaking. See, e g..
U S v Ascarco. Inc.. No. CV96-0122-N-EIL (D. Idaho Sep. 30, 1998) (post-rulemaking
statements cannot change scope and size of site from the description provided in the NPL record).
The SOW, however, repeats EPA's intention to consider the lower river part of the
Site and implies that the Agency may seek to justify remediation in the upper river based on
benefits to the lower river: "the USEPA Reassessment and Thomann/Farley models will be used
to examine the impact of possible remedial actions in the Upper Hudson River on PCB levels in
fish and water in both the Upper Hudson River and Mid-Hudson River" (SOW at 6) If this
statement reflects the Agency s intent to consider the potentially adverse impacts on PCB levels in
lower river biota from upper river remediation, then GE does not take issue with the proposed
approach If, however, EPA is seeking to justify upper river remediation based on presumed
benefits to the lower river, then the Agency's approach is objectionable. In light of the significant
other sources of PCBs to biota in the lower river, EPA cannot use perceived benefits there to
justify remediation in the upper river unless EPA expands its analysis and considers alternatives to
31
-------
address alt PCB sources in the lower river. The SOW indicates that EPA does not intend to
conduct an analysis of such actions in the lower river
32
-------
vni. EPA Should Not Blindly Aonlv ARAR_s and TBCs at the Site
A. EPA Should Give Preference to Site-Snerific Information
CER.CLA and the NCP direct EPA to give preference to site-specific information
over the rote application of ARARs and TBCs. In order to assess ARARs, one must understand
the remedial goals for the Site. As we explained above, the central question at this Site is to
determine whether a remedial action will achieve a defined level of risk from fish consumption or
direct contact with the river materially faster than No Action. If a regulatory requirement is
designed to achieve the same end, then it is reasonable to identify that requirement as a potential
ARAR or TBC for the Site. Where the goals of the remediation and the requirement diverge,
however, that requirement can be disqualified from further consideration. For example, drinking
water standards might qualify as ARARs because they are designed to protect human health
through the consumption of water.
Nevertheless, many ARARs or TBCs that meet the basic "consistency" test were
adopted for non-remedial purposes and apply to a variety of circumstances not necessarily
relevant to the Hudson River For instance, a general water quality standard may be designed to
protect an aquatic or terrestrial species not found in or near the Hudson. Many general standards
are based on outdated data that do not reflect current scientific information. For instance, EPA
lowered its estimate of the carcinogenicity of PCBs a few years ago. A number of PCB standards
are based on PCB carcinogenicity but have not been amended to reflect this reassessment. The
quality of the data on which a benchmark is based is particularly a problem for TBCs, which, by
definition, are not promulgated requirements and have not been subject to the type of rigorous
review to which most ARARs are put. In such circumstances. EPA should emphasize the wealth
33
-------
of site-specific information in its possession and being developed when determining remedial
standards for the Hudson
Such an approach is consistent with and mandated by CERCLA. CERCLA does
not require mechanical application of ARARs. Rather, as expressed by section 121(b)(1), the
overriding goal of CERCLA is to ensure that remedial actions are protective of human health and
the environment. The ARARs requirement, which was added as part of the 1986 amendments to
CERCLA, originally derived from EPA's "Compliance With Other Laws" policy and the 1985
NCP. Congress intended, and EPA has consistently interpreted, ARARs as surrogates to help
ensure that this overriding goal is met and that a consistent level of protection is achieved:
EPA has determined that the requirements of other Federal
environmental and public health laws . will generally guide EPA
in determining the appropriate extent of cleanup at CERCLA sites
as a matter of policy These laws were enacted with the goal of
protecting public health and the environment. Regulations
developed under these laws have imposed requirements that EPA
and other Federal agencies deemed necessary to protect public
health and the environment. Because protection of public health
and the environment is also the goal of CERCLA response actions,
other Federal environmental and public health laws will normally
provide a baseline or floor for CERCLA responses.5
ARARs are requirements promulgated under environmental laws that are legally
applicable or otherwise relevant and appropriate to the particular circumstances of the site. 40
' 50 Fed. Reg. 47917 (Nov. 20, 1985), see also "Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 Conference Report," H.R. Rep. 99-962, 99th Cong. 2d Sess. ("The general standard
is that remedial actions must attain a degree of cleanup at a minimum that assures protection
of human health and the environment"), 50 Fed. Reg. 5865 (Feb. 12, 1985) ("other environmental
requirements often provide critical guidance in determining the appropriate level of cleanup at a
CERCLA site"), 53 Fed. Reg. 51422 (Dec. 21, 1988) ("The overriding mandate of the Superfund
program is to protect human health and the environment"); 55 Fed. Reg. 8712-8713 (Mar. 9,
1990) (explaining that remedial action "goals," typically based on ARARs, are a subset of and are
intended to implement the more general remedial action "objectives")
34
-------
C F R §§ 300.5, 300 400(g). TBCs are unpromulgated advisories, criteria or guidance "useful"
to develop a remedy. 40 C.F.R. § 300.400(g)(3) Congress recognized that there would be
circumstances where it would not make sense to apply these requirements rigidly and provided
EPA flexibility to account for such circumstances. 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d)(4) (identifying
circumstances when application of ARARs should be avoided). Congress never intended the
ARARs requirement to supplant reliance on site-specific information:
[T]he section is not intended to trigger rigid imposition of
standards. For the Administrator to determine control levels at
sites without reference to how standards under other environmental
laws come into play could lead to absured [sic] and costly results
that could drain the Fund and jeopardize the national cleanup effort
without achieving any additional meaningful protection of human
health and the environment. That is not how the NCP currently
operates and that is not the intent of this section.
H.R. Rep. No 253, 99th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, at 98 (1985) (House Committee on Energy and
Commerce).
EPA has also recognized the benefit of relying on site-specific information instead
of general standards that may not best reflect the circumstances of a site:
CERCLA requires that all Supenund remedies be protective of
human health and the environment but provides no guidance on
how this determination is to be made other than to require the use
of ARARs as remediation goals, where these ARARs are related to
protectiveness. Under CERCLA (as under other environmental
statutes), EPA relies heavily on information concerning the
contaminant toxicity and the potential for human exposure to
support its decisions concerning "protectiveness." EPA's risk
assessment methods provide a framework for considering site-
specific information in these areas in a logical and organized way
EPA disagrees with the commenter who advocates national cleanup
standards, however, because the specific concentrations developed
for one site may not be appropriate for another site because of the
nature of the site, the waste, and the potential exposures as noted
35
-------
above . . [BJecause these standards [ARARs] are established on a
national or statewide basis, they may not adequately consider the
site-specific contamination and, therefore, are not the sole
determinant of protectiveness.
55 Fed. Reg. 8709 (Mar. 9, 1990)
This basic preference for site-specific information is expressed most clearly in the
fourth ARAR "waiver," 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d)(4)(D). This provision provides that site-specific
studies should be used where they provide information that will allow achievement of the same
goals and level of protection as the ARAR. The Conference Report accompanying the 1986
Amendments to CERCLA explains:
Subsection (d)(4)(D) allows the selection of a remedial action that
does not comply with a particular Federal or State standard or
requirement of environmental law, where an alternative provides
the same level of control as that standard or requirement through an
alternative means of control. [A]n alternative standard may be
risk-based if the original standard was risk-based.
H R Rep. 962, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. at 247 (1986) This "waiver" is particularly appropriate for
the Hudson, where EPA has collected voluminous site-specific data, is intending to prepare
detailed human health and ecological risk assessments and is developing fate, transport and
bioaccumulation models that are intended to allow prediction of the outcome of various remedial
alternatives EPA should rely on data and analyses of this sort and not blindly apply generally
applicable or relevant state and federal regulatory requirements to devise the appropriate remedy
for the Site.
B. EPA Should Reject Many of the Proposed ARARs or TBCs
Not only should EPA give preference to site-specific data and analyses, the rote
application of ARARs or TBCs is also inappropriate for technical, policy and legal reasons
36
-------
First, it does not make sense to apply ARARs or TBCs developed for other
purposes and circumstances as a basis for establishing remediation standards. Sediment criteria
intended as screening tools do not make appropriate cleanup standards.
Second, many of the ARARs and TBCs cannot and should not be applied here
because they do not reflect the most reliable toxicologic information concerning PCBs, nor do
they take into account the differences in toxicity among PCB congeners. Many criteria and
standards for PCBs are based on outdated toxicologicai information concerning PCBs and do not
reflect EPA's recent decision to lower substantially the cancer-slope factor for PCBs (EPA
1996b) Equally important, it would be inappropriate to rely on ARARs that do not take into
account the substantial dechlorination of PCBs in the river, as well the differential uptake and
depuration of congeners by fish and other biota. Standards and benchmarks applied to the
Hudson must be relevant to the PCB congeners and biota actually present in the Hudson at the
time any proposed remedy would be undertaken. Given the different toxicity and effects of a
specific congener, it would be arbitrary to consider a remedy based on standards derived from
analysis of a particular Arocior. say Aroclor 1260, when congeners other than those found in that
Arocior are being addressed. The requirement must be applicable and relevant to the specific
chemicals found at the site.
EPA has recognized that the Agency should not apply ARARs in such
circumstances, but should rely on the most current information available to the Agency:
CERCLA 121(d)(2) requires that, in determining whether a FWQC
[Federal water quality catena] is relevant and appropriate, the latest
information available be considered. Thus, a FWQC may be
relevant but not appropriate if its scientific basis is not current.
EPA's recommended RfDs and cancer potency factors, which are
-------
based on the EPA's evaluation of the latest information, should be
used when a FWQC does not reflect current information.
53 Fed. Reg. 51442 (Dec. 12, 1988). The Agency must base its remedial analysis on the most
current toxicological information on PCBs and take into account the substantial modification of
PCBs in the River and fish.
In this context, we review below several of the ARARs and TBCs listed in Tables
1 and 2 of the SOW *
l. Surface Water Criteria
Table 1 of the SOW identifies New York's PCB water quality standards (MWQSH)
*
based on human health protection (fish consumption) (0.000001 ug/1) and wildlife protection
(0.00012 ug/l) as potential ARARs. These standards are set forth at 6 NYCRR 703 and
NYSDEC TOGS 1 1 1 (June 1998) but should not be applied as ARARs for the following
reasons:
The SOW correctly recognizes that a primary goal of the remedial action
objectives ultimately selected for the Hudson is reduction of concentrations of
PCBs in fish to acceptable levels. SOW at 15. Virtually all of the site-specific
modeling work being performed at the site is focused on this goal. S§& SOW at
12-15. Applying the human health (fish consumption) and wildlife protection
WQS as ARARs would be inconsistent with this objective because the State WQS,
which were derived from acceptable fish contamination levels, are generic
standards. Applying the WQS as ARARs would in effect substitute generic
standards for the standards that will be developed from the site-specific work that
is being undertaken.
The human health (fish consumption) and wildlife protection WQS are wholly
inappropriate for application to the Hudson. These WQS were derived using
bioaccumulation factors that were developed for the pelagic food web typical of
9 We do not present any comments on "action-specific" .ARARs and TBCs listed in Tables 1 and 2
because such requirements will be only triggered when and if a particular remedial option might
be implemented. Thus, any comments on such requirements would be premature.
38
-------
the Great Lakes, and are irrelevant to the largely benthic food web of the Hudson
River.
Table 1 of the SOW also lists "Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Ambient
Water Quality Control" as a TBC. These criteria are not relevant where a state has adopted
applicable water quality standards, as New York has. EPA only uses the Federal Ambient Water
Quality Control criteria to promulgate standards for the states that do meet the CWA
requirements Sfifi 40 C.F.R. §§131.21 - 22. In this case, EPA has approved New York State's
water quality standards, so the Federal Ambient Water Quality Control criteria are neither
applicable nor relevant and appropriate in New York.
Table 1 also lists the Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant level
("MCL") and goal ("MCLG") for PCBs as a relevant and appropriate requirement for the Site,
although it fails to identify how the MCL and MCLG would be used in the context of remedial
decisionmaking MCLs and MCLGs should not be used to establish cleanup levels, because
compliance with these is measured after treatment not at the source of drinking water. 40 C.F.R.
§§1412 (defining a MCL as "the maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water which is
delivered to any user of a public water system"), 141 24(f)(2) (directing community water systems
to measure compliance with MCLs after treatment) The statutory provision directing attainment
of MCLGs (42 U.S.C. § 121(d)(2)(A), does not change the fundamental fact that attainment of
MCLs and MCLGs is measured at the tap, not at the source.
Finally, the Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards for PCBs, contained in 40 C.F.R. §
129.105, listed in Table 1 as "applicable" requirements, are neither applicable nor relevant to the
Site. These requirements apply to certain discharges of PCBs by manufacturers of PCBs or PCB-
39
-------
containing electrical capacitors or transformers. 40 C.F.R. § 129.105 To GE's knowledge, none
of these activities currently takes place on the Hudson. Contrary to the statement in Table 1,
these requirements do not establish a generally applicable ambient water quality criterion for
PCBs. Rather, this criterion is relevant only in establishing more stringent effluent limits for
PCB/electrical equipment manufacturers where the ambient water quality criterion is not being
met. 40 C.F.R. § 129.7; 42 Fed. Reg. 2588, 2610-11 (ambient water quality criteria in Part 129
are used to establish effluent limits and to provide a mechanism to tighten such limits). In any
event, this criterion was developed in 1976 and is clearly not based on the most current
information available.
2. Sediment Criteria
The SOW identifies three potential TBCs for sediments: NYSDEC's "Technical
Guidance for Screening Contamination Sediment," NOAA's "Potential for Biological Effects of
Sediment Sorbed Contaminants," and the TSCA Spill Cleanup Policy. None of these is a valid
TBC for the Site
First, the sediment criteria in NYSDEC's Technical Guidance should not be
considered because they are not intended to establish cleanup levels and are technically flawed.
As the title of NYSDEC's guidance indicates, these target levels are to be used for screening
purposes to determine whether additional investigation or remediation is required. Ii. at 17-18.
The 1997 supplement emphasizes that the "sediment criteria are not cleanup standards The
sediment criteria represent [NYSDEC's] best reasonable estimate of contaminant levels below
which significant adverse impacts are not expected." Accordingly, the sediment criteria should
not and are not intended to be used as sediment cleanup levels
40
-------
Further, the technical basis for establishing the criteria is suspect. The document
lists eight limitations in the equilibrium partitioning methodology it uses for determining sediment
criteria, warning that equilibrium partitioning "is not a highly accurate procedure in and of itself."
Id. at 8-9 Indeed, EPA's Science Advisory Board has cautioned against the use of equilibrium
partitioning to establish cleanup levels, believing that they are only valid to establish conservative
screening levels to identify sites which warrant more in-depth investigation. E.g.r EPA SAB
"Evaluation of the Equilibrium Partitioning (EqP) Approach for Assessing Sediment Quality"
(EPA-SAB-EPEC-90-006), February 1990; EPA SAB "Evaluation of Superfund Ecotox
Threshold Benchmark Values for Water and Sediment" (EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-97-009), August
1997.
Second, the NOAA document does not provide "technical guidance for use in
establishing sediment cleanup levels," as claimed in the SOW, and is not properly considered a
TBC The cited study was intended as a screening mechanism to prioritize sediment sites sampled
in NOAA's "National Status and Trends" ("NS&T") program, not as general guidance for
developing "cleanup" levels at other sites. This document plainly states that the vaiues developed
in this study "were not intended for use in regulatory decisions or any other similar applications."
Id. at 2 Similarly, the document states that the "ER-L" and "ER-M" values "are not to be
construed as NOAA standards or criteria," isL at 1, but are "intended only for use by NOAA as
general guidance in evaluating the NS&T Program data." Id* at 7.
Finally, the TSCA Spill Cleanup Policy is not intended to provide guidance on
sediment cleanup levels. The numerical cleanup standards set out in the Spill Policy do not apply
to spills "that result in direct contamination of surface water." 40 C.F.R. § 761.122(d)(2)(i) The
41
-------
Spill Policy also is not applicable because it applies only to spills that occur after May 4, 1987 40
C.F.R. § 761.120(a).10
3. Air Criteria
The SOW identifies a number of federal and state "air" criteria as potential
ARARs. Most of these, as the SOW notes, may only be applicable in the context of implementing
certain remedies, and, consequently, we will not address them here. The SOW, however, also
identifies as TBCs "applicable to emissions of PCBs from the Hudson River (e.g., volatilization)"
two New York State target levels for PCB concentrations in the air: 0 01 g/m3 as a "Short-term .
Guideline Concentration" ("SGC"), and 0.00045 g/m3as an "Annual Guideline Concentration"
("AGC"), found in a NYSDEC pamphlet entitled "Draft New York State Air Guide-1: Guidelines
for the Control of Toxic Ambient Air Contaminants" ("Draft Air Guide"). As an initial matter,
these guideline concentrations bear no relevance to the core remedial objectives, particularly in
light of the complete lack of data showing any potential risks from "volatilization" of PCBs from
the river In any event, the Draft Air Guide contains the following caveat about the use of these
TBCs
The word guideline is stressed because these values are
developed to aid in the regulatory decision making process. . .
[TJhey have not undergone the rigorous regulatory scrutiny
that would be afforded a proposed Federal or State standard.
New York State has not proposed adoption of these "guideline
values" as standards [because, among other reasons,] a significant
portion of the AGCs and SGCs are interim guidelines based on
10 The cleanup standards set out in the recently promulgated PCB "Meganile." 63 Fed. Reg.
35383 (June 29, 1998) also do not apply to the site. See 63 Fed. Reg. 35448 (reprinting new 40
C.F.R. § 761.61(a)(1), which states that the cleanup standards do not apply to sediments in
marine or freshwater ecosystems).
42
-------
occupational values, and do not reflect the extensive toxicological
review necessary to establish a standard .
Draft Air Guide at 13 (emphasis in original) As the Draft Air Guide emphasizes, these guideline
values are meant merely to aid in decision-making and are not legally enforceable. In any event,
these guidelines are not based on and do not reflect the most recent cancer slope factor for PCBs.
43
-------
EX. Miscellaneous Comments
Page 2 The Landfill/Treatment Facility Siting Survey (TAMS 1997), cited at the top of
page 26, is not included in the list of Phase 2 reports, but should be made part of
the Responsiveness Summary to be released later this year.
Page 3: The SOW states that a "substantial portion of these sediments were stored in
relatively quiescent areas of the river.M No basis for this statement is presented.
The use of the term "stored" is inappropriate. No specific stretch of river is
identified. No data are offered to support the characterization of the term
"relatively quiescent."
Page 3/4 The SOW claims that loading of PCBs to the Upper Hudson continued due
primarily to "erosion of contaminated remnant deposits, discharges of PCBs via
bedrock fractures from the GE Hudson Falls plant, and erosion from contaminated
deposits above the water line near the GE Fort Edward plant outfall." There is no
data that show significant PCB loading originating from the remnant deposits nor
from the area "above the water line" near the Fort Edward site. In fact, the
available data indicate the PCB loading from this segment of the river originates
near the Hudson Falls site. This speculation should be eliminated from the SOW
Page 4 The SOW states that in "September 1991, high PCB concentrations were again
detected in Hudson River water" It is not clear here what events are being
compared
Page 4 The PCB removals from within the Allen Mill were accomplished by GE
Page 5 The term "changing loading" should be "decreased loading."
0
Page 7 While EPA acknowledges the usefulness of comments received from the public
©and interested parties, it fails to recognize that when the Community Interaction
Program (CEP) was established, GE and other participants expected that EPA
would offer responses to comments in a timely way EPA has not responded to
the voluminous comments, and as a result, the CEP process is a monologue, not a
dialogue among interested parties.
Page 10 In the discussion of the preliminary risk assessment prepared as part of the Phase I
report, it is claimed that PCBs were determined to be the contaminant of primary
concern. This statement is misleading in that it suggests the Phase 1 Report
included an analysis of other contaminants in the river It did not. This claim must
be acknowledged as a unsubstantiated assumption
44
-------
Page 16: GE questions the basis for the statement that the Agency intends to assume that
the target maximum PCB concentration in sediment is in the range of 1 to 50
mg/kg. This statement is premature.
Page 16:
©
Page 26: The term "fishing ban" is no longer appropriate for the Upper Hudson.
©
45
-------
REFERENCES
Environmental Protection Agency. 1996a. Phase 2 Report - Review Copy, Further Site
Characterization and Analysis. Volume 2B - Preliminary Model Calibration Report. Hudson
River PCBs Reassessment Rl/FS. October, 1996.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1996b. PCBs: Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application
to Environmental Mixtures. EPA/600/P-96/001. September, 1996.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. Phase 2 Report - Review Copy, Further Site
Characterization and Analysis, Volume 2C - Data Evaluation and Interpretation Report.
Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. February, 1997.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Phase 2 Report - Review Copy, Further Site
Characterization and Analysis, Volume 2C-A. Low Resolution Sediment Coring Report,
Addendum to the Data Evaluation and Interpretation Report. Hudson River PCBs
Reassessment RI/FS. July, 1998.
General Electnc Company, 1996. Comments of General Electric Company on Phase 2 Report
Review Copy, Further Site Characterization and Analysis. Volume 2B - Preliminary Model
Calibration Report. Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. October, 1996.
General Electnc Company, 1997. Comments of General Electric Company on Phase 2 Report-Review
Copy, Further Site Characterization and Analysis. Volume 2C. Data Evaluation and
Interpretation Report. Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS, February, 1997.
General Electnc Company, 1998. Comments of General Electric Company on Phase 2 Report-Review
Copy. Further Site Characterization and Analysis. Volume 2C-A. Low Resolution Sediment
Coring Report, Addendum to the Data Evaluation and Interpretation Report. Hudson River
PCBs Reassessment RI/FS, July, 1998.
HydroQual. 1997. Hudson River PCB DNAPL Transport Study. Prepared by HydroQual. Inc. for the
General Electnc Company, Corporate Environmental Programs. Albany, NY June. 1997
LimnoTech. Inc. 1998. Memorandum from Penelope Moskus and Mike Erickson of LimnoTech to
Doug Tomchuk of the USEPA dated September L 1998 regarding Preliminary mainstream and
tnbutary TSS load estimates for the upper Hudson River between Ft. Edward and Federal Dam
Quantitative Environmental Analysis, LLC 1998a. Thompson Island Pool Sediment PCB Sources.
Prepared for General Electnc Company Corporate Environmental Programs. Albany, New
York. March. 1998.
Quantitative Environmental Analysis, LLC, 1998b. Thompson Island Pool Sediment Coring Program.
Prepared for General Electric Company Corporate Environmental Programs. Albany, New
York. June, 1998.
46
------- |